Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4475, the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill. This bill contains a rider which prevents the Department of Transportation from examining the need to increase CAFE standards. This CAFE Freeze rider allows sports utility vehicles and light trucks to meet lower fuel economy standards than cars. The result is vehicles that use more gasoline and produce more emissions harmful to our environment. This rider will prevent the CAFE standard of sports utility vehicles, currently set a 20.7 miles per gallon, from being raised to that of passenger cars. Current passenger cars standards are set at 27.5 miles per gallon. This difference results in millions of greenhouse gases being needlessly released into the atmosphere. By improving fuel efficiency standards we can reduce the threat of global warming while saving consumers money at the gas pump. By slipping this damaging provision into H.R. 4475, we are preventing one of the most effective laws Congress has ever passed from achieving further reductions in greenhouse gases. This will result in millions of inefficient vehicles on our roads that get lower gas mileage, thereby leading to increased pollution. CAFE standards reduce oil consumption, keeping 500,000 tons of hydrocarbon emissions each year from being released into our atmosphere. In addition, CAFE standards reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by 600 million tons. CAFE standards helps local and State governments to achieve Clean Air Act requirements for reducing hydrocarbon air pollution. These emissions, which can be reduced by increased CAFE standards, not only contribute to smog and global warming they are potentially carcinogenic. This rider places not only the future of our planet at risk, it places the health of all Americans at risk. With sports utility vehicles now commanding such a significant market share, we must reduce their disproportionate contribution to global warming. By including this harmful rider Congress has taken a step backward in protecting the long-term health of our planet. This rider is bad environmental policy and for that reason I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 4475, the Transportation Appropriations bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, having served in our nation's military, I am aware of the hardships that our military men and women, and their families, undergo on a daily basis. When they enlist in our nation's armed forces, they know they are volunteering for a very hard life, not only difficult physically, but also difficult financially and emotionally. Even in peacetime, their jobs are among the most dangerous in all of society, with injury or even death a constant threat. In addition to the dangers they face defending America and its interests and keeping the peace throughout the world, they also know that their private lives will be very, very hard. Throughout their military careers they accept reduced pay and the deep emotional strain that inadequate finances places on their families. They face the additional emotional strain caused by poor living conditions they must endure. They face the emotional pain of constant uprooting of their lives as they are moved from one military installation to another. Mr. Chairman, the military life is a deeply difficult and painful life. To be able to cope with the day-to-day difficulties in military life, our military men and women and their families must cling to hope for a better life when their military careers are over. One of the glimmers of hope is that upon retirement, their medical costs, which can be severe, will be paid. In retirement, they will finally have peace of mind, free from the fear of financial ruin brought on by a debilitating illness. Mr. Chairman, when our military retirees are sick, they feel more comfortable receiving their medical care in a military facility. That is understandable. And because they feel more comfortable there, their stay in the health care facility is less traumatic, less emotionally painful, than in a civilian health care facility. Studies have shown repeatedly that people experience fewer side effects from an illness-- and recover faster from it--when they experience less emotional stress. And that is the fundamental reason that we need to find ways to help our military retirees get their medical care in military health care facilities. That is why, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we authorized a demonstration project under which military retirees in six sites who are also entitled to Medicare would be able to get their medical care in military facilities and have Medicare contribute to the costs of that care. Because we did not know the answers to many questions about controlling costs, the Congress decided to place certain restrictions on this demonstration. Just as we needed to provide a means for military retirees who are entitled to Medicare to get their medical care in military facilities, the Congress also had to protect the Medicare trust funds from going bankrupt, thus jeopardizing medical care for 39 million other Americans who depend on Medicare. As an example, one of the key issues concerned the form of the Medicare payment for services in military facilities. Because medical personnel in military facilities are paid a salary, unlike private sector medical professionals, who are paid on a fee-for-service basis, the Congress decided that payment for services in military facilities should be on a ``capitated'' basis; that is, payment should be based on the average amount that Medicare would normally pay for services for a Medicare beneficiary living in the area where the service was provided. The Congress also placed other limitations on the demonstration to protect Medicare. Because the Congress did not want to delay any longer than necessary in providing this important benefit to military retirees, the demonstration was limited to three years. The Congress asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to evaluate the demonstration and advise us on how to expand the program and make it permanent. In January of this year, the GAO issued its first report on the demonstration. The GAO found that in the first year of the demonstration, over one-fifth of Medicare-eligible military retirees in the six demonstration areas had enrolled in the demonstration. Enrollment was highest in sites where other Medicare managed care plans were not present; it was lowest where such plans were widespread. GAO will continue to monitor the demonstration and report to Congress annually. Mr. Chairman, the amendments that we are considering today would either abandon the demonstration, and the knowledge to be gained from it, and proceed immediately to a permanent unlimited program, or expand the demonstration to eight additional sites, again without the benefit of the knowledge gained from the demonstration already underway. This is not the prudent way to proceed. This is not the way to help our military retirees and also protect the 39 million other Americans who depend on Medicare. The demonstration we have underway will give us information on which both to help military retirees and to protect Medicare. And we would know these answers in only two more years. Mr. Chairman, the Administration has informed us that their position on these amendments is that the current demonstration should be extended for only one or two additional years, and that an independent evaluator should review the demonstration before we proceed further. That is the prudent course of action. Mr. Chairman, I rise in enthusiastic support of the Taylor Amendment, which will expand and make permanent the existing TRICARE ``Medicare Subvention'' demonstration program for Medicare-eligible military retirees and their dependents. The Health Care Financing Administration would reimburse the Pentagon for most of the program's cost. Under the Taylor amendment, TRICARE's ``Senior Prime'' program would become a permanent program and would be available nationwide by Jan. 1, 2006. Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of a more worthy amendment that would have a more wide reaching effect on the healthcare of our honored Veterans and retirees. For many years, thousands of our military retirees were promised by their recruiters a lifetime of affordable healthcare if they served their nation for at least 20 years. The Taylor Amendment will restore the covenant between a grateful nation and those who faithfully served it in the Armed Services. Medicare Subvention improves the military healthcare system and has without a doubt been an unmitigated success. Under the Taylor Amendment retirees will have access to the healthcare they need more expeditiously than under the current ``space available'' standard. The physicians at the military facilities where the pilot programs have been implemented, have welcomed the introduction of retirees as these patients have enabled a greater practice of medicine, which adds to the recruitment and retention of doctors and nurses. The Taylor Amendment is an important step towards fulfilling the promise to our nation's military retirees. I urge its passage and I urge a defeat to the Buyer substitute.