Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 622, the Economic Support and Worker Assistance Act. The Republican Majority's actions on the economic stimulus package are making me feel like Bill Murray in the movie, Groundhog Day. Just as Bill Murray had the same bad day over and over again, we keep getting the same bad bill over and over again. Unfortunately, for the millions of Americans who are unemployed, this is not a movie, but real life--and it is turning out to be a tragedy, rather than a comedy. The Senate passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks for the more than 1 million people who lost their jobs in recent months. We should be approving that same legislation so it can be sent to the President for his signature today. We are about to go into recess for nearly 2 weeks. If we do not send a bill to the President today, we will take no action for a minimum of 12 days--and during that time, more than 120,000 people will lose their benefits. Passage of a clean bill to extend unemployment benefits would give unemployed Americans and their families some immediate financial relief. Such action is supported by wide, bipartisan majorities in Congress, so there is no excuse for delay. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership refuses to do what is right to protect America's workers. Instead, they insist on continually giving bigger and more outrageous tax cuts to their corporate friends, while millions of unemployed Americans are desperately trying to feed their families and search for new jobs. I urge my colleagues to vote for a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance benefits and to vote against tax breaks for big business and the wealthy. By doing otherwise on Valentine's Day, we will do more than break the hearts of the American people, we will break their banks.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution condemning discrimination and supporting the No Room for Racism campaign initiated by citizens of Hayward, California. Since the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001, our country has come together in remarkable ways. Citizens across the nation have donated blood, volunteered their time, and contributed money to help those who were victimized by the ruthless attacks. During this difficult time, America's true colors have been displayed to the world. In times of national crisis, we take care of each other. Unfortunately, despite this unity, some of our citizens have misplaced their anger at the terrorists by discriminating against their fellow Americans. Although this has not been widespread, even a few reports of discrimination and hatred are cause for concern. Discrimination against anyone in America is simply not consistent with our heritage or our laws. In order to combat discrimination, all Americans must work for tolerance and social justice. Citizens in my district have taken the initiative to do just that. They have launched a campaign called ``No Room for Racism'' condemning all acts of discrimination against people because of their appearance. I applaud the citizens of Hayward for this worthy endeavor. Through community action such as this, the American tradition of tolerance and acceptance will continue to thrive. The resolution that I introduce today is modeled after the one organized by my constituents in Hayward. As the resolution states, judging people by appearance, color of skin, or religious beliefs is contrary to the fundamental principles of our country. Racism undermines our unity as a people and leads to social unrest and alienation. Therefore, there truly is no room for racism in our society. During this time of heightened tension, we must be particularly vigilant to protect the rights of all Americans, regardless of color or creed. I applaud my constituents in Hayward, California for their campaign against racism and I am pleased to introduce this resolution on their behalf.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H. Con. Res. 312, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the scheduled tax relief provided for by H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, should not be suspended or repealed. I oppose the resolution before us today for the same reasons I opposed H.R. 1836 last summer. It's the wrong tax cut at the wrong time. The wealthiest ten percent of U.S. taxpayers reap the greatest benefit from the tax cut. The tax cut is so costly that the President is willing to imperil Social Security and Medicare by using revenue from the Trust Funds to pay for the tax cut. I am not willing to weaken the foundations of retirement security in order to pay for a bloated tax cut that benefits the wealthy. Nor am I willing to compromise on a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The bottom line is, there is only a limited amount of revenue coming into the federal government. By passing last year's tax cut, the Republican Congress put a premium on tax cuts for the wealthy while making retirement security, seniors, education, and our children, a lower priority. Last January, the 10-year surplus (2002-2011) estimate was $5.6 trillion. In one year, that surplus decreased $4 trillion. Certainly the events of September 11 and the fledgling economy contributed to some of this decrease. However, forty percent of that decrease can be attributed to the Republican income tax cut passed last summer. Last February, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill stated before the Ways and Means Committee: ``If we lock box Social Security, that the President said we should do, effectively use it to pay down the public debt and you all want to do Medicare too, that is fine. We still have got after implementation of the President's proposal $1.5 trillion available, or more than 25 percent of the total projected surplus available as a cushion against the prospect of running ourselves back into a deficit ditch.'' Secretary O'Neill was wrong. Using the ``on-budget'' or non-Social Security baseline budget from the Administration's own budget tables, there is now a $298 billion deficit over 5 years from 2003-2007. This means that all of those Republican-promoted Congressional resolutions last year promising to put the Social Security and Medicare trust funds in a ``lockbox'' were nothing more than dog and pony shows for America's retirees. Sadly, the days of fiscal responsibility are over. Although Democrats noted last year that the figures used to calculate the size of the tax cut were unrealistic and too conservative, the Republicans ignored our warnings and proceeded full speed ahead. Then, to make the bloated tax cut fit into their rosy budget scenario, the Republicans used budget gimmicks to make their tax cut