Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the resolution.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act. With 12 million children living in poverty, it is clear that Congress needs to do more to lift them out of their desperate situation. However, H.R. 7 does nothing to achieve this goal. It provides only a minimal tax deduction to encourage people to contribute to charitable organizations that provide social services to the poor. The bill does not provide any new government funding for faith-based organizations to carry out their missions to provide social services and reduce poverty. If the Republicans truly cared about lifting children and families out of poverty, their budget would reflect significant increases in funding for social service programs. Instead, the Bush budget increases spending for the Administration for Children and Families by only 2.9%--far less than even inflation. This bill is purported to be necessary to allow religious organizations to receive federal funds to provide services for those in need. In fact, many religious organizations qualify for such funds today. The only requirement is that they separate their duties as religious entities from their social service programs. For example, Catholic Charities received $1.4 billion in 1999 in government funding--totaling two-thirds of their annual budget. Let's be real. This bill has nothing to do with increasing social services funding. The most significant achievement of H.R. 7 is to allow federally funded faith-based organizations to circumvent state and local anti- discrimination laws. Last week, the Bush administration announced that they would not pursue an administrative rule that would allow faith-based organizations to pre-exempt state laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Although some may believe that action resolved the issue, it did not. H.R. 7 explicitly allows faith-based organizations to pre-empt state law and state law and discriminate in their hiring practices. This provision is worse than the Administration's proposed regulation because it allows faith-based organizations to not only discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation, but for many other reasons such as being unmarried or pregnant to name a couple. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Religious organizations have an exemption under the Civil rights Act that allows them to discriminate in the hiring of individuals that perform their religious work. However, that exemption does not currently allow them to discriminate in the hiring of individuals that carry out their federally funded social service programs. H.R. 7 extends the Civil Rights exemption to allow faith-based organizations to discriminate in the hiring of individuals that deliver their federally funded social service programs. Again, the only real change in this bill from current law is to allow faith-based organizations to discriminate and to proselytize while receiving government funds. This bill is strong on promoting discrimination and weak on lifting families out of poverty. By passing H.R. 7, the United States House of Representatives is sending the message that Congress endorses government-sponsored discrimination. I believe that this message desecrates the memory of the men, women and children who lost and risked their lives to bring equal rights to all who live in this country. Instead of undermining the memory of these courageous civil rights advocates, Congress should be using their effort as a source of inspiration to continue and move forward the battle to ensure that all who live in this nation obtain true equal rights. It is time that our nations' leaders stood together to protect the advancements made in civil rights and create a nation that cherishes tolerance for all groups. To truly help the poor, Congress should ensure that they have access to health care, child care and other social services. None of these measures require undermining this nation's civil rights laws. Finally, I hope this bill is no indication that Bush Administration wants to dismantle our existing social safety net and turn it over to religious organizations and other private charities. A recent Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation study indicates that charities--even with the benefits of the tax cuts in this bill--would not be able to replace the federal government's commitment to providing social services. According to their study, adding up the current assets of all the foundations in America would only replace federal government funding for social services for 74 days. The Bush Administration may want to shift responsibility to religious organizations and private charities, but they can't do the job alone. Moreover, if Congress decides to allocate more government funds to increase faith-based organizations role in providing social services, we should make sure that we are getting our taxpayers' money worth. At a recent Brookings Institute conference recently on child care, Mary Bogle, a child care expert, cited several studies that reported that child care provided by churches was among the lowest quality in the country. These child care centers had higher staff-to-child ratios, lower levels of trained and educated teachers and less educated administrators than other non profit child care centers. I for one do not want to be telling my constituents several years down the road that Congress spent money on social services based on whether they are religious rather than on their ability to provide quality services. Please join me in opposing H.R. 7 and lets work together to seriously tackle the problem of poverty without legalizing government-sponsored discrimination.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 36 ``The Flag Protection Constitutional Amendment.'' This constitutional amendment would undermine the very principles for which the flag stands--freedom and democracy. The First Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'' By writing the First Amendment, our nation's founders made sure that the Constitution protected the right of all citizens to object to the workings of their government. Freedom of expression is what makes the United States of America so strong and great--it is the bedrock of our nation and has made our democracy a model for the rest of the world. The Supreme Court has twice upheld a citizen's right to burn the flag as symbolic speech protected by the Constitution. If this Flag Protection Amendment were enacted, it would be the first time in our history that the Bill of Rights was amended to limit American's freedom of expression. Whlie the idea of someone burning or destroying an American flag is upsetting, the consequences of taking away that right are far more grave. Once we start limiting our citizens' freedom of expression, we walk down a dark road inconsistent with our history and our founding principles. Our government's toleration of criticism is one of our nation's greatest strengths. This amendment isn't a matter of patriotism, it is a matter of protecting the rights of all of our citizens, particularly the right to dissent. Let us uphold our commitment to freedom and democracy. Let us uphold our commitment to the principles upon which our nation has flourished for over 200 years. Vote no on this amendment.