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 4205, the Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2001 bill for a number of reasons. This bill spends too much for a national missile defense system that the President hasn't even determined to deploy and it seeks to keep defense contractor coffers plentiful. H.R. 4205 authorizes $2.2 billion for national missile defense (NMD) systems when President Clinton hasn't made a decision on whether or not to deploy such a system. The President had indicated that he will make his decision later this year. But the longer he waits, the more evidence indicates that deployment is unwise. Last month, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) delivered a devastating blow to NMD proponents when they calculated the costs of building and operating the Administration's defenses system at almost $60 billion. For months now, the Pentagon has insisted that the cost of the Administration's system over the next six years was a modest $12.7 billion. The Pentagon was shocked once again when a recent poll was released that national missile defense is an extremely low priority for Americans. Improving education, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and improving health care coverage are all significantly higher priorities than defense-related matters. I would much rather spend $12 billion to cover 11 million uninsured children--the cost of my MediKids bill. While GOP feels at liberty to throw more money at the defense industry for deployment of a national missile defense, they considered my amendment unworthy of floor consideration. I offered an amendment to H.R. 4025 that prevents the use of taxpayer funds at international air and trade shows. Unfortunately, my amendment, along with other amendments that would have saved millions of taxpayer dollars, were not made in order. This is especially egregious because the Defense Appropriations managers on the floor of the House accepted the same amendments last fall. Currently, the Pentagon pays for incremental costs to advertise sophisticated weaponry and aircraft at international air shows and trade exhibitions. Last year, industry leaders such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon pawned off their wears to developing countries in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Lockheed pushed their high-ticket items such as the F-16, while Boeing advertised their FA/18 Super Hornet Fighter. These companies peddle their wares to countries that cannot even afford to feed their own citizens. And the U.S. government helps them to do so by subsidizing the expense at the shows. The aircraft used during these shows and weapons exhibitions is paid for with American taxpayer dollars. The taxpayer subsidizes the cost of insurance, ramp fees, transportation to and from the show, and payment for government personnel needed to attend and monitor the show. A conservative estimate of the total cost of taxpayer subsides is $34.2 million per year. This is a blatant form of corporate welfare and wasteful spending by the government. My amendment prevents any further direct participation of Defense personnel and equipment at air shows unless the defense industry pays for the advertising and use of the DoD wares. The amendment prohibits sending planes, equipment, weapons, or any other related material to any overseas air show unless the contractor pays for all related expenses. If a contractor is making a profit by showing the aircraft, they will also be required to pay for the advertisement and use of the aircraft. In addition, my amendment prevents military and government personnel from lending their expertise at the show unless the contractor pays for their services during the show. This amendment in no way prohibits the use of U.S. aircraft or other equipment in trade exhibitions. The bill simply takes the financial burden off of the American taxpayer and puts it on the defense contractor. This is a wasteful practice that must end. It is a shame that my GOP colleagues did not agree that this was a waste of taxpayer dollars and make my amendment in order. I urge my colleagues to stop throwing money at the defense industry and oppose H.R. 4205.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, today we have before us a bill that extends the current ``Internet Tax Freedom Act'' moratorium on certain Internet-related state sales and use taxes. While I do respect the need to foster growth and innovation on the Internet and for technology in general, I do not believe that this bill does so in a responsible way. The current moratorium expires in October 2001. This gives Congress over 17 months to come up with a plan to address Internet taxation. We do not need until 2006 to come up with a viable solution to Internet taxation. This gives Congress too much time to sit on its hands and place blame when a solution should be reached much sooner. Currently, Internet merchants are not required to collect state sales and use taxes unless they have a presence in the state. This does not statutorily relieve the purchaser from remitting the state sales and use taxes due from Internet purchases. However, in reality this is not the case when there is no enforcement mechanism. Clearly, Internet commerce has an advantage over traditional commerce if consumers are able to circumvent paying taxes on Internet purchases. Not only does this set up an unfair system for traditional commerce for having to collect the state and local taxes, thus ultimately costing the consumer more, but it also prevents state and local communities from capturing the taxes they would otherwise receive. Today's bill will hamper a state's ability to effectively tax Internet purchases, thus eroding a state's source of funding for education, health and other vital services. Congress should not implement a tax advantage for one method of commerce over another for five years. Instead, we should figure out how to level the playing field while encouraging innovation today. For these reasons, I oppose H.R. 3709 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPIO). AAPIO is an outstanding professional organization with over 36,000 physicians of Indian origin practicing across the nation. The Northern California Chapter of AAPIO will hold its annual meeting on May 13, 2000 in Fremont, California, a major city within my 13th Congressional District. The Northern California Chapter represents approximately 700 physicians and allied health professionals in Northern California and constitutes the local chapter of AAPIO. Northern California AAPIO Chapter President Dr. Subroto Kundu and President Elect, Dr. Srinivas Ramachandran are among the officers, the Board of Trustees and AAPIO members providing exemplary leadership within the 13th congressional district and all of Northern California. These individuals work to insure the integrity of health care delivery and are committed to the well-being of the communities in which they serve. I applaud the Northern California Chapter's continuing efforts to organize and promote community service events, such as Health Fairs and Community Medical Education Seminars, upholding the physician's role in society to treat, teach, and guide individuals to good health. AAPIO physicians provide their time and energy in community service and leadership. They are actively involved in healthcare related issues on the local, state and national level and represent the majority of physicians who serve our uninsured and under-insured populations. As the AAPIO Northern California Chapter gathers on May 13, I wish them success at their Annual Meeting. I am confident AAPIO will continue to meet our healthcare challenges and will renew their commitment to community service and involvement.