expire in 2011. Now, appallingly, the President has called to make these tax cuts permanent in the budget he released on Monday. Apparently the rich aren't rich enough. Meanwhile, seniors who cannot afford prescription drugs are reminded by this resolution, and the President's budget, that their concerns are not a priority. The Congressional Budget Office just reported that making the Bush tax cut permanent would decrease revenues by $569 billion resulting in debt service payment increases of $58 billion. This leads to a total cost of $627 billion in FY 2003-2012. To do a real Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost some $600 billion over ten years. We should scrap the additional tax cuts called for in the President's budget and instead provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit to all beneficiaries. This resolution is an insult to every American worker who expects to receive an adequate Social Security check at retirement. It is also an insult to every senior who has been anticipating a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H. Con. Res. 312.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, as dean of the California delegation, I often wonder what it gets one besides old age and the infirmities that come with that, but I must say that it is a great pleasure today as dean because I have the honor to recognize officially the true accomplishment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) as she takes over the position of minority whip and becomes the highest- ranking woman ever in the U.S. House of Representatives. I offer my congratulations to her and her family on this tremendous achievement. Our State is proud of Nancy, as are all the women and men throughout the country. Nancy's a trail blazer for women and for our State, but she is not the first. She joins a long line of women leaders from the State of California. Throughout American history, California has sent more women to Congress than any other State. The first woman, Mae Ella Nolan, was elected to replace her late husband and sworn in January of 1923, shortly before I got here. In 1925 California elected Florence Prag Kahn, the State's second woman to serve in the House. She served for 12 years in the House and was the first Jewish woman to serve in Congress. In January of 1945, Helen Gahagan Douglas became the third California woman and, of course, as my colleagues know, set the foil for our former President, Mr. Nixon. In 1972, the year that I was first elected, California elected its fourth woman member, Yvonne Brathwaite Burke. Congressman Brathwaite had her own couple of firsts. She was the first African American woman to represent California and also was the first woman to give birth to a child while serving in Congress. So California has a rich tradition of sending women to Washington, D.C. In my 30 years I have been proud to serve with several women leaders from our great State. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), however, has risen to the top, the best of the best. The occasion we mark today raises the bar for women and men everywhere. She has succeeded through the power of her ideas and the strength of her convictions. She will be a formidable and fabulous whip. She will even be able to keep me in line; and I congratulate her and I applaud her, and I am proud to call her my colleague and friend.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to take a moment to read the following article from the satirical website magazine, National Lampoon Dotcom. Sometimes irony is the most revealing truth. [From the National Lampoon, Jan. 29, 2002] Companies Line Up To Hire Arthur Andersen New York--Accounting firm Arthur Andersen stunned observers when, in the wake of the Enron scandal, the red-faced auditors reported a huge leap in new business. ``We were worried that the allegations of signing off on fake partnerships, covering up millions in losses and shredding documents would tarnish our image,'' stated Andersen CEO Joseph Berardino. ``But it turns out that a lot of companies have seen that we here at Arthur Andersen are willing to go the extra mile for their business.'' Business experts agree. ``There are a lot companies, particularly on the NASDAQ, that could stand to have $600 million in bogus profits right now,'' noted Mike Farnsworth, CEO of Temblor Telecommunications. ``It makes management look good.'' ``Look, most of my compensation is based on options,'' continued Farnsworth. ``Why would I hire an accounting firm that might insist on the spirit of the law, when I could hire Arthur Andersen and cash out? Those guys are pros! When I saw that guy [David Duncan] refuse to testify in front of Congress, I knew that the boys at Andersen had balls. There's no `I' in `Team' with them.'' The rest of the big 5 accounting firms have taken note. ``At KPMG, we're not just a rubberstamp,'' stated Global Chairman Stephen Butler. ``We're a respected rubberstamp.'' Farnsworth is unmoved. ``I'm going to stand in front of all my employees this afternoon and tell them that there's no better time to buy our stock, even though at the same time, I'll be dumping my shares faster than I ditched my second wife. The only reason I can do this is because I can rest- assured that the $500 million of debt hidden in off-shore partnerships will be just between me and Arthur Andersen.'' ``Every time they invoke the 5th Amendment, they prove they're a name I can trust,'' finished Farnsworth.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the ``Next Step in Reforming Welfare Act'' for which I am an original cosponsor. In 1996, I vehemently opposed the ``Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act,'' which changed our nation's welfare system, because it removed an important safety net for the poor and the most vulnerable in our society. I still hold these views today. However, I support the ``Next Step in Reforming Welfare Act'' because--unlike the 1996 law--this new legislation improves our national safety net and actually helps the poor and most vulnerable in our society. This bill increases funding for TANF, redirects the goal of the program to that of poverty reduction, rewards work, provides new funding for work support programs, like child care, and encourages states to better assist hard-to-serve TANF recipients. The ``Next Step in Reforming Welfare Act'' increases the TANF block grant by inflation, and more than doubles child care funding so that more families are able to go to work. This legislation appropriately redirects the goal of the TANF program to reducing poverty. This replaces the draconian idea that the purpose of welfare is to kick TANF recipients off the rolls as fast as possible. The bill accomplishes this