Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Not at this time. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. STARK. But then he found the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. Aha. He did not have to bother with the Federal court and the $1.6 billion he stole from the savings and loans. He could just sneak a little amendment in here to get himself absolved and continue to rip off on the public. Is that the kind of a private citizen we should be helping when it entails destroying these redwoods which all of the citizens of the country can enjoy, I ask the gentleman?

Mr. STARK. We could make a deal with the devil himself and trade him out of his.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue talking about families. Somehow it seems that in this list of families, we left off one leading Californian, and I think that the gentleman from Washington would indulge me that if, in fact, there were a citizen and a worthy cause, he might be more sympathetic to the Riggs amendment. But the fact is, these families with their couple of hundred acres are not really affected by this. But good old Charlie Hurwitz, now there is a man that we could all be proud of. He has got 40-some-odd thousands acres of this stuff, most of which he got by stealing money from the Federal Government. Charlie, if he is not under indictment, he is under the cloud of it for raiding a savings and loan which he used to buy Pacific Lumber. After he bought Pacific Lumber in the district of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and this is who the gentleman is trying to protect, he proceeded to lay off 105 people and he proceeded to log all these redwoods and sell them off to pay off the junk bonds that were supposed to pay off the savings and loan that forced the Pacific Life Insurance Company, Executive Life, into bankruptcy, costing not only the people in his district 100 jobs but costing hundreds of people to lose their pensions. This is good old Charlie Hurwitz from the gentleman's district. He is the corporate raider who owns this land who is trying to clear-cut all of the redwoods. Forget the murrelets. Let us think about the hundreds of loggers who will be out of work when Charlie is done. I think that we should protect private property. The first person we ought to protect is the Federal Government from raiders like Hurwitz who will go in and clean out a savings and loan to illegally acquire this property, then begin to fire the people, deprive them of their pensions, sell off really what is a birthright for generations to come, these magestic redwoods, cut them down, sell them off to pay off junk bonds. Is that the kind of a gentleman that you would like to help, I would ask the distinguished gentleman from Washington? The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] wants to help him.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska's point is well taken. The intent of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is unquestionably honorable in this. He is trying to help Mr. Hurwitz, there is no question about that, and that is his right as it is Mr. Hurwitz's right who still walks abroad as a free man even though he has some civil differences with the Federal Government. I appreciate that. However, the question still remains, is good old Charlie the kind of person that we think should be helped by giving him a gift and allowing him to log these redwoods.

Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the press reports indicate that Republicans have reached a deal among themselves and at long last, after 2 months, they want to appoint conferees, which I presume is for taking pictures and presenting us with a done deal. Not exactly what I would consider an open and fair legislative process. My colleagues across the aisle have purposely turned their backs on the best opportunity of the year for a bipartisan bill that would have been developed openly and fairly. It is completely backward from the normal process and is designed to end run the will of a majority of the Senate in opposition to medical savings accounts. Mr. Speaker, we do not know many, many of the important deals of the back room deal. If it is like previous ones that handed billions of dollars to the American Medical Association in exchange for support of an ill constructed and conceived Medicare bill, or if it is similar to a payoff of the supporters of GOPAC and the Republican Party to pay off the Golden Rule Insurance Co., we can be pretty sure that those deals are in there. The Senate passed a good bill. It did a better job on mental health amendments, which provided parity, which I assume the Republicans do not care about mental health. It did not deal roughshod with malpractice, and recognizes that 80,000 people are killed in hospitals each year. It weakened antifraud, or the Republican bill weakens antifraud and the Senate did not. The Senate did away with the MEWA's and is a better bill all around. The Senate bill provides 80 percent deductibility for the self- employed. It covers all companies, not just those with less than 50 workers, and it is a better protection for the purchase of an individual insurance policy. Mr. Speaker, for individuals, for U.S. citizens, the Senate is a better bill. The House bill is better for large contributors to the Republican Party. The House bill is a better bill for rich doctors. The House bill is a better bill for insurance companies. It is not as good a bill for individuals in this country. It would be in the best interest of our constituents, of all people in this country, to go back, accept the Senate bill and recognize that we have thereby done a good job.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor St. Peter's Parish, founded on Capitol Hill in 1821. On June 29, 1996, St. Peter's will officially celebrate its 175th anniversary with a homecoming celebration, giving testament to the spirit and faith of the Hill community. As the local parish, St. Peter's has weathered the changes in Congress and seen this neighborhood grow from a cozy residential area to the bustling cluster of Federal buildings we have today. Its existence is one of the few marks of continuity left to our past. As a longtime resident of the Capitol Hill area, I salute St. Peter's as a historical symbol and an excellent neighbor. I hope that the next 175 years will be equally good to the parish.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Excuse me. That is not in the bill; is it?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time for a moment, the gentleman is asking me to vote for some 88 waivers here which he described to me. I do not have any time to review this. The gentleman has had the experience of all of these hearings or had the experience of reviewing this. If I could just finish.