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, insurance coverage for long-term care services is a gaping hole in our nation's healthcare safety net. H.R. 4040, the Long-term Care Security Act, will establish a long-term care insurance program for federal employees. It is a small step in the right direction. But, this bill is more notable for unmasking the shortcomings of private long-term care insurance than for meeting the long-term care needs of the American people. Americans deserve long-term care insurance that satisfies three criteria: reasonable cost, broad access and high quality. The main lesson of this bill is that the only way to achieve reasonable cost is to sacrifice both access and quality. We are in the dark about the actual provisions of the long-term care insurance plan that will ultimately be offered to federal employees. But the Office of Personnel Management's primary objective is clear to negotiate a competitive price. OPM has been upfront in telling us that limitations on access and quality of these policies will be necessary to negotiate this price. Will FEHBP's long-term care insurance program be available to all federal employees and their families? The answer is ``no''. One form of underwriting known as ``short-form'', will exclude active employees who are most likely to require long-term care services in the near future. More extensive ``long-term'' underwriting, which requires a more detailed medical history, will exclude larger numbers of retired employees and their family members. Will FEHBP's long-term insurance program guarantee basic consumer protections such as inflation protection, and provisions that guarantee that policies are still good in the event of carrier buyout or bankruptcy? Again, the answer is ``no''. Inflation protection under H.R. 4040 will only be available as an option. Yet, without inflation protection, the average 60 year old purchaser will be shopping for long-term care services in 2020 with year 2000 dollars! In other words, by design, many of the policies will not meet purchasers' needs when they become eligible for benefits. The bottom line is that high quality private long-term care insurance policies with universal access result in an excessively high price tag, while affordable long-term care insurance policies may be inferior in quality and not accessible to all. The real lesson of H.R. 4040 is that even the formidable purchasing power of the federal employees is not enough to turn private long-term care insurance into the answer to the long-term care problem. I will vote for H.R. 4040 today because it does inch us forward on long-term care products. However, private long-term care insurance falls far short in delivering comprehensive and high quality long-term care services to all who need it. The only way we will actually assure long-term care protections for people is through a national social insurance program like Medicare. That's where the debate needs to move next.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I join today with my colleagues Representatives Charlie Rangel, George Miller, Jim McDermott, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Barney Frank, John Conyers, and Carrie Meek to introduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2000. Senator Rockefeller is introducing a companion bill in the Senate. Our legislation has been endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics; the National Association of Community Health Centers; and NETWORK: a Catholic Social Justice Lobby. Children are the least expensive segment of our population to insure, they are the least able to have any control over whether or not they have health insurance, and maintaining their health is integral to their educational success and their futures in our society. Even though we all recognize those facts, we still have over 11 million uninsured children in this country. Despite our success in reaching out to low-income children through Medicaid expansions and the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, a study released last week showed that the percent of children in low-income families without health insurance has not changed in recent years. The most recent available census figures confirm that the number of children without health insurance continues to creep slightly upward. In addition, increasing health insurance costs are causing many small businesses to drop coverage altogether or are increasing the employee contribution to the point of being unaffordable for many working parents. Our society continues to become increasingly mobile, with parents frequently changing jobs and moving between states. Families working their way out of welfare fluctuate between eligibility and ineligibility for means-tested assistance programs. Even with perfect enrollment in S-CHIP and Medicaid, our children are not going to have the consistent and regular access to health care which they need to grow up healthy. That is why we are introducing the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2000. This bill would automatically enroll every child at birth into a new, comprehensive federal safety net health insurance program beginning in 2002. The benefits would be tailored to the needs of children and would be similar to those currently available to children under Medicaid. A small monthly premium would be collected from parents at tax filing, with discounts to low-income families phasing out at 300 percent of poverty. The children would remain enrolled in MediKids throughout childhood. When they are covered by another health insurance program, their parents would be exempt from the premium. The key to our program is that whenever other sources of health insurance fail, MediKids would stand ready to cover the health needs of our next generation. By the year 2000, every child in America would be able to grow up with consistent, continuous health insurance coverage. Like Medicare, MediKids would be independently financed, would cover benefits tailored to the needs of its target population, and would have the goal of achieving nearly 100 percent health insurance coverage for the children of this country--just as Medicare has done for our nation's seniors and disabled population. It's time we make this investment in the future of America by guaranteeing to all children the health coverage they need to make a healthy start in life. The MediKids Health Insurance Act would offer guaranteed, automatic health coverage for every child with the simplest of enrollment procedures and no challenging outreach, paperwork, or re-determination hoops to jump through. It would be able to follow children across state lines, or tide them over in a new location until their parents can enroll them in a new insurance program. Between jobs or during family crises such as divorce or the death of a parent, it would offer extra security and ensure continuous health coverage to the nation's children. During that critical period when a family is just climbing out of poverty and out of the eligibility range for means-tested assistance programs, it would provide an extra boost with health insurance for the children until the parents can move into jobs that provide reliable health insurance coverage. And every child would automatically be enrolled upon birth, along with the issuance of the birth certificate or immigration card. As we all know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Providing health care coverage to children impacts much more than their health--it impacts their ability to learn, their ability to thrive, and their ability to become productive members of society. I look forward to working with my colleagues and supporting organizations for the passage of the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2000 to guarantee every child in America the health coverage they need to grow up healthy. A summary of the legislation follows. Details of the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2000 Enrollment Automatic enrollment into MediKids at birth for every child born after 12/31/2001. At the time of enrollment, materials describing the coverage and a MediKids health insurance card be issued to the parent(s) or legal guardian(s). Once enrolled, children will remain enrolled in MediKids until they reach the age of 23. During periods of equivalent coverage by other sources, whether private insurance, or government programs such as medicaid of S-CHIP, there will be no premium charged for MediKids. During any lapse in other insurance coverage, MediKids will automatically cover the children's health insurance needs (and premium will be owed for those months).

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, due to flu, I unavoidably missed 8 votes on April 13th. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: ``Yes'' on the Journal (rollcall No. 123). ``No'' on the Rule to the Budget Resolution (No. 124). ``No'' on the Budget Resolution because it sets up unworkable appropriations caps and cuts vital domestic spending too deeply (No. 125). ``Yes'' on the Rangel motion to recommit the Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act (No. 126). ``No'' on the Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act (No. 127). To say one is going to end a tax system without spelling out what the replacement will be is economic nonsense and, if anyone actually believed this nonsense, would lead to tremendous financial instability. ``Yes'' on the Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act (No. 128). ``Yes'' on Mr. Barrett's amendment to the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act (No. 129), and ``No'' on passage of the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act (No. 130).