by making child poverty reduction an explicit goal of TANF and by providing $150 million each year in incentive grants to states who reduce child poverty. Another important focus of this legislation is its commitment to increasing quality childcare to current and former TANF recipients. The bill triples the portion of the Child Care Development Block Grant available for this purpose. Additionally, the bill requires that all TANF funding used for childcare only be used in facilities that meet state health and safety standards. It also increases the age for which childcare must be available for children from 6 to 13 years old. This bill directs resources to TANF recipients who suffer from disabilities, substance abuse, domestic violence, and lack of proficiency in English. It requires states to assess and screen recipients to determine if they need rehabilitative or educational services to go to work. It also provides families in these situations a chance to get on their feet by allowing rehabilitative services to count as a work activity for six months. These changes in TANF are a first step toward improving our welfare system so that it truly helps poor working families and gives them not just a safety net, but also springboard out of poverty. I hope that my colleagues in the House will work with me to make TANF a program we can all be proud of.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 282, Keeping the Social Security Promise Initiative. I support this resolution because I believe that Congress needs to pass a Social Security reform plan that protects the current program. That means I will support reform plans that protect Social Security's guaranteed lifetime benefits, maintain its yearly COLAs, strengthen its important anti-poverty role and improve its protections for low-income earners, minorities and women. This resolution is very timely. Yesterday, the President's self- appointed Commission to Strengthen Social Security released its final report on Social Security reform. It recommended three plans all of which reduce Social Security benefits in order to divert money to create individual accounts. Today's Resolution puts this Congress on record as rejecting the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security recommendations-- which include benefit reductions--and hopefully provides the Congress with starting point for reform. If President Bush and the House Majority are serious about reforming Social Security, they should sit down and engage in an honest debate with representative of all parties to arrive at an outcome that makes the current Social Security system solvent for generations to come while not cutting Social Security benefits. As Congress acts on Social Security reform, I urge Republicans to keep their ``Social Security Promise'' by protecting Americans' Social Security benefits for current and future retirees.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, which provides for increased funding for our nations school system. This bill improves current law by holding our schools accountable for providing quality education, enhancing teacher training and targeting funds to underprivileged students. H.R. 1 makes a strong bipartisan effort to narrow the gap between the academic achievement of poor children and their more advantaged peers. It encourages schools to do a better job of educating our most vulnerable citizens. By helping disadvantaged children read and understand math, it starts them along the path to a better future. By ensuring that low performing schools are provided additional assistance, fewer underprivileged children will be ignored or allowed to be the victims of low expectations. This bill provides accountability in public education. In the process, it makes sure that funding is available for teachers to receive high quality professional development H.R. 1 targets schools that need extra help and also offers additional funds for educating poor children. The bill recognizes that some of our newest citizens may have limited English proficiency and makes sure they are provided the extra help they need. The state based testing system makes sure that we can more strategically direct efforts to improve the performance of children. Schools that do well will be recognized and schools that need help will be provided the assistance they need. There is much in this bill that merits our broad support. I am also pleased with the things left out of this bill. I am pleased that Congress made the wise decision to reject private school vouchers. At the moment, public schools are under funded. Keeping money from public education does not address the problem in our schools, it exacerbates it. Vouchers assist a small proportion of children at the expense of the rest of the student population. While there is much to support about H.R. 1, I am disappointed that the bill does not do more to improve special education. We must make sure that the needs of disabled children are fully addressed before we can truly say that no child is left behind. I look forward to future bipartisan efforts to fulfill our promise to meet the needs of children with disabilities. In this paralyzed Congress, enactment of this solid bipartisan bill is a great accomplishment and will improve our nations educational system. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of Elementary and Secondary Education Act. H.R. 1 is a giant step forward in improving schools for our children.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act. The deeply troubled election of 2000 taught us many lessons. Chief among them was the need to improve our election system. When hanging chads and butterfly ballots kept the presidency in the balance, America's credibility as the oldest democracy in the world was compromised. The American people have overwhelmingly called on Congress to act, and this bill is at least a step in the right direction. The Help America Vote Act does several things to improve our election system. First, it establishes minimum election standards that all states should meet. The bill requires each state to maintain a complete and accurate voter registration system and to maintain uniform standards on what constitutes a vote for different voting machines. It requires states to have safeguards ensuring that military and other overseas voters have their votes counted and ensures that voters who make errors in their ballots have the opportunity to correct them. The bill provides $400 million to replace unreliable punch-card voting systems, whose problems were so dramatically displayed on our television screen a year ago. It also authorizes another $2.25 billion to help states establish and maintain accurate lists of voters, improve equipment, recruit