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Rep. Kleczka--who represents Milwaukee and serves with me on the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee--brought to my attention a report by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Monday, June 25, 2001, that two Milwaukee hospital groups are planning to open free- standing heart hospitals. Both of these specialty hospitals will jointly owned by the hospitals and the groups of physicians who will be referring patients to the facilities. The newspaper article pointed out the potential conflict-of-interest, and the resulting ethical concern, for physicians who refer patients to facilities in which they have an ownership interest. These joint ventures may induce investor physicians to base their treatment decisions on profits generated by the facility rather than on the clinical needs of their patients. Mr. Speaker, the situation in Milwaukee is similar to other reports that hospitals and physicians are engaging in such clinical joint ventures, including both freestanding specialty hospitals (e.g., heart, orthopedic, or maternity hospitals), and arrangements in which a high revenue generating unit or service (e.g., cardiology or cardiac surgery) of an existing hospital is restructured and legally incorporated as a separate hospital. Typically, these point ventures are marketed only to physicians in a position to refer patients to the facility, and they are structured to take advantage of a loophole in the Medicare physician self referral law permitting physician investments in ``whole hospitals''. Mr. Speaker, the development of specialty hospitals is of great concern because they deprive full-scale hospitals of their most profitable business, leaving those existing hospitals much worse off financially. The investors in these joint ventures and specialty hospitals skim the profits of full-scale hospitals, leaving them to struggle financially. Then the hospitals must look to Medicare and to their local communities to help them financially--and all because these joint ventures are skimming high profits for their investors, including physicians. Mr. Speaker, these situations not only harm hospitals, they violate the spirit of Medicare self-referral laws. Lawyers have found a loophole in the self-referral laws, and physicians are taking advantage of it. Today, Rep. Kleczka and I are joining together to introduce the Hospital Investment Act of 2001 to close the loophole. Our bill would continue to permit physician ownership in these joint ventures and specialty hospitals only if the ownership or investment interest is purchased on terms that are generally available to the public at the time. This amendment would not prohibit physicians from purchasing shares to stock, but it would make sure that such stock purchases are not the result of a sweetheart deal available only to physicians, but set up in a way to skirt the law. My amendment would make it harder for hospitals and physicians to skim profits from hospitals leaving the hospitals worse off financially. Mr. Speaker, it is time to close this loophole in the Medicare physician self-referral laws, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, on July 14, 2001, the Union City Police Department will celebrate the retirement of three of its finest officers, Sergeant Ron Packard, Officer Joe Reis and Officer John Nyikes. Sergeant Ron Packard began his law enforcement career with the Union City Police Department on November 1, 1968. His first assignment was undercover at a local high school, posing as a student. During the day, he attended classes with the intention of identifying sales and distribution of illegal drugs on campus. In the evenings, he completed class homework assignments and police reports. Sergeant Packard progressed in his career and was promoted from Officer to Sergeant on January 16, 1974. He has served as a Firearms Instructor and Range Master, SWAT member, and has supervised a number of divisions, including Traffic Investigations and Patrol. Sergeant Packard was instrumental in developing the Union City Police Department's current Canine Program and is currently the Canine Program Manager. During his off-duty hours, Sergeant Packard enjoys participating in local and international Police and Fire Olympic Games, and is the recipient of numerous silver and gold medals in archery. Officer Joe Reis, President of the Union City Police Officers Association, began his career in law enforcement on December 16, 1974. During his tenure with the Union City Police Department, Officer Reis worked as a Field Training Officer for ten years. He was responsible for training new Police Officers in Union City and assisted in developing a Recruit Training Manual for the Department. Officer Reiss continued his enthusiasm for teaching by becoming the instructor of ``Introduction of Administration of Justice'' at James Logan High School for five years. In addition, Officer Reis was one of the Department's Firearms Instructors for nineteen years and was assigned as the Court Liaison Officer with the District Attorney's Office for four years. For the past eight years, Officer Reis has served on an assignment he considers the most rewarding, as a D.A.R.E. officer working with the New Haven Unified School District. Officer John Nyikes began his career in law enforcement as a Detroit Police Officer for eight years where he was awarded a meritorious citation. He was hired by the Union City Police Department on July 2, 1980. While assigned Patrol duties with the Department, Officer Nyikes worked as a Field Training Officer and was responsible for training new police officers in Union City. Officer Nyikes was transferred from the Patrol Division to the Investigations Division where he has received many letters of commendation for his teamwork and clearances of crimes ranging from homicides to arson, and recovery of stolen property. I am honored to join the colleagues of Sergeant Packard and Officers Reis and Nyikes in commending them for their many years of dedicated and exemplary service to law enforcement. They have left their indelible mark of excellence on the Union City Police Department.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a legendary educator in my congressional district who retired on June 30, 2001 after an illustrious thirty-six year career filled with memorable contributions to the Hayward, California school district. A native of Alameda, California, Larry began his career in 1965, when he worked as a history/government teacher and counselor at Mt. Eden High School. Four years later, he became an administrator at Tennyson High School where he took the reins and lead with vigor and creativity. He stood on hot coals more than once for a good five to ten minutes during pep talks to student leaders at their annual weekend retreat. Many recall the time in 1970 when Larry rode a galloping horse between the Tennyson High School buildings to chase down a truant student--a legendary story that people still talk about three decades later. In 1971, Larry became vice principal at Hayward High School and five years later he led as principal of Sunset High School until it closed in 1990. He returned to the 1,900-student Hayward High School as principal, the last position he held before his retirement. ``You got to have some pizzazz,'' Larry said, while wrapping up his final days as a public school administrator. ``You are competing with the MTV culture.'' Larry describes his career as ``fun.'' He said, ``There were days when it was not fun and hours that I thought, ``Why am I doing this?'' Having once considered being a lawyer, Larry enjoyed the excitement of a high school principal's life, that every day was different. He is proud of Hayward High School and its wide class offerings and plethora of extracurricular student activities. Parents, teachers, students, administrators and community leaders express great admiration for Larry Ratto's three decades of outstanding leadership in education as well as his exemplary involvement in community activities. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this colorful, legendary educator, and community leader.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the 18th Annual Fremont Festival of the Arts sponsored by the Fremont Chamber of Commerce. The two-day Festival, to be held on July 28 and 29, 2001, is expected to attract over 450,000 attendees and has become a model of success for the modern festival. This single event provides some $400,000 in contributions to non-profits for the betterment of communities in Fremont, California. Over 780 artists, 35 culinary selections and 20 bands will be featured at the Festival. Three thousand volunteers give willingly of their time to contribute to the Festival's success. It takes generous and concerned individuals, such as the volunteers, to reach out and make a difference, ensuring promise and opportunity for this and future generations. It also takes the support of business sponsors and patrons to ensure the success of the Festival. The Festival typifies the spirit of community service, which is alive and thriving in Fremont. I am proud to salute the efforts of this year's Festival Chairman, David M. O'Hara, the organizers, the volunteers, the sponsors and the patrons of the Fremont Festival of the Arts for their generous and untiring efforts to ensure continued success.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H. Con. Res. 170, a Resolution Encouraging Corporations to Contribute to Faith-Based Organizations. I am a strong supporter of corporations increasing donations to philanthropic organizations to help the most needy in our society. Even with the strong economy over the past few years, many Americans have not shared in this nation's prosperity. Thus, more corporate donations are needed to help the many Americans living in poverty. However, I do not support the government advocating corporate support of one charitable organization over another. Our Founding Fathers included the establishment clause in the United States Constitution to ensure that the government did not play the role of endorsing religion. This policy has given Americans the freedom to carry out their religious worship in whichever manner they choose without fear of government oppression. Today, this resolution takes the first step toward the government playing the role of supporting religious charitable organization over others and challenging the Founding Fathers' wisdom to include the establishment clause in our constitution. Even more disturbing, it appears that this resolution is the first step in the Bush Administration attempt to promote their faith-based initiative that supports the ungodly action of promoting government sponsored discrimination. it has been reported that the Bush administration has agreed to create a regulation that would allow religious charitable organizations to legally avoid hiring gay employees because of their sexual orientation in exchange for these groups' support for their faith-based initiative. In the mid-20th century, many racial minorities, women and gays began the long fight for equal rights in this nation. It is a fight that still has a long way to go. The struggle of these groups to obtain equality continues to inspire a nation to make America a better place where all men and women are truly created equal. If the reported allegation about the administration creating a regulation to promote discrimination is true, then the Bush Administration has signaled to the nation that it wants to return to the dark days in this nation's history when our government sponsored discrimination against certain groups. If today, the Bush Administration is willing to support government sponsored discrimination against homosexuals, then which group is next? Will it be women? Will it be African Americans or Hispanics? Will it be religious worshipers of Catholicism, Judaism or the Nation of Islam? It is time that the leaders in this country stood up together and stopped usurping the principles of separation of church and state and the principle that all are created equal. These principles help to create a nation that cherishes tolerance for all groups and should be preserved. I urge my colleagues to oppose H. Con. Res. 170 and say no to discrimination.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Fair Balance Prescription Drug Advertisement Act, a bill to deny tax deductions for unbalanced direct to consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising placing more emphasis on product benefits rather than risks or failing to meet Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act Requirements. The bill will ensure that DTC advertisements are presented in a fair manner, balancing risks and consequences. Print ads would be required to display pros and cons in equal typeface and space, and on the same or facing pages. If the advertisements ran onto additional pages, those pages would have to be consecutive with the first pages. In television and radio ads, risk and benefit descriptions would be allotted equal airtime and volume level. Pharmaceutical companies who do not follow these guidelines will not be eligible for an advertising tax deduction. Since the FDA relaxed restrictions on television advertising in 1997, DTC advertising has soared. Drug companies' advertising expenditure doubled between 1998 and 2000. Last year, Merk-Medco cited a report that projected that by 2005, DTC advertising expenditure will reach seven billion dollars annually. This increased spending correlates with increased prices of prescription drugs. Like any other commodity, greater product recognition leads to increased demand, and higher prices. Large-scale advertising may also lead consumers to demand drugs that may not be medically necessary or appropriate for the patient's condition. According to the National Institute for Health Care Management, 86% of patients who request a prescription for Claritin from their doctor receive one. Doctors often find that patients are difficult to dissuade when they have heard the promises of a new drug. Physicians who acquiesce, however, can put their patients' health at risk. Before the FDA had published clinical trial results of the arthritis drug Celebrex, physicians had prescribed $1 billion worth of the drug in response to patient demands. The doctors had done this without realizing that Celebrex contains an ingredient to which many patients are allergic. In another example, between its release in October of 1999, and the summer of 2000, 22 patients taking the flu drug Relenza had died. The FDA later determined that in the majority of these cases, the drug should never have been prescribed. Physicians are beginning to recognize dangers of DTC as well. This month, the American Medical Association in their annual convention decided to ask the In addition to health dangers, physician's responses to pressure from ``informed'' patients can have economic consequences. According to the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, a one year dosage of the arthritis medicine Celebrex costs $900, while the same dosage of ibuprofen, which may be adequate to treat many patients' pain, costs only $24. Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal raised concerns about the power of DTC advertising. Due to an intensive new campaign by the Genzyme corporation, many dialysis patients who used to use the over- the-counter medication Tums as a calcium supplement are switching to Renagel, a prescription medication that costs up to $12 a day. DTC advertisements may also prevent patients from requesting, and physicians from prescribing generic brand drugs. According to a Merk- Medco 2000 study, increasing a health care plan's dispensing rate of generic drugs by 1% can reduce drug spending by 12%. Although prescription drug advertisements are purportedly intended to educate consumers, a University of California study determined that drug companies frequently fall short of this goal. In a survey of 320 print ads, only 9% included information on the drug's success rate, and the same number attempted to clarify misconceptions about the condition the drug is prescribed to treat. Clearly, something must be done to make these ads more honest. According to a May 2000 Business Week article, some drug companies claim that the increased advertising can alert hospital physicians to new medications that may reduce a patient's length of stay, and thus reduce overall costs. However, most of the money spent on DTC drug advertisements goes to heartburn, allergy medications, and vanity drugs like those that prevent hair loss. These advertisements promote consumers to seek expensive treatment for conditions that they might not have felt the need for treatment in the past. This bill I am introducing today would decrease the economic incentives for DTC advertising by taking away the tax deduction for ads that are not fairly balanced. Why should taxpayer funds go to drug companies' questionable advertising techniques that endanger lives and ultimately raise overall health expenditures? By denying tax deductions for unbalanced prescription drug ads, we may be able to change pharmaceutical company behavior to ensure that that their advertising includes clear, life saving information that will better inform the American public, reduce health care costs, and save lives. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation, and look forward to working with them to make fair, balanced drug advertising a reality.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today I join with Rep. Leach and Sen. Milkulski to introduce the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2001. This bipartisan legislation would fix a technical error created by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA'97) and help residents of skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) better access needed mental health care. It does this by allowing clinical social workers to bill Medicare directly when they provide mental health services to SNF residents. Clinical social workers are highly trained mental health professionals who have participated in the Medicare program since 1987. They constitute the single largest group--roughly 60 percent--of mental health providers in the nation. In rural and other medically underserved areas, clinical social workers are often the only mental health providers. Until BBA'97, clinical social workers were able to bill Medicare directly for providing mental health services to SNF residents, just like clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. But a drafting error in BBA'97 unintentionally stripped clinical social workers of this ability and created an inequity that ultimately harms beneficiaries who need mental health care. In order to contain rising healthcare costs, Section 4432 of BBA'97 authorized a prospective payment system for Medicare SNFs. For each day a beneficiary spends in a SNF, the facility receives a fixed payment that essentially bundles together the range of services a typical resident requires. Yet Congress recognized that some ancillary services, including mental health services, are better provided on an individually arranged basis. Mental health providers, including clinical psychologists and psychiatrists, were therefore excluded from the SNF prospective payment system. Unfortunately, clinical social workers were not placed on this exclusion list. This was an unintended oversight arising from a failure to recognize that all social workers are not alike. Some social workers are specifically trained to provide medical- social services, such as discharge planning from inpatient or long-term care settings. Because SNF residents often require this type of medical-social service, it makes sense to bundle it into the SNF prospective payment system. Clinical social workers, however, are specifically trained to provide mental health services. Clearly Congress never intended mental health services to be part of the SNF prospective payment system. Therefore, the failure to exclude clinical social workers, who are Medicare- authorized mental health providers, makes no sense. If Congress does not fix this oversight in the law, many clinical social workers will be forced to stop serving Medicare beneficiaries in SNFs. The ultimate victims are vulnerable seniors who need mental health care. We must not allow this to happen. According to the 2001 DHHS report, ``Older Americans and Mental Health: Issues and Opportunities,'' mental illness is highly prevalent in nursing homes. In fact, some studies have found that up to 88 percent of nursing home residents have mental health problems, ranging from major depression to Alzheimer's disease. The 1999 Surgeon General report on mental health further indicates that older people have the highest rate of suicide of any age group-- accounting for 20 percent of all suicide deaths. Mental health treatment works. Alzheimer's patients and their families can benefit enormously from psychoeducation and counseling around how to cope and manage behavior problems. Research trials have repeatedly demonstrated that psychotherapy can be as effective as anti- depressants in treating major depression. Clinical social workers provide these important services and do so at a fraction of the cost of clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. This legislation is strongly endorsed by the National Association of Social Workers and the Clinical Social Work Federation and is included in a larger omnibus Medicare mental health modernization bill (H.R. 1522) endorsed by over 30 mental health and senior citizen organizations. Again, our legislation would exclude clinical social workers from the prospective payment system. This small fix corrects what we believe to be a serious error created by BBA'97. It is time to act quickly and decisively to preserve access to needed mental health services for residents in thousands of our nation's skilled nursing facilities.