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4055, the IDEA Funding Act. I am happy that this Congress has finally decided to vote on substantive legislation that puts our children first. Hopefully, this vote is an indication of this Congress' national commitment to our children in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Over 25 years ago, Congress promised to pay 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure of all children with disabilities. However, the government has never funded more than 12.6 percent. This lack of funding has placed severe strains on local school district's budgets. Today's vote provides the necessary financial resources to help our local school districts to provide a first rate education to students with disabilities as well as freeing up resources to be used for the education of other students. Although it has taken 25 years for the Congress to seriously address this funding issue, the fact that there is a funding formula has made Congress accountable to providing these funds. Educators have been able to point out that Congressional funding for IDEA has fallen far short from what was promised to each disabled student. This link between program funding and the student provides Congress with an accurate measure of the amount of increased funding that is necessary to keep up with the inflationary increases in a student's education. This fact should not be lost when we debate and vote on the reauthorization of ESEA later this year. There have been many bills introduced that would break the connection of Federal funding to each student by block granting these programs. The effect of creating block grants in such programs as title I will result in fewer poor children receiving the adequate funds to provide them a good education. I ask my colleagues in the majority to remember the pressures that have caused Congress to vote on this bill today and how much its passage will positively impact the education of disabled children throughout the United States, I urge them to remember this when they vote on the reauthorization of ESEA.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I adamantly oppose H.R. 4199, a bill to sunset the current Internal Revenue Code without a replacement plan. It is completely ludicrous to bring legislation to the floor that will eliminate the only Tax Code the U.S. Government has to collect revenue and pay for entitlements and various programs. This bill suggests to the American people that in four years, the 108th Congress will come up with a plan to replace the current system, but there are no guarantees. The bill before us today is irresponsible, negligent and hypocritical. i. irresponsible--no need for a commission Last year's failed Medicine Commission provides ample evidence that the last thing Congress needs is another commission upon which to place its responsibility. This bill hands over the responsibility to tax U.S. income to yet another commission. Congress already has an ``in-House'' commission to address problems with the current Tax Code--it's called the Ways and Means Committee. But the Committee on Ways and Means didn't hold a hearing or a markup on the bill before us today. In fact, we've had hearings all week on fundamental tax reform yet H.R. 4199 was never brought before the Committee. It's high time the leadership stops the charade and works in a bipartisan fashion to address critical problems facing working Americans. ii. negligent--no replacement plan This bill neglects to offer a plan in the event that the 108th Congress doesn't actually come up with an alternative approach to current U.S. taxes. Are we to assume that one of the recent proposals before the Ways and Means Committee will replace the current Code? I would imagine that the GOP's leading testimony on H.R. 2525, the Fair Tax Act, would be a proposal of consideration. If this is the case, then I must fiercely warn my colleagues against supporting H.R. 4199. The Joint Committee on Taxation--a bipartisan and bicameral Congressional Committee--has concluded that the Fair Tax Act, the leading proposal at this week's Ways & Means tax hearing, will need to impose a near 60 percent tax on goods and services in the U.S. in order to remain revenue neutral. I have a chart here (see attached) to show how this will effect the price of top selling seniors' prescription drugs. Seniors are currently struggling to pay for their prescription drugs and often have to go without them. It is unfathomable that the leadership would want to scrap the current Code only to suggest that proposals as awful as the Fair Tax Act await its replacement. The GOP has had 5 years to devise a better way to tax U.S. income. But for the past five years all they have given us is an April 15 song and dance. iii. this bill is hypocritical and hollow I believe the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Armey, is sincere about trying to obtain health insurance for the 44 million Americans without it through a refundable tax cut credit, but we won't reach this goal by ripping out the existing tax code by its roots without replacing it first with a system of either refundable tax credits or subsidies for employer-provided health insurance. I oppose the current tax structure with respect to the treatment of the pharmaceutical industry and I did something about it. I have introduced a couple of bills that address the unfair tax treatment given to pharmaceutical companies. I have introduced H.R. 4089, the Save Money for Prescription Drug Research Act of 2000 to deny tax deductions to pharmaceutical firms for spending on unnecessary promotions and gifts (other than drug samples) to physicians. These drug companies currently deduct a portion of the over $11 billion spent per year on very questionable physician gifts. This bill encourages dedication of these funds for a much more important use--pharmaceutical research and development. I have also introduced H.R. 3665, the Prescription Price Equity Act of 2000 which would deny research tax credits to pharmaceutical companies that sell their products at significantly higher prices in the U.S. as compared to their sales in other industrialized nations. My bills accomplish something. My bills address the fact that drug company profits are over three times greater than the average profits of all other U.S. industries while U.S. seniors spend more money on medications than seniors in other parts of the world. We must have a tax plan in place to ensure that our seniors will receive affordable prescription drugs and that the uninsured have access to health care before we hastily scrap our current Tax Code. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4199, the Date Certain Tax Replacement Act and support the motion to recommit.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the pharmaceutical industry alleges that government intervention will lead to cost containment and price controls which will stifle research and development of new drugs. In fact, they are not spending enough on R&D. According to today's Wall Street Journal survey on executive compensation, the average CEO of a pharmaceutical company received $14.9 million in salary, bonus, and stock options in 1999. Rather than maximizing the R&D of new therapies and cures for diseases, they are spending it on pay for their executives. Today's Wall Street Journal article shows what the pharmaceutical industry's real priorities are. The top five highest compensated CEOs of pharmaceutical companies surveyed were: (1) Charles A. Heimbold, Jr., $44 million, Bristol-Myers Squibb; (2) Richard Jay Kogan, $36.7 million, Schering-Plough; (3) Ralph S. Larsen, $34.9 million, Johnson & Johnson; (4) Sidney Taurel, $33.3 million, Eli Lilly; and (5) Fred Hassan, $15 million, Pharmacia & Upjohn. The income of these 5 men is roughly half the cost of discovering a blockbuster drug that could cure millions of people. Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't let this industry tell us they can't afford to participate in a Medicare drug benefit and continue research.