and train poll workers and educate voters about their rights. Despite these good provisions, I have several serious concerns about the bill. First, the bill allows states to purge voters from the registration rolls if they don't vote in one election without giving them enough notice that their names are being purged. This weakens the very successful Motor Voter Law, which provides voters with these protections. In addition, the bill allows states to create alternatives to the provisional ballot, something that has allowed citizens who are not registered to vote to still have their voices heard. This bill provides no standard to ensure that all wishing to vote will be able to do so on election day. Finally, the bill is woefully inadequate in providing protection for people with disabilities and those with limited English ability. The bill should ensure that all Americans, regardless of color, creed, or handicap, have the ability to cast a vote and have it counted. Nevertheless, I support H.R. 3295 because it moves the process of election reform forward and I think is an improvement from the status quo. It is unfortunate, however, that the House Leadership refused to allow amendments to the bill that would have corrected its flawed provisions. I will work with my friends in the Civil Rights, disability and labor communities to make this bill better. I am hopeful that the Senate will also pass an election reform bill and that we can improve upon this bill in conference. The election of 2000 revealed gaping holes in our election system. To maintain our nation's standing around the world and, more importantly, to maintained government's credibility with our own citizens, the Congress must make reform a top priority.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3005, a bill to grant the President fast track trade negotiating authority. The bill before us today is weaker on labor and environmental language than the 1988 fast track bill used to negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). As witnessed by the surge of imports and loss of millions of jobs since NAFTA's enactment, Congress must hold the President accountable for negotiating trade agreements that are stronger than that of NAFTA--not weaker. While gross U.S. exports rose 61.5% between 1994 and 2000, presumably as a result of NAFTA, imports rose by 80.5% over the same period resulting in over 3 million trade-related job losses. California led the states in job losses with over 300,000 jobs lost to NAFTA's explosion in imports. Proponents of the last fast track bill assured us that more jobs would be created than would be lost. Clearly, this is not the case. Now, Mr. Thomas is asking Congress to support a bill that is weaker than the fast track language used to negotiate NAFTA. I warn my colleagues not to be fooled into believing that promises made to provide benefits in an economic stimulus package to workers who have recently lost their jobs, will come close to justly compensating the millions of workers who have already lost their high-paying manufacturing jobs. Nor will it suffice in protecting those who have yet to see unemployment from the trade negotiations that have yet to be signed. I want to make one thing clear: H.R. 3005 does not help U.S. workers. This bill is intended to protect and promote multinational investments. The bill neglects to provide any enforceable requirements that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) negotiate any of the five core International Labour Organization standards. We need USTR to negotiate an agreement that commits countries to implement and enforce in their domestic laws both the right to associate and bargain collectively, and prohibitions on child labor, compulsory labor and discrimination in hiring. When workers are not given these basic rights, they are exploited. This is what has happened with NAFTA. Workers in the U.S. are given these rights but this is not the case in Mexico. So rather than continue to pay a decent wage to a U.S. union worker, a factory owner can move the business to a country where there are no labor laws and labor costs are lower than in the U.S. Although Mexico has seen a significant increase in manufacturing with NAFTA, Mexican manufacturing workers have seen a 21% decrease in their wages. Mexico's burgeoning middle class has yet to materialize and the working poor have spiraled deeper into poverty. Clearly, the 1988 fast track negotiating authority hurt U.S. workers as much as it hurt Mexican workers. Congress must insist on stronger trade negotiating objectives to protect U.S. workers as well as the exploited workers around the globe. The Thomas proposal fails to do so. Under NAFTA's Chapter 11, corporations have been given unprecedented immunity from domestic statute through global trade agreements. H.R. 3005 embraces NAFTA's Chapter 11 provisions, which vitiate U.S. statute in deference to foreign corporations. This has the consequences of hurting the environment as well as public safety. Intended as an investor protection measure, Chapter 11 allows foreign-based corporations to seek damages from governments that engage in protectionist behavior and interfere with corporations' abilities to fully realize anticipated profits. Californians have confronted the ludicrous protections Chapter 11 provides for investors while consumer safety and the environment are made to suffer. The Canadian-based Methanex Corporation has sued the U.S. under NAFTA's Chapter 11 provisions, because California's phase- out of the harmful gasoline additive, MTBE, has hurt the price of Methanex stock. MTBE contaminated California's drinking water due to underground gasoline storage tank leaks. Logically, California lawmakers have ordered the additive out of their gasoline, even if it means slightly higher gas prices at the pump. However, if the closed-door NAFTA dispute panel decides in favor of Methanex, taxpayers could be slapped with a billion dollar fine. The Thomas proposal before us does nothing to address this egregious flaw in the NAFTA agreement. In fact, it encourages similar provisions in future trade agreements. The current fast track bill being considered does nothing to protect U.S. jobs, does nothing to protect the environment and does nothing to protect U.S. consumers. Until such issues are addressed in binding legislative language. I cannot support fast track trade negotiating authority. I encourage my colleagues to do join me and vote no on H.R. 3005.