Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose H. Con. Res. 6, a resolution expressing, the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should continue to exercise its statutory authority to support the activities of the Boy Scouts of America.

I do not oppose the Boy Scouts. However, I do oppose the Federal Government using its resources to support an organization that blatantly discriminates against various groups.

As a private organization, the Boy Scouts may exclude individuals from membership based on their sexual orientation, religion, or gender. I disagree with that decision, but it is their right.

But I oppose a resolution commending any part of our government--even the Department of Defense--for supporting the Boy Scouts or any other organization that promotes active discrimination.

The author of this resolution may be concerned that courts are calling into question the appropriateness of the support the Department of Defense provides to the Boy Scouts. I hope the courts do move forward to end this explicit government support of discrimination. We should do that here in Congress, but instead my Republican colleagues are trying to hinder the courts from enforcing civil rights.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Margaret (Marge) Kolar's 29 years of exemplary service with the Fish and Wildlife Service. For the past 10 years Marge has served as the project leader for the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, whose administrative offices are located in Newark, CA.

As project leader, Marge has overseen seven unique San Francisco Bay and Monterey Bay area refuges. Her most recent projects include her active collaboration on the Project Management Team for the South Bay Restoration Project. In February 2005, Marge will move from her current position to serve as assistant manager for the Refuge Program in the California Nevada Regional Office.

Marge has served in a variety of programs, geographic areas, and organizational levels. She started her federal career with a 3-year stint in the Peace Corps as a teacher in Sierra Leone, West Africa. After several years in the private sector, Marge joined the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1976. She joined the Office of Biological Services in Washington DC, working on the National Wetlands Inventory and other wetland issues. In 1980, she moved to the Service's Washington/ Oregon Area Office as the assistant area manager for Environment and Endangered Species, supervising three field stations. During her time in the Area Office, Marge also worked as the Habitat Protection Coordinator, including developing proposals for refuge land acquisition. Her next move was to the East Lansing, Michigan Field Office, where she was the assistant field supervisor and acting field supervisor from 1982 to 1989. Marge returned to the Washington office in 1989 to work in the Branch of Federal Activities and Habitat Conservation. Her last 3 years in this office were as Branch Chief.

I applaud Marge's extensive experience and impressive career in public service. Her contributions and leadership as Refuge Complex Manager of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge have left an indelible mark. I join her colleagues in thanking her for her dedicated service to the Refuge Complex and wish her every success in her new position within the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mr. Speaker, when the Ways and Means Committee held our organizational meeting earlier today, I offered an amendment to change the committee rules on behalf of the Democrats. My amendment would have allowed the minority party to conduct oversight hearings on the administration when the majority refused to do so. Such a change is vitally important because, with Republicans controlling both Congress and the White House, it is clear that they do not want to expose problems that exist in the Bush administration.

Below is my statement in support of the amendment I offered. It was defeated on party lines. I encourage my colleagues and the public to read this statement and take notice of the fact that Congress' duty to conduct oversight is being undermined in this Republican-run House of Representatives. The full statement follows:

As we consider changes to the Committee's rules, I have an

amendment to offer on behalf of the Democrats.

The purpose of my amendment is to restore the duty of

oversight to our committee. Since President Bush took office,

House Republicans have decided that conducting oversight of

the Administration is not a necessary function. We'd like to

fix that.

My amendment is very straightforward. It would allow the

Ranking Member to request in writing that the Chairman hold a

hearing regarding alleged ethical misconduct or any violation

of the law by an Administration employee. If the Chairman

chose not to hold a hearing within 30 calendar days, then the

minority would be allowed to move forward with an official

Ways and Means Hearing. We would schedule it. We would invite

the witnesses. We would have subpoena authority as well.

Why is this amendment needed?

This amendment is vitally necessary because the Committee

on Ways and Means is no longer doing its job with regard to

protecting the integrity of the programs under our

jurisdiction.

The lack of oversight is a problem across our committees in

Congress, but let me provide three prime examples of this

problem with the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdiction:

Medicare: There are at least two incidents--that we know

of--related to the Medicare debate from the 108th Congress.