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lt. Dennis Holmes upon his retirement from the Milpitas Police Department after nearly 33 years of exemplary service to law enforcement. Lt. Holmes joined the police force in Milpitas in 1967. He was promoted to sergeant in March 1974 and rose to the rank of lieutenant in September 1980. During his early years as a police officer, Lt. Holmes was the first officer to be selected to serve as a field-training officer. As a supervisor, he helped develop structured localized field-training programs that he managed for nearly 15 years. He sat on the advisory board of the regional police academy and was a strong advocate for specialty and professional training for all departmental employees. Lt. Holmes served in almost all of the available sections of the Milpitas Police Department. He started in Patrol, and then transferred into Traffic Enforcement and Investigation. He was later selected to head up the Traffic Section. As a sergeant he supervised in Patrol, was transferred into Generalist Investigations, and was then selected to supervise a proactive enforcement. As supervisor of the proactive team, drug related arrests more than doubled and the residential burglary rate plummeted. He also introduced an objective employee performance appraisal system that was later adopted citywide. This system has been in place with few modifications for over 20 years. As investigative lieutenant, he implemented and formalized case management procedures, which brought accountability to the investigation function. In addition, he implemented an automated case tracking system and instituted a subjective case-screening model. Lt. Holmes served as president of the Milpitas Police Officer's Association for 4 years. He was lead negotiator for two employee relations contracts, and served on two additional negotiation teams. He was instrumental in obtaining the first fully confidential police psychological counseling benefit for Milpitas police employees. I have highlighted some of Lt. Holmes' many accomplishments and I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this outstanding public servant. He has been an innovator and a change agent in law enforcement. His unselfish dedication to the Milpitas community is appreciated and will be long remembered.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out the hypocrisy of H. Res. 465, a resolution to collect and distribute Statistics on Babies Abandoned in Public Places. This resolution to count the number of babies that have been abandoned in public places shamefully represents the fact that the Republican Majority is all talk and no action in helping the children of America. This resolution offers to count the number of children who are abandoned, but provides nothing toward preventing these devastating events from occurring. I am all for keeping good statistics on America's social problems, however I am more interested in providing funding to programs necessary to address these problems. Teenage pregnancy, parents' substance abuse and lack of access to mental health benefits are the most cited causes by researchers for abuse and neglect of children. Instead of increasing access to these services, this Congress has denied people access to these services. Last year, Congress reduced the Social Services Block Grant by $125 million. This program has been essential in providing funding for family planning services. HHS released a report last year that found parental substance abuse to be a problem in 26 percent of child welfare cases. Last year, the Majority House Appropriations bill responded to this report by reducing the funding to the SAMHSA Substance Abuse Block Grant by $115 million under the President's request. The Majority also refuses to act on bills that increase the affordability and accessibility of mental health benefits to Americans. I have a bill, the National Mental Health Parity Act of 1999, that would require parity for physical and mental private health benefits and increase mental health benefits in Medicare. The Majority has refused to act on it or any other item. This bill is just one of many that attempt to ensure that Americans receive adequate mental health benefits. I wish the Majority would stop providing resolutions that are nothing more than empty statements. It is time to help the American people and pass substantive legislation to prevent the tragedy of parents abandoning their children in public places. Congress could achieve this by increasing accessibility and affordability to family planning services, mental health benefits and counseling for substance abuse-- not through empty resolutions like the one offered here today.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment in order to express my gratitude and thanks to the Union City, California Chief of Police Al Guzman, who unfortunately will be retiring at the end of June. Al Guzman came to Union City so that he could fish along the shoreline. Later, as a college student, Guzman volunteered his time to ride along with the newly founded Union City Police Department. Soon after, he was invited to join the police force as a reserve officer. In March of 1968, Al Guzman was hired by the Union City Police Department as a full time officer and remained loyal to the force for 33 years. Moreover, he served as the Department's Chief of Police for 13 years. Chief Guzman is a leader in involving the community with police concerns so that conflicts and tensions within the city are solved more efficiently and quickly, ensuring a safe and healthy city. Coupled with Guzman's loyal service to the police force, he worked closely with school officials and parents to address the needs of students. This resulted in his creation of the School Resource Officers program in Union City and the New Haven Unified School District. Furthermore, through his leadership and vision, Union City initiated many innovative programs including the Head Start Child Care Center located in the Decoto Park Plaza. Additionally, another achievement of Chief Guzman's is the adoption of the graffiti abatement program and the creation of the Fred Castro Park. Chief Guzman also was a co- founder of the Police Activities League in Union City which is responsible for providing sports for young people as well as sponsoring the Community Health and Science Fair. Despite all of Al Guzman's extraordinary accomplishments, he is also the first Police Chief in California to involve civilians in the creation of both a Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving program as well as the COPPS officers program. In addition to their creation, under Chief Guzman's leadership, two resource centers were established that housed the COPPS program with community based organizations that provide services for Union City residents. Guzman's COPPS program was recognized by Chiefs Magazine as the model program for California. Union City recently earned recognition by the National Civic League as an All-American City and also received the Helen Putnam Award for Excellence by the League of California Cities. And all of this was accomplished during the tenure of Chief Guzman. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this great community leader and visionary. Chief Al Guzman played an immense role in making Union City a safe and model city for others to follow and respect.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3660, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Make no mistake about it, this is a political vote and a political debate--a debate fraught with inflammatory rhetoric and distorted facts. The majority knows that the President will veto this bill and are using it as a political football to score points with certain segments of society. Since we are here, I would like to get the facts straight about this issue. There is no medical procedure called a ``partial birth abortion''--that is a political term made by opponents of choice to distort the issue. There is a procedure called ``intact D & E'' that is used in cases of terrible family tragedy. These are catastrophic pregnancies, when the fetus has a horrible abnormality, or the pregnancy seriously threatens the mother's life or health. This bill threatens doctors with fines and imprisonment, and prevents not a single teen pregnancy. The vote to pass this bill is a blatant attempt to shelter the hypocrisy of the abortion debate--that the strongest opponents of the right to choose also oppose programs promoting comprehensive sex education and birth control, which actually reduce unintended pregnancies. If they want to prevent abortion, they should improve access to contraception by increasing funding for title X and contraceptive research, and improving access to insurance coverage of contraception. Research shows that these policies have proven the most effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Instead, anti-choice Members of Congress would make access to family planning options more difficult, more dangerous, more expensive, and more humiliating. A decision concerning a woman's pregnancy can't get more private or more personal. Women in conference with their Doctors, not politicians, must decide what medical treatments are the best for them. Doctors decide to carry out the ``intact D & E procedure'' as a last resort. Doctors use the ``intact D & E procedure'' when they believe it is the safest way to end a pregnancy and leave the woman with the best chance to have a healthy baby in the future. Congress should not second-guess their medical judgment. I ask my colleagues in the majority, who often express their disdain at the Federal Government's involvement in their personal lives, to oppose this bill. I would hope that the majority could get as impassioned about protecting the right of a woman to make a personal choice about her body as they do about a person owning and buying a gun.