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman. California is facing an energy crisis. This problem is not one that California can solve without the help of Federal intervention. The root of the California energy crisis is the soaring wholesale rates for electricity. The spot market price of electricity has increased from $30 per megawatt hour in 1999 to $300 in 2001. Energy prices have soared as high as $1,900 per megawatt hour. For a point of comparison that many of us can better relate to: if the price of a gallon of milk increased at the same rate as California's energy prices, milk that now costs $3 per gallon would cost $190 per gallon. Energy costs are a real problem facing California and our western neighbors. The Inslee-Pelosi amendment can remedy this problem but the Republican leadership will only allow debate on the amendment-- they will not allow a vote on the amendment. Many critics will tell you that price caps hurt the market and will stifle new electrical power generation. However, the Inslee-Pelosi amendment exempts new generating facilities to ensure that the pricing mechanism does not provide a disincentive to new energy generation. The amendment places the Western energy grid under a cost-of-service based rate system. This means that the energy suppliers, most of which are Texas-based friends of the current administration, will be able to recover the cost of producing energy, as well as make a reasonable profit. The administration realizes that some form of price caps is necessary and allowed the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission, FERC, to impose a limited price control structure to help mitigate the soaring price spikes. However, more must be done. These energy generators are gaming the deregulated system in order to increase profits, all at the expense of California's families and businesses. FERC has the power to impose effective cost controls now, but they refuse to fulfill their obligation. The recent FERC decision might help California, but price caps are certain to help California's consumers. Unfortunately, we have a White House that is more sympathetic to the Texas energy producers than to California residents sitting in the dark and the heat, facing skyrocketing electricity rates. The only alternative is congressional action with measures such as the Inslee- Pelosi amendment, since FERC will only provide limited consumer protection. Point of Order

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Captain Keith D. Jackson is retiring from the Fremont Police Department on July 19, 2001 after a 25-year career with the Fremont Police Department. Captain Jackson has been a vital member of the Department, has worked his way through the ranks and made significant contributions at every level. Captain Jackson started at the Department September 1, 1975 as a patrol officer. He attended the 84th recruit academy at the Oakland Police Department prior to taking on patrol officer duties in Fremont. He worked as a patrol officer and a Field Training Officer for new recruits until June of 1980. At that time, he was transferred to the Investigative Section as a Detective. Captain Jackson distinguished himself as a Detective and was promoted to Sergeant in March of 1982. He returned to patrol and in October 1983 he was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant. As a Lieutenant he worked as a patrol Watch Commander, Investigative Section Commander, Services Section Commander and returned to patrol as a second tour as Watch Commander between 1983 and 1988. Some of his most significant contributions as Captain have been in the area of Special Projects. Captain Jackson was responsible for the architectural design of the new $7 million Police Facility that the Department members and the public enjoy today. Additionally, he has been the lead on the planning and construction of the new jail facilities. Prior to being hired at the Fremont Police Department, Captain Jackson had an exemplary career with the United States Marine Corps from 1969 to 1975 on active duty and as a reserve until 1979. Captain Jackson graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice Administration in the ROTC undergraduate program at San Jose State University and upon graduation was commissioned as an officer in the Corps. He served in the areas of Air Division, Intelligence, Legal Officer and Security Officer. During his career with the Marine Corps, he was rated as an expert with a pistol and rifle and was the winner of the prestigious National Leatherneck Award for marksmanship. As previously mentioned, Captain Jackson has a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice Administration from San Jose State University. In addition, he has earned a Masters of Science degree from Cal-Polytechnic University Pomona, and a Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, Supervisory and Management Certificate from the Commission of Police Officer Standards of Training from the State of California. I join Captain Jackson's friends and colleagues in thanking him for his past contributions to the City of Fremont and wishing him well in his retirement years.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Child Poverty Reduction Act. Senator Charles Schumer is introducing companion legislation in the Senate. During the welfare debate of 1995-96, I had concerns that too much emphasis was placed on kicking people off of welfare rolls rather than reducing poverty. Unfortunately, my concerns--and those of several of my colleagues and administration officials who quit their jobs in protest of welfare reform's passage in 1996-proved accurate. The emphasis on reducing welfare caseloads has caused welfare caseloads to drop faster than the poverty rate. From 1996-99, the number of people receiving welfare dropped 41 percent, while child poverty was reduced only 16.3 percent in the same period. As a result, almost one in six children (12 million) continue to live in poverty. Child poverty can have devastating impacts that last a lifetime. Studies show that poverty has harmful affects on children's cognitive ability and school performance and can contribute to early sexual activity and pregnancy, crime and incarceration, and unemployment. To encourage states to use funds to improve the well-being of our nation's children, this bill amends the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program by making reducing child poverty an explicit goal of the welfare law and creating a $150 million high performance bonus grant to states that reduce child poverty. To receive this new TANF high performance bonus, states would have to reduce their child poverty rate from the previous year's poverty rate. To ensure that states sustain their efforts to reduce child poverty, the high performance bonus is only awarded to states whose most recent child poverty rate does not exceed their lowest poverty rate since the