First, the Committee failed to fulfill its duties

investigating former CMS Administrator Tom Scully's actions

to gag Chief Actuary Rick Foster from responding to our

requests relating to the Medicare bill in 2003. Given that I

had always assumed we had a mutual interest in protecting the

prerogatives of the Committee and Congress, I was surprised

and disappointed that the majority doesn't apparently share

this view.

The Chairman may well try to make the case that we held two

hearings on this last year. While we did hold one routine

hearing on the Trustees Report, which happens each year, the

other one came about only because Democrats forced it through

the use of House Rule 11. However, because we had no subpoena

authority, neither Tom Scully nor Domestic Policy Advisor

Doug Badger were willing to testify at the hearing. Since

they were the key witnesses, our hearing was fairly

meaningless. The Chairman had said he would support

additional efforts if ``laws had been broken.'' Later

independent analysis from both CRS and GAO found that laws

had indeed been broken, but the promised oversight never

materialized.

Separate from the Scully incident was the discovery that

CMS had paid consultants to produce news videos on the

Medicare prescription drug bill. GAO found that these ads

were covert propaganda and should not have been allowed. In

their report, the GAO General Counsel stated, ``In a modest

but meaningful way, the publicity or propaganda restriction

helps to mark the boundary between an agency making

information available to the public and agencies creating

news reports unbeknownst to the receiving audience.''

Marriage Promotion: Now we're discovering that the use of

propaganda was not limited to promoting last year's Medicare

bill. Everyone has already heard about the Department of

Education grant to conservative talk show host Armstrong

Williams. But, that isn't in our committee's jurisdiction.

Other examples are however.

Thanks to the work of reporters at the Washington Post,

Salon and USA Today (thankfully those entities still do

oversight), it has been discovered that HHS has provided

grants to columnists to promote Bush's marriage promotion

agenda.

Specifically, Maggie Gallagher, a syndicated columnist, was

paid $21,500 to promote the Bush marriage agenda in her

columns. She is president of the Institute for Marriage and

Public Policy, a frequent television guest, and has written

on marriage for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and

Weekly Standard. She did not disclose that HHS had paid her

to promote the marriage initiative when she was touting it in

columns and on television.

Michael McManus, a conservative author and self-proclaimed

marriage expert, who writes a syndicated column ``Ethics &

Religion'' also received federal funds from HHS to train

``marriage mentors'' ($4000) and $49,000 to promote marriage

among unwed couples. He did not disclose this relationship

when writing in support of the marriage initiative in his

columns during this same time.

Social Security: Last week, two Social Security

Administration employees came forth to raise their concerns

that government employees within SSA are being required to

promote President Bush's Social Security privatization

agenda. Aside from being improper, this is probably illegal

as well. Our Senate Democratic Colleagues exposed this latest

example of potential wrongdoing.

Mr. Chairman, these are three glaring examples of potential

misuse of taxpayer funds in areas all under the jurisdiction

of our committee. Yet, we've done nothing to investigate

these allegations to discover if they are improper--or worse,

to find out if the problems are even more widespread.

Many of us on the Democratic side of the aisle have stepped

up to investigate these allegations. We've requested GAO

reports as I've cited above. Unfortunately, there is no

enforcement for GAO when they find violations of the law. It

is up to us in Congress to pursue remedies or to change the

law to prevent future violations.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. It seems very

clear that Republicans don't intend to do this oversight on

their own. At least give us the ability to conduct these

hearings and do our best to protect the taxpayers from the

misuse of government resources.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Michael J. Preston, Newark, California's Fire Chief, who is retiring after thirty years of exemplary service.

Chief Preston joined the Newark Fire Department on May 1, 1974 as a firefighter. He rose through the ranks to be appointed City of Newark Fire Chief on January 1, 2001. He was president of the Newark Firefighters Association from 1980 to 1985 and assumed the duties of Fire Marshal on December 16, 1987. In his capacity as Fire Marshal, Chief Preston developed the City's sprinkler ordinance for residential occupancies. He was promoted to First Assistant Fire Chief on January 1, 1990 and promoted to Assistant Fire Chief in 1993.

In 1998, Chief Preston served as the City of Newark's Disaster coordinator and in this capacity, procured an auxiliary water system for emergency use. He was also instrumental in promoting the highest level of advanced life support by supporting the presence of paramedics on City of Newark fire engines. In 1999, Chief Preston served as President of the Alameda County Fire Chief's Emergency Medical Services Section.