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership in this. I heard the gentleman's statement about the authorization for I think the $44.2 million for CMS for the Department of Health and Human Services to carry out their work. I know, as a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations, that that will come to the gentleman in another form. I often feel that we have added many chores to the Department of Health and Human Services without being so concerned as to how they will perform the activities. I want to commend the gentleman for thinking ahead and asking for the support for the Department of Health and Human Services to see that they have the resources to carry out this work. I would like to join with him to see that we get the appropriated funds.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I add my congratulations to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) for working to push this bill to fruition. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3323. I remind my colleagues that the standards that we are talking about today for electronic claims and referrals are being passed because the health care industry asked for our help. Unlike the banking industry or the securities industry and others, the health care providers could not agree amongst themselves on how to talk to each other electronically. They asked us to step in and help establish standards, and now many of the sectors of the health industry have realized the wisdom of the saying, ``Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.'' They support the goals of the administrative simplification, but they now say they underestimated the effort it will take for them to comply, and they say they need more time. I think some of the sectors, particularly hospitals, are ready to go and would like to participate in what they think might be up to $30 billion in savings. And I agree. I want these simplification plans to be adopted as soon as possible and with as little delay as we can allow them and still let them officially go ahead and put these rules into effect. I would like to make one thing quite clear for the record, and that is that this bill does not delay the HIPAA privacy regulation, not for health plans, not for health care providers, not for health care clearinghouses. There has been some concern that extending the transaction and codes sets compliance deadline would effectively exempt some health care providers and health care clearinghouses from the privacy rule. This bill should remove any and all ambiguity on that point. Any health care provider or health care clearinghouse that would be subject to the privacy rule before we pass this bill will still be subject to the privacy rule after we pass this bill, and they will need to comply by April of 2003. The bill does not delay the privacy compliance deadline or negatively impact the privacy regulation. It is that simple. Having said that, again, all the people who have worked so diligently to bring this compromise and this bill to the floor, indeed, are to be congratulated. I hope it will save money, help the beneficiaries get their information more quickly and more efficiently, and help the providers provide good medical care to more people for less money over the years to come. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), who has worked diligently on this legislation in behalf of all the seniors, most of whom I think reside in her district in Florida, but for all of the rest of us seniors who do not.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of 10 minutes of my time that 10 minutes be yielded to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for the purposes of control.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who is one of the originators of this legislation.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bill we are moving today embodies basically the way Congress used to work, with the majority and minority working together to enact improvements to the Medicare program. On this bill, the Medicare Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act, both sides have worked closely with the administration, with providers, consumers groups and others. It has been a bipartisan, consultative process as it should be. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to acknowledge the outstanding leadership and hard work of the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). She brought this matter to the attention of Congress and has shepherded it along the way and has been an invaluable help in seeing this legislation be completed. The legislation contains important beneficiary provisions which I think are important to emphasize. We have established a beneficiary ombudsman program that will provide a voice for beneficiaries within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, now CMS, I still want to call it HCFA, but will enable that agency to better respond to and anticipate beneficiary needs. As every Member knows, Members must now help Medicare beneficiaries with their casework because no office really exists within CMS to help the beneficiaries. We have also established a single national toll free telephone number, 1-800-MEDICARE, I hope it answers, for the beneficiaries to call with their questions; and this single telephone number will replace the many pages of telephone numbers that beneficiaries now must sort through in the Medicare handbook to find the correct place to call with their questions. I am particularly pleased that a demonstration program will place Medicare staff in Social Security field offices to answer beneficiary questions and provide assistance on Medicare issues. Beneficiaries are accustomed to going to Social Security offices, as indeed are the caseworkers in our local offices, for help and assistance in these programs. This will help by having Medicare assistance for them in these same offices. I would also like to suggest accolades for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who has worked with me on a bill to protect nurses and other health care workers from needle stick injuries by requiring the use of safe needle technology in public hospitals, as well as has been required by those hospitals under OSHA supervision. We have been working on this issue for years, and we have made significant progress; and this legislation completes those efforts, and this provision in the bill will save lives. It is an important component of the bill. Importantly, this bill delays for a year the requirement in law that would begin in 2002 to lock beneficiaries into the Medicare+Choice plans, and under this legislation beneficiaries would continue to be able to enroll in and disenroll from these plans throughout the year. I would strongly prefer to repeal the lock-in altogether, but I believe a 1-year delay is a good start. Finally, the bill takes long overdue steps to fundamentally reform Medicare's contracting system. We have worked on this for years. I