Mr. STARK. We do not need a review, but we need a bill that we can read. We are spending taxpayers' money to help Wisconsin.

Mr. STARK. Why is that not in the bill? What is the gentleman reading from?

Mr. STARK. I am sorry, I trust the gentleman, but I would like to know. This is an area in which I have legislated for some time. What fair hearing rights is he waiving, for example? He is waiving, in item 17 in his bill, in the record, the gentleman is saying he is waiving lump sums. I think he meant some lumps, but.

Mr. STARK. The gentleman lists waivers that he is asking for. One of the waivers is fair hearing rights.

Mr. STARK. I am sure big guys like you would have whipped short guys like me. Perhaps the gentleman from Janesville would indulge me for a few minutes, because I understand that he understands what they have done in Wisconsin; but I cannot quite understand what it is here that he is asking us to do today. For instance, in his waivers he is asking to waive fair hearing rights. Can he explain to me what fair hearing rights he wants to waive? What fair hearing rights does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] want to waive here?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the south side of Milwaukee. I grew up on the west side of Milwaukee. We used to beat Janesville in basketball at Wauwatosa High School.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Representative Matsui and I are today introducing a bill to provide Medicare part A hospital insurance buy-in relief for certain individuals who, through no fault of their own, were not able to participate in the Medicare Program and have received no help from their former employers in buying into the Medicare program in their retirement years. The bill we are introducing is a less expensive variation of a bill we introduced last December 18, H.R. 2805. The bill will help about 30,000 people, generally retired school teachers and other public servants, whose governmental unit did not participate in Medicare. For many of these retirees, their original health insurance plans have become insanely expensive or been terminated as the pool of insureds has shrunk. These individuals have been forced into the option of buying into Medicare part A. But the monthly premiums for those who buy-in on their own are now a little over $250 a month or $3000 a year. For many older retired teachers, this expense can easily eat up a third to a half--or even more--of their pension. Our bill would provide that after a person has purchased on their own--without third party help--Medicare part A insurance for 5 years, they will have met their obligation and not owe any additional amounts. Of the roughly 330,000 people who are buying into part A, approximately 300,000 receive help from their former employer or from another source. The 30,000 people who are strictly on their own are the people this bill would help. After 5 years of buy-in, these individuals will have contributed more to part A than the average worker in similar professions would have contributed in taxes. By limiting the payment to 5 years, we provide some measure of fairness and save these individuals from crippling costs as they grow older. I want to take a minute to thank Mr. Harold Taylor of San Lorenzo, CA who has worked on this issue for years and has been an invaluable source of information. He has been a constant voice of conscience in trying to help older, retired teachers who are facing these extraordinary burdens. I hope that when we next consider improvements to the Medicare Program, we can adopt this legislation to help a small group of individuals who are facing terrible financial burdens that are not their fault.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, recently two tobacco industry giants, Philip Morris USA and United States Tobacco [UST], presented a gift to the American people: their approach to how the industry and the Federal Government could work together to reduce youth smoking. Their present was beautifully wrapped with an agreement to ban cigarette vending machines, to restrict mail distribution of tobacco products, and to prohibit billboard advertising of tobacco products within 1,000 feet of schools--all of which would be greatly effective in decreasing youth smoking, an injurious activity that one out of every three American high school students take part in. But once we tear away the ribbons and packaging on this present, we find that all that's left is gag gift from the tobacco industry. The Philip Morris/UST proposal mocks the health and welfare of our Nation's children and the tobacco industry gets the last laugh. The Philip Morris/UST proposal is an utter sham compared to the FDA's proposed rule: The FDA proposed rule bans tobacco sponsorship of any athletic, musical, artistic or other social or cultural event. Under their proposal, the tobacco industry can sponsor motorsports and rodeo, two events that the tobacco industry is heavily invested in. These sporting events are the most commonly attended sporting events in the country. The FDA proposed rule restricts tobacco advertisements to publications with an adult readership of 85 percent or more and less than 2 million readers under 18 years old. The industry proposal changes readership to subscribers. Since most children and youths do not subscribe to magazines, this provision becomes ineffectual. The FDA proposed rule requires each tobacco manufacturer to contribute to a $150 million public education campaign to discourage youth from tobacco use. The tobacco industry doesn't even bother to include this provision in their proposal. But most importantly, the Philip Morris/UST proposal eliminates FDA jurisdiction over tobacco products. This would effectively shut down the FDA's ability to regulate tobacco at all with disastrous effects: It would preempt the FDA from