He has made numerous contributions to enhance the fire safety of Newark's residents. He secured the Automatic Aid Agreement with the neighboring city of Union City and supported technological advancements for the city by procuring advanced technology fire engines that improved service levels. He has also promoted programs that have proven beneficial to the County of Alameda by assisting in the development of the Alameda County Emergency Medical Service System.

I join the admirers of Michael J. Preston's thirty years of dedicated commitment to excellence and offer my sincere appreciation for all he has done to make a difference.

Mr. Speaker, not long ago, a Congressman from Ohio entered into the Congressional Record a recent newspaper account concerning his legal proceeding against Representative Jim McDermott, my friend and colleague from Washington State. I was struck by this.

This story began with two newspaper accounts over 7 years ago. If we are going to reflect on this, I think it is only fair that Members of the House and the American people have access to the same basic information, so they can make up their own minds.

In this spirit, I am entering into the Record, and I would urge everyone to read, newspaper accounts carried by the New York Times and the Atlanta Journal Constitution. These stories disclosed efforts by then-Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich and Republican Members to skirt an agreement Gingrich had reached with the Ethics Committee.

At issue today are substantial issues concerning Free Speech and Freedom of the Press. The Courts have yet to render a full and final decision. While the legal process is underway, I believe we serve this House and the American people best by taking the time to be fully and fairly informed.

[From the New York Times, Jan. 10, 1997]

Gingrich Is Heard Urging Tactics in Ethics Case

(By Adam Clymer)

On the day in December when Newt Gingrich admitted bringing

discredit on the House, his lawyer told Republican leaders

that the Speaker had promised an ethics subcommittee not to

use his office and his allies to orchestrate a Republican

counterattack against the committee's charges.

That was part of the price for the subcommittee's agreement

to accept his admission of guilt and spare him the potential

humiliation of a full-scale public trial.

But that same day, even before the charges had been made

public, Mr. Gingrich held a telephone conference call with

other House leaders in which he made suggestions for a

statement that the leaders would issue immediately after the

subcommittee's charges were disclosed.

He also suggested the timing of various responses to

Democratic attacks. The politicians agreed among themselves

how they could use their opponents' comments to attack the

subcommittee's findings indirectly without technically

violating the agreement that Mr. Gingrich's lawyers made with

the ethics subcommittee.

The call was taped by people in Florida who were

unsympathetic to Mr. Gingrich and who said they heard it on a

police scanner that happened to pick up the cellular

telephone transmissions of one of the participants. It was

given to a Democratic Congressman, who made the tape

available to The New York Times. Mr. Gingrich's office

today did not question the authenticity of the

conversation, but insisted that it did not violate any

agreement with the ethics subcommittee.

The Speaker and his allies acknowledged at the time that

their conversation was a bit ``premature,'' since the

subcommittee had not yet even voted on the charges against

Mr. Gingrich. Nevertheless, they talked about how to handle

inevitable Democratic attacks, how to time the day's events

with newspapers, news agencies and the evening television

news in mind, and--above all--how to avoid making all that

look as if Mr. Gingrich was pulling the strings.

In the Dec. 21 conversation, Mr. Gingrich's lawyer, Ed

Bethune, said, ``it is very important for me to be able to

say to the special counsel and if necessary to the committee

members that we--and by that I mean the other attorney, Randy

Evans, and I, and Newt--have done everything in our power to

try to stop all things that might be construed in any way as

an orchestration attempt by Newt Gingrich.''

Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Bethune and the others discussed their

tactics in a conference telephone call, a transcript of which

was made available by a Democratic Congressman hostile to Mr.

Gingrich who insisted that he not be identified further.

The Congressman said the tape had been given to him on

Wednesday by a couple who said they were from northern

Florida. He quoted them as saying it had been recorded off a

radio scanner, suggesting that one participant was using a

cellular telephone. They said it was recorded about 9:45 A.M.

on Dec. 21.

The tape, in which the voices of Mr. Gingrich and other

Republican leaders are clearly recognizable, was plainly a

recording of a conversation that took place before the

subcommittee released its charges and Mr. Gingrich's

admissions.