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 provides for the members of the Joint Economic Committee to come before the House and present their views on the current state of the U.S. economy, to serve as input in the debate we are about to have on the budget resolution before us. I rise today to report that while there are many economic achievements to celebrate, there is also a lot more to do in order for everyone to share in the current prosperity. For the first time since the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act was passed in 1978, the U.S. economy has met the goals which Senator Hubert Humphrey and Congressman Gus Hawkins set out in the original bill: 1. The unemployment rate for individuals over 20 is just \1/2\ percentage point above the goal of 3 percent. 2. The unemployment rate for individuals over 16 has met the stated goal of 4 percent. 3. Inflation has remained below the goal of 3 percent since the beginning of the Clinton Administration, 7 years ago. 4. And all of this has been achieved while balancing the federal budget, for the first time in over 40 years. It is a shame Senator Humphrey and Congressman Hawkins could not witness these achievements. The great irony is that Senator Humphrey and Congressman Hawkins saw these goals as part of the path toward achieving full employment and balanced economic growth. Today, 20 years later, Alan Greenspan views them as dangerous signs of an overheating economy! I agree with Humphrey and Hawkins--low employment and inflation, and rising wages are always good for an economy. Currently, unemployment and inflation are low, average wages are rising, and productivity is growing. There is cause to celebrate these achievements, which are due, in large part, to the economic policies of the last 7 years. But the Humphrey-Hawkins bill also called for establishing a national goal to fulfill the RIGHT of all adult Americans who are able, willing and seeking work to find employment at fair compensation. We may have met the numerical targets set out in the bill, we still have a lot to do in order to meet their overarching goal. Despite the historic economic prosperity we are currently experiencing, the average after-tax income of the wealthiest families continues to grow faster than that for all other Americans, causing the income gap to continue widening. Some of my colleagues like to argue that the tax code should not be used to redistribute income to the poor. Well, I say we should stop using the tax code to redistribute income to the rich, like we have been doing! Consider the following: Just the richest one percent of Americans-- 2.7 million people--took home as much after-tax income as the lowest 38 percent--or 100 million people--combined. In 1998, the average income of the wealthiest 20 percent of families was 14 times higher than that of the poorest 20 percent. After adjusting for taxes, the top 20 percent of U.S. households experienced a 43 percent increase in average income from 1977 to 1999, while the average income of the lowest 20 percent experienced a 9 percent decline. In 1999, almost 13 percent of total national after-tax income was concentrated in the top one percent of Americans. The foundations for this disparity were laid during the 1980s, when average after-tax income for the wealthiest fifth of households increased by 33 percent. The Republican budget does nothing to narrow the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and in fact would actually make it worse. Tax breaks for multi-millionaires do not help the millions of average Americans or narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. In addition, the Republican budget would jeopardize the economic prosperity we are currently enjoying. In 1992, President Clinton inherited budget deficits for ``as far as the eye could see.'' In contrast to his predecessors, President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress implemented policies which eliminated the budget deficit. And contrary to what the critics predicted, we balanced the budget while experiencing the longest period of prosperity in U.S. history. The Republican budget would put all of this in jeopardy. The Republican budget calls for large tax cuts, increases in defense spending, and drastic reductions to non-defense discretionary spending. Where have we heard this before? This precise mix of policies brought us the record budget deficits of the 1980s, which contributed to a decline in living standards for the vast majority of Americans. My colleagues claim that their budget fixes Social Security and Medicare, creates a prescription drug insurance program, and does all this while keeping the budget in surplus. Well, this sounds like de ja vu all over again. To paraphrase this month's testimony of Nobel Laureate Robert Solow before the Joint Economic Committee--if you believe that their budget will do all that, I must be Alice and this must be wonderland. The Reagan supply-side policies were a complete failure. While a few got rich, the vast majority of American workers and their families suffered as the country was saddled with an enormous debt, which those working families are still paying off. The nation made the mistake of buying that snake oil once, why should we do it again? I am not about to put the incomes of American families at risk once again, especially as they are just beginning to recover from the last Republican attempt to ``save'' the economy. The Republican budget includes a ``Bush-lite'' tax cut. I must at least give my colleagues some credit for rejecting the full Bush tax cut proposal completely. Their tax cut would only go half as far--which is still way too much. The Republican's current tax cut proposals cost more than the bloated tax cut proposal from last year, which the American people clearly rejected. There are two fundamental things wrong with their tax proposals. First, they benefit the rich and don't help the vast majority of Americans. Second, these tax cuts, together with the rest of the budget package, are certain to get us back into the mess we were in during the 1980s, which caused real economic hardship on workers and their families. The Republican budget calls for increasing defense spending by $17\1/ 2\ billion above the caps, which is even more than the Administration's request. According to the Children's Defense Fund, just this additional spending alone would be enough to: Provide Head Start to 1.7 million additional children; and Provide child care to more than 8 million additional children; and Provide 21st Century After-School programs for close to 35 million additional children. Just think what we could do for our children if we were willing to forgo just one new major weapon system. In addition to being a budget- buster, excessive defense spending forces us to shift our priorities away from feeding, clothing and educating our children and caring for the sick, the elderly and The Republican budget has a solution to this problem--cut non-defense discretionary spending by 6 percent or $114 billion over 5 years. Where is this money going to come from? I'll tell you. The Republicans want to drop 310,000 low-income women off of WIC, just next year. The Republicans want to deny child care to over 12,000 children of working parents in 2001. The Republicans want to eliminate Head Start services for more than 40,000 children and their families by 2005. The Republicans want to cut off energy assistance to 164,000 low-income families next year, precisely at the same time oil prices are rising. And the list goes on and on. The Republicans call their budget ``senior-friendly.'' Well, with friends like them, who needs enemies? The Republicans set aside $40 billion for reforming Medicare and establishing a prescription drug program, yet they fail to provide us with the details of how they plan to do so. There are reports that the Republican's prescription drug program would only cover low-income Medicare recipients. Do they actually think that only the poor take prescription drugs? In fact, over half of Medicare beneficiaries who lack prescription drug coverage have incomes above 150 percent of poverty. The cost of prescription drugs is the fastest growing part of health care, and it affects all Americans. We must establish a comprehensive prescription drug plan which covers all seniors, regardless of income, as they are the ones suffering the most from rising drug costs. The Republicans claim to put aside funds to shore-up Social Security. But in fact, if they do everything they promise, the Republican