beginning of this bonus program. I find it even more troubling that almost 5 million children live in extreme poverty in which their families' incomes are less than 50 percent of poverty ($8,731.50 annually for a family of four, or just $728 a month). This bill attempts to help those especially needy children by only rewarding states that reduce poverty for children at all levels of need. Thus, the high performance bonus is only given to states that both reduce the overall poverty rate and prevent any increase the percentage of poor children living in extreme poverty. Children have no choice as to whether they are on welfare and I will continue to look for methods to protect them from the effects of TANF. While this legislation is not the overall solution to reducing child poverty, it is a clear step in the right direction. Reducing child poverty is one of the smartest policy initiatives that this Congress can embark on since children are our nation's future. I urge my colleagues to please join me in this small, but important, investment to reduce child poverty and improve child well being by enacting the Child Poverty Reduction Act.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to re-introduce the National Flood Insurance Program Fairness Act. Last year many of my constituents were placed into a special hazard flood area that requires them to purchase flood insurance that can cost over $1,000 per year. These residents were not notified that they would be required to purchase flood insurance until two months or less before the maps became effective, even though the law is supposed to give them six months notice and ample time to purchase flood insurance. Needless to say, this took many of my constituents by surprise when they were required to purchase costly insurance at a moments notice, having not seen flooding in decades or even a lifetime. Several residents who did not believe that were in the flood zone hired surveyors at their own expense, and many residents continue to hire surveyors. The private surveyors' data has resulted in removal of homes from the special hazard flood area, thus removing them from their obligation to purchase flood insurance. In the long run, while these residents are not required to purchase flood insurance, they have spent over $200 each for surveyor costs. Unfortunately, this cost burden is the responsibility of the property owner. They were told by FEMA that under current law property owners who challenge the presumed flood classification are responsible for the surveyor expense even though the incorrect classification is no fault of their own. Clearly, the National Flood Insurance Program needs to be revised to give homeowners more notice, due process, and financial protection when they succeed in removing their property from the base flood elevation classification. That is why I am proposing the National Flood Insurance Program Fairness Act. The National Flood Insurance Program Fairness Act does the following: The bill improves the existing program by requiring the FEMA Director to notify by registered mail the Chief Executive Officer It also requires the Director to notify by registered mail, rather than first class mail, the Chief Executive Officer of each community of FEMA's response to the community's appeal of the flood insurance rate maps. This change will ensure that the community receives the notice of changes and has ample time to comply with the map changes within the statutory effective date. The bill improves upon current law by requiring the Director to notify by first class mail each owner of property affected by the changes in the flood insurance rate maps. Currently, the community is responsible for making sure that the residents are aware of the flood map changes. Requiring FEMA to notify residents expedites the process by eliminating the middleman. Finally, it requires FEMA to reimburse a resident or property owner for reasonable costs incurred in connection with a surveyor or engineer for a successful request to be removed from the special hazard flood area to the Director. This does not include legal services incurred by the resident. It is my hope that this legislation will allow communities to work more effectively with FEMA to ensure that residents are given sufficient, fair, and timely notice if they are required to purchase flood insurance and to ensure that homeowners are not held financially liable when a change in a community's flood insurance rate map does not affect their property. With original cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, I hope we can see this common sense solution come to fruition.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an obscene hoax on the American people, and it is not about taxes. It is about the Republican plan to fundamentally cripple the ability of government to do its job. It is about sacrificing our Nation's priorities on the altar of tax breaks to the wealthiest among us. The Republican leaders would like nothing more than to hamstring our Federal Government's ability to function. They know it and we know it. They praise the President's leadership, and on that note I will join them. The President's leadership led to one of the most outstanding acts in the political scene of this year and perhaps this century when the gentleman from Vermont decided to switch parties. In his statement he said ``that in the past, without the Presidency the various wings of the Republican Party and Congress have had some freedom to argue and influence and ultimately to shape the party's agenda. The election of President Bush changed that dramatically. We do not live in a parliamentary system, but it is only natural to expect that people like myself, who have been honored with positions of leadership, will largely support the President's agenda and yet, more and more I find I cannot. Those who do not know me may have thought I took pleasure in resisting the President's budget or that I enjoyed the limelight. Nothing could be further from the truth. I had serious substantive reservations about that budget, as you all know, and the decision it set in place for the future. Looking ahead, I could see more and more instances where I will disagree with the President on very fundamental issues. The issue of choice. The direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions, missile defense, energy and the environment, and a host of other issues, large and small. Now, for some, success seems to be measured by the number of students moved out of public schools. In order to best represent my State, I will leave the Republican Party and become an independent. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will follow the President's leadership and take that good advice.'' Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with my dear friend Representative Joe Moakley (D-MA) to introduce the COBRA Coverage Extension and Affordability Act of 2001. COBRA is the law that allows employees who face a change in their work status--and would otherwise lose their health insurance--to be able to continue that same coverage through their previous employer for a period of generally 18 months and sometimes as much as 36 months depending upon their particular situation. During this continuation period, employees must pay 102% of the cost of their current health insurance plan. That means they pay their previous employer share, their own share, and an extra 2% to make up for any administrative costs faced by their previous employer for maintaining their coverage. COBRA was created in order to provide a bridge for workers to be able to maintain health benefits for themselves and their families. It has been in place since 1986 and is overdue for remodeling. The bill we are offering today makes three key improvements to existing COBRA law: (1) It extends the length of time that COBRA continuation benefits are available for all workers and their families from an average of 18 months to 5 years with workers paying 102% of premiums as required under current law. (2) It creates a new category of COBRA continuation coverage for people age 55 and over. Anyone age 55 and over is eligible to extend the 5 year limitation on COBRA coverage. They are able to keep their COBRA coverage until they become eligible for Medicare. If they choose to extend this coverage beyond the 5 year limitation, they will be responsible for premium payment of 125% the cost of the employer plan. (3) It makes all COBRA recipients eligible for a refundable federal tax credit worth 50% of their premium costs. The attraction of the COBRA program is that it enables people to maintain continuity of coverage when they are between jobs, or temporarily in a job that doesn't offer health benefits. It also usually allows them to maintain much more comprehensive coverage than would be available in the individual health insurance marketplace at a similar cost. Unfortunately, 18 months is often not enough time for someone to obtain a new job with comprehensive health care benefits for themselves and their family. Our legislation would allow people to maintain the safety net of COBRA for up to five years--which should provide ample time for a new position with solid benefits to be found. Because the worker pays 102% of the premiums, there is no cost to the employee of maintaining them in their group plan. Our legislation goes even further for people age 55 and older because many people in this age category retire before becoming eligible for Medicare or find themselves ``downsized'' out of a job. These people are the least likely segment of our population to be able to obtain affordable coverage in the individual health insurance marketplace. And, with the aging of the baby boom generation, this is a quickly growing segment of our population. In 1999, there were 23.1 million Americans in this age group. This number is expected to grow to 35 million by 2010 and to 42.5 million by 2020. For these people, we would enable them to extend COBRA coverage until they become eligible for Medicare. This provision would provide them with stable health insurance until they become covered by Medicare. The bill recognizes the fact that this age group is more expensive to insure and compensates business accordingly by increasing the cost of participation to the worker form 102% of the premium to 125% of the premium cost if they maintain COBRA more than the standard of five years put forth in the first provision of our legislation. Finally, we are especially excited about the provision that provides a new, refundable tax credit worth 50% of the premium costs. This tax credit is vitally important because health insurance is expensive! We are requiring people to pay 102% of the premium and these are often people with no job--or seriously underemployed for a temporary period of time. Overall premiums for health insurance have an average annual cost of $2400 for an individual and more than $6000 for a family. The tax credit will defray some of the otherwise potentially unaffordable new cost forced on workers who wish to take advantage of the COBRA continuation option. They will still be responsible for much more of the cost than under a comprehensive employer-provided health plan in which the employer pays 80% and the employer pays 20%. But, this tax credit will enable many more people to take advantage of the opportunity to remain insured until another employer-provided plan becomes available to them. Many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are enamored of a tax credit approach to solve the problem of the uninsured. Unfortunately, those members refuse to create a marketplace where health insurance would be made affordable and be fairly offered. The beauty of attaching a tax credit to COBRA continuation benefits is that you have guaranteed buy-in to a group health plan with comprehensive benefits that does not underwrite the price of the premium based on an individuals'--or their families'--health status. This bill has something in it for everyone. It builds on the existing COBRA law. It helps people who are between jobs maintain affordable, comprehensive health insurance for themselves and their families. And, it includes the favorite solution put forth by the Republicans to reduce the number of uninsured--a tax credit approach. Again, we know this bill is no panacea for solving all of the health insurance problems facing our nation. However, it certainly makes dramatic improvements on the status quo. We look forward to working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact the COBRA Coverage Extension and Affordability Act and make important strides to help workers maintain affordable, continuous health insurance coverage for themselves and their families.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would tell our distinguished chairman that the Democrats are entitled to one mistake, for instance, the Senate vote from the State of California today; and we had one provision that phases out over 5 years, and I think almost every provision in the chairman's bill phases out over 10 years. I would give him one free kick if that will solve that issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California would yield, I think it is almost complete.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to instruct be considered as read and printed in the Record.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, under the reservation of objection of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), I wanted to say that I felt that the gentleman was correct in his first statement. There was an agreement and the gentleman was absolutely correct. We intruded on his good nature by extending the courtesy that he had offered to us. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that the gentleman was correct in his assumption and his statement of the facts. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can now get on with the motion to instruct and debate it as we agreed.