The call capped a week of elaborate plea-bargaining over

the framing of the charges--and Mr. Gingrich's admission--

that the Speaker had brought discredit on the House by giving

untrue information to the ethics committee and by failing to

get proper legal advice about the way he used money from tax-

exempt foundations for a college course and televised town

meetings with political overtones.

Mr. Gingrich's admission of guilt avoided a full-scale

trial in which the details would have been televised

nationally. In return, the committee's special counsel, James

M. Cole, insisted on a promise that the Speaker would not use

his allies to mount a counterattack against the

subcommittee's case, since its rules forbade Mr. Cole and

members from answering such attacks.

The tone of the conversation was optimistic. The Speaker

and the other leaders believed that a coordinated response

could enable them to limit political fallout.

And the talk, one of many that day, ended on a light note.

After the basic outlines of the statement the leaders would

issue had been agreed on, Representative Dick Armey of Texas,

the majority leader, had another suggestion for how Mr.

Gingrich could handle the menacing accusation that he had

deliberately lied to the committee: ``I am not

sure you are ready for this, but you could quote Larry Gatlin

and the Gatlin Brothers.''

Mr. Gingrich asked, 'Which one is that?''

Mr. Armey warbled: ``I did not mean to deceive you. I never

intended to push or shove. I just wish that you was someone

that I love.''

Today, Lauren Maddox, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gingrich,

defended the Speaker's role. She said: ``Newt has always had

the right to run for Speaker and campaign. Any statement he

made was in no way undermining the work of the committee.''

She added: ``There was a specific agreement between Newt's

lawyers and the special counsel that Newt could brief the

leadership. And it was always understood that in turn, the

leadership could respond in any way they thought was

appropriate.''

In the December conversation, Mr. Bethune said in a couple

of hours, once the subcommittee announced its actions, ``it

would also be a time when we are authorized to have the

conversation that we are having now, a little prematurely.

But I don't think it would be troubling to anyone that we are

a little ahead of the gun.''

Mr. Cole would not comment today, but the conversation

itself suggested that the situation at the time seemed more

complicated than Ms. Maddox contended.

Mr. Bethune, who served with Mr. Gingrich in the House for

six years and now practices law in Washington, made several

efforts to outline the slippery path that all must follow.

One ally asked him what the leaders should say about any

agreement between Mr. Gingrich and the subcommittee.

The lawyer replied: ``No. I didn't say there was an

agreement. I said there was a delicate process under way and

that this is what Newt is going to do, in response to the

delicate process. There is no agreement, no deal. We are not

authorized to say that.

``Now if I can be very delicate here. There is one other

constraint,'' Mr. Bethune continued. ``He can run for

Speaker, but he must maintain his confidentiality as far as

public statements. And then, finally, Newt will not

orchestrate, nor will he be--he will not orchestrate any

attempt to spin this in such a way that it belies what he is

admitting today in the statement of alleged violations.''

But having barred one door, Mr. Bethune opened a window.

``Having served as a member,'' he said, ``you know when

documents become public, I as a member, am entitled to say

whatever the hell I want to say about those public documents.

1 guess that applies to any of you all who may be

listening.''

The men also talked about how they could use Mr. Gingrich's

main adversary, Representative David E. Bonior of Michigan,

the House Democratic whip, as a springboard to make arguments

that Mr. Gingrich's agreement with the subcommittee would

otherwise preclude.

``We know that Bonior is going to be having a press

conference shortly thereafter, alleging a bunch of things

that go too far,'' said Ed Gillespie, communications director

of the Republican National Committee. ``Once he has kicked

that off, that would give us an opportunity to then go back

and refute what he has said, and we have not jumped the gun

on opening and we have simply responded.''

Mr. Gingrich praised the suggestion. ``Ed's very clever.''

he said. ``Bonior, he will undoubtedly say things that are

not true, will exaggerate what the committee has done.''

Representative Bill Paxon of upstate New York, a

coordinator of moves by the Republican leadership in the

House, said it was essential to have a quick response after

the subcommittee released its material.

The Speaker suggested that a leadership response be put out

by 2 or 3 p.m., within a couple of hours of his statement and

the subcommittee's statement. ``I'm not an expert,'' he said,

but ``at that point we're in by the evening news, catch the

morning papers.''