am confident under this new system we can get a better deal for our government and still maintain quality service and performance goals for the beneficiary. This will place additional administrative burdens on CMS; and as we discussed earlier today with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and others, we will continue to see that Labor HHS appropriation bills provide modest increases in administrative resources for CMS to complete this work. I guess that said, Mr. Speaker, I have to add that I think it is somewhat disgraceful that this ends up being our really only Medicare legislation this year. We started the 107th Congress with a record budget surplus and the ability to easily enact and pay for comprehensive, affordable prescription drug coverage and other significant improvements through all Medicare beneficiaries, in addition to funding other key national priorities in education and other social areas. The surplus, instead, was squandered on excessive tax breaks for the wealthy, and it is now clear that the Bush recession that began last spring and the Republican tax package have sealed the deal. Our legislative record at the end of the first session of the 107th Congress is a tribute to misplaced priorities. I look forward to changing that and working with my colleagues as we have on this bill on the Subcommittee on Health to see if in the next session of Congress we can reverse this course and improve the Medicare system as it has long been set aside from doing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to pay tribute to Dr. Steven Chan in my congressional district who has just recently been selected as the 30th president of the California Dental Association (CDA). CDA is the largest state dental association in the country and Dr. Chan, a pediatric specialist, is the second American of Chinese descent to reach this top office. He will now head the association that was founded in 1870, and has more than 18,000 members. A husband and proud father of two, Dr. Chan continues to prove himself as a leader within his profession and contributor to his community. While he has made it his life's work to attend to the proper health of children, he amplifies those efforts by participating in community events for children as well. Dr. Chan epitomizes community service, volunteering in many local establishments. He is seated on the Board of Directors for the South Bay Chinese Club and has been a member for over 14 years. In a continuing effort for more than 7 years, he has assisted local area hospitals in community relations programs. He aided the Fremont Chamber of Commerce as a scholarship foundation trustee. Going on to work as Commissioner of the Fremont Library, he performed many tasks including consultant to special collections and the Alameda County Library Foundation. With all of the activities he is involved in, he still finds time to assist with activities for the school district as well. I applaud the hard work and community spirit put forth by Dr. Chan. This is an individual who has found time to have a family, a successful business, and volunteer his free time to a wide variety of causes. He has an understanding of selflessness and efficacy that I feel we should all praise. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Steven Chan on his newest accomplishment as the President of the CDA. I look forward to the opportunity to work with him in this new capacity.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, S. 1447, the Conference Report on Aviation & Transportation Security Act is a victory for the American public who can rest assured that the federal government puts safety first. Although this urgently needed bill has taken far too long to complete its legislative course, and flawed provisions remain, it reflects a great deal of positive change in air travel safety. The conference agreement makes the federal government directly responsible for all passenger and baggage screening, requiring that all screeners be federal employees. This federal employee requirement is a great departure from current law. Currently, airlines are responsible for the screening of airline passengers and baggage. Airlines pass this responsibility on to the lowest-bid screening contractors who pay their employees minimum wage and have widely varying employment standards. The result, as documented by the General Accounting Office and the Department of Transportation's Investigator General, is high turnover in the screener workforce and a failure of the screening process to work effectively. Unfortunately, the bill allows airports to return to private contractors for screening, three years after enactment. I would hope that if the federal employees prove to be a successful change that Congress would revisit this provision. The bill also requires that all baggage screeners be U.S. citizens. I would have preferred a requirement that all baggage screeners be legal permanent residents. Legal permanent residents are allowed to join our armed forces and are employed in various occupations across the U.S., including in our airports and airlines. Conditioning employment on U.S. citizenship effectively makes legal permanent residents a suspect class when they contribute to the fabric of our nation. The citizenship requirement is discriminatory and should also be revisited. Aircraft security is significantly increased under the conference agreement by expanding the federal air marshal program; fortifying and placing access restrictions on cockpit doors; ensuring the ability to make emergency phone calls with telephones in aircraft; and providing enhanced anti-hijack training to flight crews. I believe that these new requirements, in addition to federalizing baggage screeners, provides sufficient preventive measures that airline pilots do not need guns in the cockpits. The conference agreement includes a provision to allow pilots to carry guns. I would certainly encourage my colleagues to monitor this provision closely and address it at a later time if this proves to be a threat to public safety. I encourage my colleagues to join me in bringing aviation safety to the American people by voting yes on S. 1447.