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the Clerk had quite finished, but I would just read the last section or two here, the conference report does provide benefits to every family with children that has income or payroll tax liability, and the conference report includes inflation adjustments so that the benefits provided to families with children are not reduced over time, this is required in our motion to instruct, and that the conference committee shall be required to meet in preparing the conference report pursuant to House Rule 22. This motion to instruct does have three basic directions, and they deal with constraining the exploding revenue costs. The motion to instruct requires that the conference report would preserve the funds necessary for Medicare and Social Security which the current bills do not, and it should provide benefits to all families with children that have income or payroll tax liability. Mr. Speaker, we do, as I mentioned in the last paragraph, require an open conference as provided in the House rules. Since this tax bill has been written by the Senate, compliance with the House rules is necessary so that there is some input from House Members on the conference report. We should not completely abandon the House's constitutional role on tax legislation. Both the Senate bill and the various tax bills passed by the House this year affect or create exploding revenue costs. The revenue costs of the second 5 years in the bill is approximately twice the costs in the first 5 years, and some press estimates have suggested that we could be spending $4 trillion over the next 10 years. These outyear revenue costs will come at the same time as the retirement of the baby-boom generation, and it will create demands on Medicare and Social Security systems that we will not be able to afford. The bill is based on rather uncertain surplus protections, but it ignores the certainty of the demographic pressures on the Medicare and Social Security systems. The bill has gimmicks that artificially reduce the cost of the bill in the 10-year budget window, but blow away the ranch dramatically after the 10-year period. These gimmicks include delayed effective dates, long phase-ins and sunsets. Very few provisions of the Senate bill are fully effective at all times during the budget window. The conference report uses the current law minimum tax to disallow many of the benefits promised in the big print of the bill. We all know that we will enact legislation addressing the minimum tax, legislation that could increase the cost of this bill by hundreds of billions of dollars. I am most concerned personally, Mr. Speaker, with protecting Medicare and Social Security. The motion to instruct requires the conferees to construct a conference report that does not invade the Medicare and Social Security surpluses and that reserves funds for a prescription drug benefit. We have committed to preserving Medicare and Social Security surpluses, and there is broad bipartisan support for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. This aspect of the motion to instruct merely requires the conferees to preserve fiscal resources to meet our commitments. Finally, the motion requires that all families with children that have payroll or income tax liability should receive benefits under the conference report. It is clear that the Republicans will guarantee that the wealthiest segment of our society will receive large benefits from the conference report. It is only fair that families with payroll tax liability should not be ignored. It is within that context that our motion to instruct conferees is offered and that we ask support for it. I suspect that the conferees, as few as there are from this side of the Capitol, will meet late into the night. I further suspect that many agreements have been struck in private and have been agreed to even as we talk here this evening. So as this runs through in a rush to judgment for tomorrow's get-away day, I would hope that this instruction would be taken to heart and imposed upon the conferees to protect some of the frail elderly, the people who depend on Medicare, the lowest-income families in our country who are trying to raise their children in today's turbulent economy. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of our motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the committee. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. I want to commend Representative George Miller and the Committee on Education and the Workforce for reporting out a bill that will help to improve this nation's elementary and secondary education system by making students a priority, by providing school accountability and by giving financial support to our schools to train and recruit quality teachers. H.R. 1 provides a clear signal that this Congress has prioritized children's education. It provides $5.5 billion of valuable new resources in Fiscal Year 2002 over the previous year for elementary and secondary education. More specifically, it builds upon the Federal commitment to ensure that children from disadvantaged families get an opportunity to receive a quality education by doubling the funding for the Education for the Disadvantaged Program over the next 5 years. The bill also maintains the Federal commitment to expand quality after school programs by increasing funding for the 21st Century Learning Center After School program. Furthermore, it provides additional funding to help our children learn in safe school environments by authorizing more funding for the Safe and Free Drug Schools. H.R. 1 helps to create a strong school accountability system by providing new funds to states to develop statewide educational standards and standardized student tests. These standards and tests will give parents information so that they can measure the quality of education that the school system is providing for their children. Parents are also empowered to monitor the quality of their children's education through this bill's requirement that states, local school agencies and schools must issue report cards to parents on aspects of school performance and teacher's qualifications. This legislation signals to teachers that the federal government supports their efforts to educate our children by providing almost $2 billion in new resources for teacher training, recruitment and school class size reduction next year. I also support this bill for the provisions that are left out. I am pleased that this Congress made the wise decision to reject private school vouchers. At the moment, public schools are underfunded. Diverting resources to a few students so that they can go to private schools does not resolve the issue of creating an excellent educational system for all students. At best, the capacity of private schools can only accommodate a small proportion of students' educational needs at the expense of fewer resources for all students. Although this bipartisan bill is encouraging, I am concerned that the legislation that Congress passes today will not get the necessary appropriated funds for schools to implement it. A few weeks ago, the Majority passed a Budget Resolution that only increased education by $0.9 billion for next year. This amount is far short of the $5.5 billion of additional resources authorized for this legislation next year. I hope that my colleagues in the Majority who vote for this bill put their money where their mouths are by appropriating the necessary funds to implement this bill. Otherwise, this bill will become another hollow promise. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1 and help to create an education system that puts students first, creates strong school accountability and provides valuable financial support to improve teacher quality.