Then the group went over the statement, with various

suggestions offered about how to say that the Speaker had

never intentionally misled the ethics committee.

The Speaker sought to end the cross talk by saying, ``Why

don't we pick up Ed's language: `Although there is no charge

that Newt intentionally misled the committee, Newt was

responsible for the mistakes that were made?' ''

Ultimately, the statement as issued changed a little. It

said, ``it should be noted, and is clear, he did not seek nor

intend to mislead the committee.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 50th anniversary of Washington Hospital's Service League. Washington Hospital, located in Fremont, CA, will mark the anniversary at a celebration on February 7, 2005.

At 11:30 a.m., on March 6, 1955, ground was broken for the construction of Washington Hospital. During this same month, 14 civic- minded women in the community came together to plan a volunteer organization that would work in and for the hospital.

As a result of their commitment, the Washington Hospital Service League became a reality in 1956; the hospital opened on November 24, 1958. The Service League's goal was--and still is--to support the hospital by purchasing much needed equipment and to assist patients, visitors and staff.

Over the years, the Service League has raised more than $1.79 million for equipment in almost every department at Washington Hospital, enabling community members to obtain state-of-the-art health care in their own community. Seed money donated by the Service League helped bring to fruition Washington Hospital Healthcare Foundation, Washington-Stanford Radiation Oncology Center and the Community Health Resource Library.

One of the Service League's activities that has continued to change the lives of so many in the community was the establishment of a scholarship program in 1961. Since the first nursing scholarship in the amount of $150 was awarded to a nursing student at Highland Hospital, the volunteers have given more than $150,000 to students seeking a career in health care.

The Service League volunteers also bring a human touch--freely offering a cheerful smile, a friendly attitude and thousands of hours of service to the hospital's patients, visitors and staff.

I join in congratulating all the volunteers who have contributed to the success of the Washington Hospital Service League over the past 50 years, and the present-day volunteers who continue to make a positive difference by giving back to the community.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 11) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as the dean of the California delegation, I offer this privileged resolution expressing the profound sorrow of all of us within the House of Representatives at Bob Matsui's passing. I am honored to sponsor this resolution in an attempt to memorialize Bob's contributions to Congress and to our Nation.

Like all of us, I was shocked to hear the news that someone as vibrant as Bob Matsui is no longer with us. He has been a forceful leader in Congress, and he will be missed. I will miss his counsel and his friendship, having been honored to serve with him during his time in Congress as a fellow Californian and on the Committee on Ways and Means.

But first of all, my thoughts and condolences go to his family, Bob's wife Doris, his son Brian, daughter-in-law Amy, and granddaughter Anna.

I just got around I guess to opening his Christmas card a day or so before the sad news came and was reminded of a night early on when Brian, who is now an adult with an adult life, and he could not have been more than 5 or 6 at the time, and he was at a reception with Bob and Doris and myself and choked on a chicken bone, and the consternation we all had, patting Brian on the back and getting him through the chicken bone incident. So as I say to Brian and to Doris, Bob's memory will live with them and give them great support as they move ahead in their lives.

In his time here, Bob demonstrated and embodied the utmost integrity. He knew and understood the purpose, the greater purpose, really, which we in the House are entrusted with. He lived by and set high standards in public service. In a word, he was a statesman. He went through the experience of being interned during World War II, and it never made him bitter. He never lost his spirit. Rather, it gave him resolve for his own convictions and his sense of public service.

He started in Sacramento after a brief career in law, and then he came to Congress in 1979, starting out with the Committee on the Judiciary and then with the Committee on Government Operations, and then later joining the Committee on Ways and Means where he really became our resident expert on Social Security and was active in trade and tax policy issues as well. He tackled those issues, as I am sure any of my colleagues who have discussed Social Security with him know, with sharp intellect, deep convictions, and compassion for what was right. But he was fair. He had a sense of humility and one of respect I think of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

I do know one thing, that Bob Matsui would have wanted to be here to lead the Democrats in the fight to protect Social Security in this coming session of Congress. He was prepared for it. He was geared up for it. He had been spending his time over the last several weeks before his sad passing to lead us in the effort to protect Social Security. His convictions of compassion mark his work on behalf of disadvantaged children and families in our country as well.