ruling that nicotine is a drug. It would preempt the FDA from ruling that nicotine is addictive. And it would preempt the FDA from ruling that a cigarette is a device used to transmit an addictive drug. With no FDA jurisdiction over tobacco, there is no agency with authority over nicotine-containing tobacco products. We cannot allow the tobacco industry to go unregulated especially in the area of youth smoking. The threat to our Nation's children is too great. For example, in California alone: Over 29 million packs of cigarettes are sold to California children annually, generating $62.5 million in sales revenue for the tobacco industry. Teens under 18 can successfully purchase tobacco from one out of three tobacco retailers in California. Smoking among youth in California is increasing from 9.1 percent in 1993 to 10.9 percent in 1994. And California is one of the leaders in anti-smoking efforts. I could only imagine how bad the statistics would be if even our few laws weren't in place. Philip Morris and UST know that their public support has been reduced to ashes. Since today is World No-Tobacco Day, I urge Congress to embrace the FDA proposal, a comprehensive approach to reduce youth tobacco use and reject the tobacco industry's sham proposal. No deal for Philip Morris and UST. Our children's health is non-negotiable.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate May as Older Americans Month. This month is a special time to acknowledge the valuable contributions made by the senior citizens of this Nation, and to recognize their special needs. It is also a time to bring age- related issues to the forefront of America's attention. The population of this country is growing older at an unprecedented rate. By the year 2050, one in five Americans will be over 65 years of age. Older Americans Month gives us an opportunity to think about how we must plan to meet the needs of the rapidly growing number of our Nation's senior citizens. At the forefront of the issues concerning older Americans is the current debate over the so-called reform of Medicare. Medicare currently provides over 90 percent of Americans over the age of 65 with quality health insurance benefits. There is no private insurance plan in the country that offers the wide range of benefits and affordable care that the Federal Medicare Program provides. Yet in their proposed budget plan, Republicans still want to cut $167 billion in Medicare and $72 billion in Medicaid. These cuts are unprecedented, and would have a devastating impact on today's older Americans, as well as destroying the options of future retiring citizens. Seniors would be forced into private managed care programs which are proven to be more restrictive and make money by denying care. While essential Federal health care benefits will be sacrificed, these cuts are planned to provide tax breaks for the wealthy. The Republican proposal would abandon the needs of older Americans rather than meet them. This month, and in the months to come, let us recognize the senior citizens of this country, not by cutting their benefits and threatening their future, but by giving them hope in maintaining their health and security.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of the upward bound program at California State University, Hayward [CSUH], in California's 13th Congressional District, and the 21 high school seniors who are graduating from the program this Saturday, May 25, 1996. The upward bound program began in 1965 at colleges and universities throughout the country. The purpose of the program is to prepare low- income students who will be the first in their families to receive a 4- year college degree to attend a college or university. The program provides tutoring, instruction, counseling, career orientation, and an opportunity to experience educational development and personal growth within a college setting to these students while they are still in high school. There are now over 550 upward bound programs nationwide. The Program at CSUH began in 1990 and now serves 65 low-income, first generation high school students in southern Alameda County. To be eligible for the upward bound program, a student must meet the following requirements; the student must have the potential to succeed in college although his or her grades or test scores may not reflect this, the student must come from a low-income background as established by the U.S. Department of Education, or come from a family whose parents or guardians have not graduated from a 4-year college. The upward bound program at CSUH consists of two parts. The academic year component includes Saturday instructional sessions at CSUH, tutorial sessions during the week, field trips to places of educational, cultural, and recreational value, assistance in preparing students' academic programs, college admission applications, and financial aid applications, participation in cultural and other special activities, and close communication with the students' high school teachers, counselors, and parents in a coordinated effort to maximize students educational development. The summer session component is an intensive 4 to 6 week residential and academic program at CSUH. Upward bound students take high school level developmental and enrichment courses while receiving tutoring and intensive career, academic, and personal counseling. Students also have access to all facilities available to regular CSUH students, including sports, cultural, and recreational events, field trips, entertainment, and college orientation. All of these activities give the upward bound student the opportunity to see what it is like to live as a college student. I would like to take this opportunity to mention the upward bound graduating seniors by name. In alphabetical order, they are Juan Callejas, Paul Childress, Ronald Clark, Magdelena Chmielinski, Maria Coronado, Tiffini Cox, Janelle Davis, Javier Garcia, Lonnie Houston, Jennifer Laforga, Kishneel Lall, Raquel Leon, Ajanta Lewis, Justin Mallet, Chelsea Parnell, Edward Rhea, Keywonishi Rogers, Mohan Sakhrani, Reybeykah Salaries, Tram-Anh Ta, and Eeric Tsu. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my colleagues join me in congratulating these students on their achievement and in recognizing CSUH's upward bound program for its dedication and commitment to promoting educational equity and opportunity through a program that opens doors to students who are in the first generation of their families to consider postsecondary education.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Judge Wilmont Sweeney who is retiring as presiding judge of the Juvenile Division of the Alameda County Superior Court on June 1, 1996. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Judge Sweeney for his years of dedication and commitment to the welfare of the children of Alameda County, in California's 13th Congressional District. Judge Sweeney is a long-time resident of the San Francisco Bay Area. He received his undergraduate degree in 1950 from the University of California at Berkeley and his J.D. from Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. After being admitted to the California Bar in 1955, he began his legal career in private practice with the firm Wilson, Metoyer, Sweeney & Broussard. In 1974, Judge Sweeney was appointed to the Berkeley-Albany Municipal Court Bench by Governor Reagan and was elected in 1978. In 1979, Judge Sweeney was elected to the Superior Court Bench of Alameda County by Governor Brown, Jr. He was reelected to the Superior Court in 1986 and 1992. Judge Sweeney became presiding judge of the Juvenile Division of the Alameda County Superior Court in 1981. As presiding judge, Judge Sweeney has been an inspiration to others in the field of juvenile law. He was a founding member of the Juvenile Court Judges of California. In 1992, he was the first recipient of this organization's Juvenile Judge of the Year Award. During Judge Sweeney's tenure, the Alameda County Juvenile Court developed a reputation second to none for its compassion and commitment to justice for children, their families, and the community. Judge Sweeney has always been an active member of the community. From 1961 to 1974, he served as a member of the Berkeley City Council and from 1967 to 1974, he was the vice mayor of the city of Berkeley. He has also served on a number of committees including the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Juvenile Court Law, the Juvenile Court Judges of California Executive Committee, the Child Abuse Policy Board of Alameda County, and the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation Strategic Planning Committee. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that you and my colleagues join me in recognizing Judge Wilmont Sweeney for his years of dedication to the children of Alameda County and to wish him well in all of his future endeavors. He will be missed.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, there once was a senior from Tupelo. Who had so many duplicative health insurance policies, she didn't know what to do! Before 1980, this was all too often the case. Senior citizens were being sold costly health insurance policies that they were told would supplement their Medicare coverage. Instead, those policies provided them with nothing but a hole in their pocket because most of what was covered by the supplemental policy was already covered by Medicare. Thus, seniors were paying for worthless health care policies that did nothing but break the bank. Over the past 16 years, I have helped pass laws that prohibit the sale of duplicative health insurance policies to unknowing seniors. I have also helped pass laws that require insurance companies to give prospective senior purchasers a slip of paper that lets them know that the health insurance policy they are buying duplicates some Medicare benefits. But once again, the House Republicans have kow-towed to greedy big insurers and included a provision in their health insurance legislation which effectively tosses that slip of paper in the trash--and along with it consumer protection for our senior citizens. The Republicans want to abolish the law that requires insurance companies to notify Medicare beneficiaries before selling them insurance that duplicates any of their Medicare benefits. It seems that Republicans are happy to let big insurers duplicate benefits--and dupe our senior citizens in the process. background Sixteen years ago, the Federal Government responded to increasing evidence that senior citizens were being sold duplicative, virtually worthless health insurance policies. In 1980, Congress enacted the Baucus amendments to the Social Security Act, which established standards for MediGap, Medicare supplemental insurance, and prohibited the sale of health insurance policies which substantially duplicated Medicare benefits. In 1990, Congress further refined the law by prohibiting the sale of health insurance that duplicates Medicare benefits. In 1994, amendments to the Social Security Act allowed the sale of duplicative policies as long as the policy paid out regardless of other coverage and as long as the buyer was made aware of the duplicative services included in the supplemental policy. This law empowered seniors, allowing them to make good health care purchasing decisions and in the process saved them money. moving backwards--the republican scheme to protect insurance companies at the expense of consumer protections for seniors As part of the health insurance legislation, which passed the House on March 28th, Republicans slipped a provision into the bill which would no longer require insurance sales staff to let seniors know if the policy they were