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Expansion Bill not because I don't want to help eradicate the drug trade in the Andean region, but because this bill overlooks the importance of protecting labor rights overseas and sets up unfair trade circumstances for U.S. textile workers. Labor activists are being assassinated and threatened in Colombia by the paramilitary organizations seeking to defend the illicit drug trade. I have joined with my colleagues in writing to the President of Colombia asking for him to investigate the various deaths of union activists who have worked diligently to try to bring fair and legal trade practices to a country whose primary export is cocaine. We have received no response and don't expect to. the U.S. is giving the Andean region duty-free status on various imports in hopes that the region will replace their drug economy with other sustainable economic alternatives. We get nothing in return, except corrupt governments that look the other way when it comes to international core labor standards. It is up to this Congress to stress the need for labor unionist protections when basic international labor rights are being violated and lives are being threatened. The bill before us adds textiles and apparel to the list of imports that will be allowed into our country duty and quota-free. In addition to the Andean countries (Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru) already included under the current Andean Trade Preference Act, Caribbean and sub-Saharan African countries will also be included in this duty and quota-free status for apparel. This will have a devastating affect on textile and apparel jobs here at home. As I have already illustrated, the Colombian government has no use for international labor rights and a workers right to organize. Because of this disregard for workers rights, workers will continue to struggle in their plight of poverty toiling away in apparel factories making meager wages so that the corrupt government can take the proceeds and continue the drug trade. But it doesn't end here. The oppressed wages in the Andean countries, not to mention the Caribbean Basin and sub- Saharan Africa, will siphon off good-paying U.S. jobs to these lower- wage regions. This bill will hurt workers in the U.S. as well as workers in the various regions around the world. Clearly, labor is an inherent component of trade and must be addressed in this bill, as it must be addressed in every trade bill that confronts this Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 3009.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 2269, the falsely named Retirement Security Advice Act of 2001, introduced by Representative Boehner. The bill not only neglects to provide any type of security for workers' retirement, but it actually puts worker retirement plans at greater risk for fraudulent activity. Workers need independent financial advice, not advice plagued by self-interest. Current pension law ensures that those who manage or administer assets of a pension plan cannot engage in any transaction under the plan in which they have a financial or other conflict of interest. These rules, known as the prohibited transaction rules, are designed to ensure that the best interest of the investor is maintained. When these rules are eliminated, as H.R. 2269 calls for, the integrity of the pension system is threatened by fraud and abuse. For example, one of our nation's premier investment companies, Prudential, in 1996, agreed to pay at least $410 million in restitution and fines to compensate investors who suffered losses to fraud as far back as 1980. Many Wall Street brokerage firms sold limited partnerships in the 1980's to customers seeking tax deductions and the potential for profit from asset appreciation. However, these investments were typically suitable only for wealthy investors because of their speculative nature. Prudential made nearly $1 billion in commissions and fees from the sale of its partnerships. In addition to the limited partnership claims, widespread securities law violations were made at various Prudential branches across the country. These practices included: Lying about risk--Selling risky real estate and energy partnerships to pension funds, retirees and other individual investors who were told their investments were safe. Lying about return--Publishing promotional material that misled investors about the return they could expect on their money. Turning a blind eye to a subsidiary--Inadequately supervising the subsidiary that advertised and sold the partnerships. Turning a blind eye to employees--Inadequately supervising employees in nine branch offices, whose fraudulent practices resulted in losses of hundreds of thousands of dollars from customers. Churning--Trading excessively without authorization in clients' accounts to increase brokers' commissions. The settlement affected 8 million investors in every state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Many of the investors were elderly and faced the risk of not being compensated in their lifetime. Workers should have access to investment advice they can be certain is neither influenced by corporate profit motives or driven by a company's need to unload undesirable financial products. H.R. 2269 undermines that certainty by permitting advisors to provide plan participants with self-interested advice regarding the investment options under the plan, as well as asset allocation. Under H.R. 2269, both financially sophisticated and financially inexperienced workers would lose access to independent investment advice under their 401(k) plans. Clearly, this provides less security than employees currently receive and has the potential for fraudulent activity that would be virtually impossible to remedy under our judicial system. The fraudulent Prudential activity illustrates the need for unbiased, independent investment advice for employees. We cannot allow motivation and campaign contributions from the securities, banking and insurance industry to imperil the pensions of 42 million workers who participate in self-directed pension plans. It is easy to see who will benefit from this bill when organizations like Prudential and Citigroup support the bill and organizations that oppose it include AARP and the AFL-CIO. Workers won't get the critical independent advice from the Boehner bill, but they will from the Democratic substitute bill. The Democratic substitute bill requires that if a conflict of interest exists, that the investment advisor would be required to provide additional independent advice at no additional charge to the investor. If Prudential is going to make a greater profit by advising the investor to invest in Prudential funds, then an independent advisor with no such direct profit interest, must be available to either validate Prudential's advice or provide alternative advice to give the employee a less biased opinion. The debate is clear. The bill before us will hurt the retirement of millions of workers, but it will increase profits for investment advisors and investment companies. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute bill and vote no on H.R. 2269.