budget will actually spend the Social Security surplus. We need to protect Social Security, not put it under any more risk. It seems like everyone has learned the clear lessons of the last 7 years except my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Over the last 20 years we have put off addressing some of the major economic problems affecting American workers and their families. Now, during this time of unprecedented prosperity, it is time to begin dealing with these issues. If we can't do it now, then when can we? Instead of debating tax cuts which favor the rich and will put us back in the fiscal straight-jacket of massive debt, we should be discussing how to provide quality health care for all Americans, while controlling costs. We should be discussing ways to protect the most vulnerable Americans--the sick and the elderly. We should pass a strong patient's bill of rights, which includes a patient's right to sue for damages, that is not cynically loaded with poison bills--like Medical Savings Accounts, which are nothing more than tax cuts for the rich. We should raise the minimum wage without having to buy-off the wealthy by providing them close to $80 billion in estate tax cuts. Working full-time at the current minimum wage is not even enough to keep a family of 3 or 4 out of poverty. Raising the minimum wage is long overdue and should be done with no conditions attached. For these reasons and others, I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget resolution.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Save Money for Prescription Drug Research Act of 2000, a bill to deny tax deductions to drug companies for certain gifts and benefits, but not product samples, provided to physicians and to encourage use of such funds for pharmaceutical research and development. Rather than spending pharmaceutical dollars on these very questionable gifts, the industry should devote these billions of dollars to research and development of life-saving drugs. This bill will enable them to do so. The magnitude of drug company bribes to doctors is staggering. In its January 19, 2000, issue, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that U.S. drug companies spend more than $11 billion per year on drug promotion and marketing--an estimated $8,000 to $13,000 per physician. These ``gifts'' include free meals, travel subsidies, sponsored teachings, and even recreational benefits such as sporting event tickets and golfing fees, to name just a few. The JAMA article is attached. JAMA's analysis warns that the present extent of these practices ``appears to affect prescribing and professional behavior and should be further addressed at the level of policy and education.'' The $11 billion that drug companies spend lobbying doctors often leads to distorted, inappropriate, overprescribing of drugs. Over the years, I have personally received numerous examples of drug company gift-giving to physicians. One physician has sent me many particularly outlandish examples of perks he has been offered. The number of gifts offered over the course of 1 week is staggering. One week included an invitation to the races--with a private suite, lunch, and open bar from noon to 3 p.m. Subsequent days of the week featured a free dinner at a fine restaurant where meals averaged $25/plate and major league baseball tickets for the entire family. I would also like to insert in the Record a March 9, 2000, USA Today article. This article describes a growing tend among advertising and marketing firms to sponsor physician continuing medical education courses that doctors in 34 States need to keep their licenses. These marketing firms are paid by drug companies and often hire faculty to teach courses and educate medical professionals about their sponsors' products. This provides drug companies with another opportunity to impact physician prescribing practice and increase their company profits--while giving doctors a free, questionable way to meet their recertification requirement. Drug companies will claim that changes in tax treatment will directly decrease their investment in research. In fact, less than 4 months ago the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) analyzed the tax treatment of the pharmaceutical On top of their lowered tax rate, this industry already reaps billions and billions in profits every year. Fortune magazine rates the pharmaceutical industry as the most profitable business in America. The average compensation for 12 drug company CEO's was $22 million in 1998. Likewise, CRS reported that after-tax profits for the pharmaceutical industry averaged 17 percent--three times higher than the 5 percent profit margin of other industries. U.S. drug companies claim their exorbitant profits are justified by the high cost of research and development. Yet pharmaceutical companies generally spend twice as much on marketing and administration as they do on research and development. In fact, some companies are guilty of spending even more than that. Merck & Pfizer spent 11 percent of revenues on R&D in 1997, while spending 28 percent on administration and marketing--including gifts and promotions aimed at physicians. The pharmaceutical industry appears to have its priorities backward. Research and development is much more important than drug company promotions. Our nation has reaped great rewards as a result of pharmaceutical research; pharmaceutical and biotech research have led to the discovery of life-saving cures and treatments for ailments that would have cut lives short at one time. But drug companies can do more. Think of all the additional lives that could be saved if the pharmaceutical industry would dedicate the resources now spent on physician promotions to R&D. The need for this bill is clear. Denying the pharmaceutical industry the ability to deduct expenditures for gifts (other than product samples) to physicians is a critical step in providing Americans with access to more life-saving drugs. This will discourage drug company gifts that have been shown to sway physician prescribing behavior and free up more pharmaceutical revenue for R&D. By redirecting drug company promotional expenditures to their R&D budgets, the American public would reap the benefit of increased medical breakthroughs. If the companies choose to keep the $11 billion as company profits, then the additional tax revenue from these increases could be used to provide a much-needed Medicare prescription drug benefit. Any way you look at it, this bill is a winner for the American public. I look forward to working with my colleagues in support of this legislation to encourage pharmaceutical research and development and to deny drug company tax deductions for gifts to physicians. [From JAMA, Jan. 19, 2000] Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry Is a Gift Ever Just a Gift? (By Ashley Wazana, MD) There are few issues in medicine that bring clinicians into heated discussion as rapidly as the interaction between the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession. More than $11 billion is spent each year by pharmaceutical companies in promotion and marketing, $5 billion of which goes to sales representatives. It has been estimated that $8000 to $13000 is spent per year on each physician. The attitudes about this expensive interaction are divided and contradictory. One study found that 85% of medical students believe it is improper for politicians to accept a gift, whereas only 46% found it improper for themselves to accept a gift of similar value from the pharmaceutical company. Most medical associations have published guidelines to address this controversy. Perhaps the intensity of the discussion is related to the potential consequences were it confirmed that gifts influence prescription of medication that results in increasing cost or negative health outcomes. This article addresses the question by way of a critical examination of the evidence. Two review articles have addressed the factors affecting drug prescribing, but only 1 has focused on the impact of the physician-industry interaction on the behavior of physicians. This article critically examines the literature and highlights articles with rigorous study methods. Methods Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE for articles from 1994 to the present, using the expanded Medical Subject Headings conflict of interest and drug industry, limiting the search to articles in English while excluding review articles, letters, and editorials; each identified study was cross-referenced; a database of 400 articles gathered by the Medical Lobby for Appropriate Marketing was searched; and 5 key informants were sought for their bibliographies on the topic. A total of 538 studies that provided data on any of the main study questions were targeted for retrieval. Of the 29 studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals and identified as potentially relevant (containing quantitative data on 1 of 3 facets of physician-industry interactions), 10 were from MEDLINE and 19 from other sources. The data extractor (A.W.) was not blinded to the authors of the studies. Those with an analytical design (having a comparison group) were considered to be of higher methodological quality. Context. Controversy exists over the fact that physicians have regular contact with the pharmaceutical industry and its sales representatives, who spend a large sum of money each year promoting to them by way of gifts, free meals, travel subsidies, sponsored teachings, and symposia. Objective. To identify the extent of and attitudes toward the relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry and its representatives and its impact on the knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of physicians. Data Sources. A MEDLINE search was conducted for English- language articles published from 1994 to present, with review of reference lists from retrieved articles; in addition, an Internet database was searched and 5 key informants were interviewed. Study Section. A total of 538 of studies that provided data on any of the study questions were targeted for retrieval, 29 of which were included in the analysis. Data Extraction. Data were extracted by 1 author. Articles using an analytic design were considered to be of high methodological quality. Data Synthesis. Physician interactions with pharmaceutical representatives were generally endorsed, began in medical school, and continued at a rate of about 4 times per month. Meetings with pharmaceutical representatives were associated with requests by physicians for adding the drugs to the hospital formulary and changes in prescribing practice. Drug company-sponsored continuing medical education (CME) preferentially highlighted the sponsor's drug(s) compared with the CME programs. Attending sponsored CME events and accepting funding for travel or lodging for educational symposia were associated with increased prescription rates of the sponsor's medication. Attending presentations given by pharmaceutical representative speakers was also associated with nonrational prescribing. Conclusion. The present extent of physician-industry interactions appears to affect prescribing and professional behavior and should be further addressed at the level of policy and education.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) to close the debate for us.

Mr. STARK. And the majority closes; is that correct, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, may I ask what the remaining time is?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume. Many years ago distinguished legislators, Senator Humphrey and Congressman Hawkins, had the Humphrey-Hawkins bill which was to deal with unemployment and the right of all Americans to participate in our economy and the largest that this country has to offer. We have had success. Currently unemployment and inflation are low, and the average wages are rising; productivity is growing, and there is cause to celebrate. These economic gains were due largely to the policies of the last 7 years. But we may have met the numeric targets of Humphrey and Hawkins, but we still have a lot to do to meet the overreaching goals which the Joint Economic Committee is charged with researching and analyzing. Despite the prosperity that we have experienced, the average after- tax income of the wealthiest families grows faster than that for all Americans. Some of my colleagues would like to argue that the Tax Code should not be used to redistribute income to the poor, and I will buy that; but we should also stop using the Tax Code to redistribute income to the rich, such as we have been doing. Today, 2 million or 3 million people took home as much after-tax income as 100 million people in the lowest 38 percent of our population combined. That does not seem right. We have been ignoring these 100 million people. It has led us to some serious problems. As the Republican budget would call for increasing defense $17 billion above the administration's request and above, in many instances, the request of the Defense Department branches themselves, this additional $17.5 billion could, indeed, provide Head Start to 2 million additional children; it could provide child care to 8 million additional children; it could provide, in addition, good high-quality 21st century after-school to close to 35 million additional children. Think what we could do for our children if we were willing to forego just one new weapons system that indeed the armed forces say they do not want. In addition to being a budget-buster, this excessive defense spending forces us to shift priorities away from feeding and clothing and educating children, caring for the sick, the elderly and the poor. The Republicans, of course, have a solution to this problem: cut nondefense discretionary spending by 6 percent or $115 billion. Where are they going to get that money? Well, they are going to cut 310,000 low-income women off of WIC just next year. The Republicans will deny child care to over 12,000 children of working parents in 2001; they will eliminate Head Start services for more than 40,000 children and their families by 2005; and they are going to cut emergency energy assistance to 164,000 low-income families. Now, that may be compassion, but with compassionate senior-friendly friends like that, who needs enemies? The Republicans say they set aside money for reforming Medicare, but they did not; and as I said before, every Republican on the Committee on Ways and Means voted against providing a prescription drug benefit to seniors at no cost. This was free. Now, I would invite the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), for instance, who has a lot of seniors in his district, to explain to the seniors. Come to the floor, I say to the gentleman from Florida, and I will give him time, and tell the seniors in Florida why he will not give them a discount on their prescription drugs such as we get, say, for the Veterans' Administration. Or the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) where we have a lot of seniors to come and say why he voted against providing a drug benefit to seniors in Arizona, or the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), and why she voted against it for seniors in Connecticut, or the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), why the seniors in Pennsylvania should be hamstrung and have to pay twice the reasonable cost for their prescription drugs because he voted against a provision to provide a discount to seniors for their prescription drugs, and it would have no cost. I know the Republicans do not want to spend any money and take it away from the tax cuts they want to give to the rich, but why can we not help all of the seniors at no cost? I would like any Republican to stand up and explain to the seniors of America why they oppose giving them a break on their prescription drug benefits. To me, that is not compassion, that is indifference and arrogance. The only answer could be is that they want to help those pharmaceutical companies, with big campaign contributions, to continue to make their outrageous profits on the backs of our poor elderly citizens. And to campaign for the White House on the basis of compassion with that kind of a record, to me, is a travesty; and I am sure that the American people will see through it. The Democrats will offer several budgets. We are a broader coalition. We include more people. We have more than just rich people in our party. My colleagues will hear some disagreement, and there will be different votes this afternoon. None of the budgets offered will increase defense spending, and particularly on unneeded, unwanted weapons and, in many cases, weapons that have been proven not to work. None of the budgets will cut programs to the needy and the elderly and children in our country at the rate the Republicans will. This is a priority that we are establishing. This budget tells one what one's legislators believe in. Look at it carefully. The Democrats believe in helping all Americans in closing the income gap and educating our children and providing prescription drug benefits and good health care to all Americans. The Republicans would give it to the 2 or 3 percent richest people and the largest campaign contributors only and let the poor people and the innocent children take the hind most. If that is what my colleagues want, and there may be some very rich people in the country who want it, fine, vote for Republican. But for those of my colleagues who want to help our seniors and children and provide education and medical care to all Americans, they better support the Democratic budget, because it is the humane, decent American thing to do. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.