selling them duplicated their Medicare benefits. That is ridiculous. By eliminating this requirement, we are effectively turning back the clock to the days where seniors got ripped-off by unscrupulous salesmen right and left. Why would we want to do this to our fathers and mothers, our grandmothers and grandfathers? Apparently, the Republicans don't care if our families are taken advantage of by the insurance companies. dump the add-on language, not the consumer protection The Senate health care legislation, known as the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation does not eliminate the consumer notification requirement. It represents good health policy by providing health insurance security for thousands more Americans without putting our seniors at risk. The House version which eliminates the notification requirement, eliminates security for our seniors by making them targets for abuse by insurance companies. We must strike the language that eliminates consumer notice requirements. Current law protects our seniors by ensuring that potential subscribers understand that they may not need the coverage provided under the policy they are being asked to purchase. If we do not strike this language, senior citizens will look like dollar signs rather than educated consumers to insurance sales staff. I support the Kassebaum-Kennedy version of the health care legislation currently before Congress. We cannot allow the Republicans to eliminate the consumer notification protection and put our parents and grandparents at risk. As the saying goes, you get what you pay for. But in this case, seniors pay through the nose and get nothing but taken to the cleaners.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Conyers amendment to H.R. 3259, the fiscal year 1997 intelligence authorization bill. The Conyers amendment would require the release of a separate, unclassified statement of budget outlays for intelligence activities. It is high time that this come under the same scrutiny as other Government spending. For many years during the cold war, the budget figures for intelligence were kept secret so that our enemies would not know our aggregate spending levels. Although I might question that justification, the point is now moot. The cold war is over, and any attempt to use it to justify the continuing secrecy of a large, expensive set of programs seems to be a cynical attempt to evade oversight and proper accounting. The need for public scrutiny is clear: from the press reports of the last few weeks, I learned that the National Reconnaissance Office, the agency that manages spy satellites, has accumulated a financial surplus of $3.8 billion. Let's assume that any other agency--one less popular with the majority party, perhaps--had stockpiled billions of dollars. Do you think, with a public viewing of their finances, that such an agency would have been allowed to continue stockpiling money? How do I explain to mother that the Federal Government has no money for well baby care but has billions for spies slush funds? As if the human costs of continued Government secrecy weren't bad enough, there is a clear constitutional mandate for public disclosure of intelligence spending. The Constitution states that ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.'' Whey then do we continue to shroud intelligence spending, and keep our taxpayers in the dark? When the public receives the amount of money spent on intelligence by accident--the 1994 Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearings disclosed an aggregate of $28 billion dollars--or by press leaks, it merely contributes to the dangerous perception of Government as ``Big Brother''. We can help stop that perception today by adopting the Conyers amendment and proving that no arm of Government is immune to public scrutiny. It's time to bring the intelligence community in line with the rest of Government. No agency should be free from a public examination of its finances. It's common sense, it's constitutional, and it's responsible. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Conyers amendment.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Solomon part A amendment to H.R. 3230, the fiscal year 1997 Defense Authorization Act. The Solomon amendment would place restrictions on the cooperative threat reduction denuclearization program in Russia. CTR is also known as the Nunn-Lugar program, after its bipartisan sponsors in the Senate. Nunn-Lugar provides for the release of American funds to help speed the destruction of Russia's massive nuclear weapons stockpile. Russia's nuclear weapons are often poorly guarded and the threat of nuclear terrorism, either through theft or illicit sales of Russian fissile material, is all too real. The Nunn-Lugar program is a sensible approach to this serious problem, and represents one of the best investments we can make in our national security. The Solomon amendment requires that Russia meet 10 conditions before funds could be released to Russia. While all of the conditions represent goals I would like to see reached, such as Russia's full withdrawal of troops from Chechnya and Moldova, I do not believe it is a good idea to allow Russia to maintain a large, unsecure nuclear stockpile that might reach the hands of terrorists. If anything, we should raise the amount of money allocated to destroying Russia's nuclear weapons instead of trying to eliminate funding. The Solomon amendment is dangerous, unnecessary, and effectively guts one of the best bipartisan programs around. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, following is a letter in opposition to medical savings plans from Delta Dental, the large dental health care plan that serves about 27 million Americans. May 3, 1996. Hon. Fortney Pete Stark, U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon Building, Washington,