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Alameda County Food Bank for their comprehensive study, Hunger: The Faces and Facts 2001, which examines the causes and the extent of hunger in Alameda County, California. This study shows that each month thousands of low-income families cannot afford well-balanced meals in Alameda County. Although many families never imagined they would need assistance, their barren cupboards and empty pockets have led them to their local soup kitchens and food pantries. According to the study, 45 percent of the respondents reported that they had to choose between paying for food or paying for rent in the past 12 months. The study reports that the demand for emergency food has increased steadily over the past decade, even during the most recent economic boom. As the government safety net programs are weakened and as our economy continues to struggle, the numbers will rise even higher. The report shows that the food stamp program is not doing an effective job of informing low-income families that they are eligible for food stamps. Only 21 percent of households that get help from food banks receive food stamps, while an estimated 80 percent have incomes that would qualify them for the food stamp program. This represents a sharp decrease from the 37 percent of respondents who received food stamps according to the Alameda County Food Bank's 1997 study. Congress' decision to reduce the benefit in 1996 has adversely affected poor people. Ninety percent of households receiving food stamps stated that their benefits did not last the entire month, reporting that on average, benefits last 2.2 weeks. This study demonstrates that Congress needs to greatly improve the food stamp program to address the mounting hunger problem in Alameda County and the United States. As Congress makes decisions on reforming the food stamp program in the Farm Security Act of 2001, it needs to increase the food stamp benefit amount and improve the program's outreach to ensure that poor families know they are eligible for the program. I commend the Alameda County Food Bank for its work on relieving hunger among poor families. I also congratulate them on publishing this very important report to explain the causes and the extent of hunger in Alameda County. Now, I call on Congress to take note of the evidence presented in this report and to reauthorize and improve the food stamp program so that it relieves hunger in the United States.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to reduce the coinsurance amounts that Medicare beneficiaries are required to pay for hospital outpatient services. For most Medicare services, beneficiaries are required to pay 20 percent of the allowed payment amount, and Medicare pays 80 percent. However, for hospital outpatient services, Medicare beneficiaries are required to pay much higher copayments--up to 90 percent for some services. These higher coinsurance levels are based on an historical artifact of the Medicare method of paying for hospital outpatient services. Prior to implementation of the hospital outpatient prospective payment system (HO-PPS) just last year, Medicare paid for hospital outpatient services based on a hospital's ``costs'' for those services. However, coinsurance amounts were based on 20 percent of the hospital's ``charges'' for those services, which were much higher than its ``costs''. Therefore, over time, coinsurance levels for hospital outpatient services grew until they now average almost 50 percent, and are more than 90 percent for some services. The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997, which mandated the implementation of the hospital outpatient prospective payment system, would have reduced coinsurance levels to 20 percent over time; however, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) estimated that this reduction would have occurred over 30 to 40 years for most services, and up to 60 years for some services. The Balanced Budget Refinement Act (BBRA) limited the highest coinsurance levels to the dollar amount of the hospital inpatient deductible in any year ($792 in 2001); this limit affected coinsurance amounts for about 20 services. The Beneficiary Improvement and Protection Act (BIPA) of 2000 accelerated the reduction in beneficiary coinsurance levels by reducing coinsurance in increments of 5 percent each year until it reaches 40 percent in 2006. MedPAC estimates that without further legislation, it would take an additional 23 years after 2006 to reduce beneficiary coinsurance levels to 20 percent for all hospital outpatient services. In its March 2001 report to Congress, MedPAC recommended that the Congress continue to reduce beneficiary coinsurance in increments of 5 percent each year to achieve a coinsurance level of 20 percent in 2010. Mr. Speaker, my bill would implement the MedPAC recommendation. It would reduce beneficiary coinsurance rates in increments of 5 percent each year beginning in 2007 until the coinsurance rate for all hospital outpatient services is 20 percent in 2010. Mr. Speaker, high coinsurance rates are particularly devastating for Medicare beneficiaries who have no supplemental insurance. MedPAC estimates that in 1998, 14.4 percent of Medicare beneficiaries had no supplemental insurance. Most of those individuals were ``near poor''-- with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid or the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) program, but with incomes too low to be able to afford supplemental insurance. Thus, almost 6 million Medicare beneficiaries have no supplemental insurance and must pay cost sharing amounts out-of-pocket. MedPAC reports that the number and percentage of Medicare beneficiaries without supplemental insurance grows each year as premiums for such insurance increases, and a recent report by the American Academy of Actuaries estimated that one-fourth of recent increases in Medigap premiums are due to the costs of outpatient coinsurance. MedPAC also reports that coinsurance amounts are much higher for certain services than others. Those with the highest coinsurance are the ``high tech'' services, such as radiology services and cancer chemotherapy services. Thus, high coinsurance greatly limits access to these services for ``near poor'' Medicare beneficiaries, and MedPAC analyses confirm that use of these services is much lower for ``near poor'' beneficiaries than for beneficiaries with supplemental insurance. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to limit Medicare services to the ``near poor'' simply because they are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, nor wealthy enough to be able to purchase supplemental insurance. I urge the Congress to accept the MedPAC recommendation and enact legislation to reduce coinsurance for hospital outpatient services to 20 percent by 2010.