Bob championed expanded health care coverage for children and was a tireless advocate for child welfare. Indeed, he joined many of us in opposing our own administration during the welfare reform issues in 1996, and he introduced key legislation to expand job training and education programs to help people in poverty. We lost that battle in 1996, but he remained steadfast in his commitment to ensure that people got lifted out of poverty, not just kicked off the welfare rolls.

So as the new year began, I had looked forward to his counsel and working with him side-by-side as it were on our committee on important issues.

His spirit will continue to inspire us in the days ahead and with gratitude for all he has done, we will carry on his work and do all we can to honor his life and his contributions to the American people. I know that the House tonight will adjourn in his honor, and on New Year's he adjourned sine die. We say so long, old friend.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy at this point to yield 3 minutes on behalf of the Congressional Asian and Pacific Islanders Caucus to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

(Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who does not realize that among the other things that he has to thank Bob for is the fact that he will learn now he will have to sit next to me on the committee and he has been spared that all these years.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, in order to accommodate a number of speakers on both sides of the aisle, I ask unanimous

consent to extend my time for 1 hour and that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) control my time.

Pending that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, my East Bay California colleagues Mr. George Miller, Mrs. Ellen Tauscher, and Ms. Barbara Lee, join with me to recognize the 70th anniversary of the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), headquartered in Oakland, California. The Park District spans Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and encompasses 1,745 square miles on the eastern side of San Francisco.

In 1934, a unique ``regional park'' concept, unheard of at the time, was presented to the voters on a November ballot measure. A vote for the proposed new Park District meant an increased five-cent tax on every $100 worth of property. Even in the economic hardships of the Great Depression, where a nickel still went a long way, citizens approved the initiative by a 2\1/2\ to 1 margin and the Park District was created.

The East Bay Regional Park District opened its first three parks in 1936, which included present-day Tilden Regional Park, Sibley Volcanic Preserve and Lake Temescal. Redwood Park was added to the list of parks a few years later.

In the intervening years, the Park District grew from seven cities-- Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Piedmont and San Leandro--to encompass all of Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

Today, the East Bay Regional Park District is the largest local park agency in the United States. It encompasses over 95,000 acres of parkland in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties for outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, and nature education.

The Park District's vision is to ``preserve a priceless heritage of natural and cultural resources, open space, parks and trails for the future and will set aside park areas for enjoyment and healthful recreation for generations to come. EBRDP states ``an environmental ethic guides us in all that we do.''

The Park District's core mission is to ``acquire, develop, manage, and maintain a high quality, diverse system of interconnected parklands which balances public usage and education programs with protection and preservation of our natural and cultural resources.''

The vision and mission of the East Bay Regional Parks continues to be achieved with commitment and efficiency. For 70 years, the East Bay Regional Parks has been dedicated to preserving open space and offering enjoyable and healthy recreation opportunities for local residents.

We join in honoring the individuals whose vision created an unprecedented Regional Park System and the individuals who continue to ensure the East Bay Regional Park District's success.

Mr. Speaker, much has been written and said about the role ``moral values'' played in the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. I'd like to recommend the attached article from Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section to my colleagues. The author, Dick Meyer, Editorial Director for CBSNews.com, writes about how this focus on ``moral values'' is, ``a neat theory--but wrong.''

As many of us seek to evaluate this past election, I urge my colleagues to read this article. I agree with the author that this moral values perspective has been greatly overblown and does a disservice to a more thorough evaluation of the election.

[From washingtonpost.com, Dec. 5, 2004]

The Anatomy of Myth--How Did One Exit Poll Answer Become the Story of

How Bush Won? Good Question.

(By Dick Meyer)

Social and intellectual conventions are supposed to settle

slowly, but conventional wisdom can congeal instantly and

without much wisdom. That's what has happened over the past

several weeks with a prevailing interpretation of this year's

presidential election--the great moral values theory.

The Big Political Idea of the '04 election goes something

like this: ``Moral values'' turned out to be the most

important issue to voters, not the economy or the Iraq war or

terrorism. President Bush won because a legion of ``values

voters''--whose growing numbers escaped the attention of an

inattentive media--preferred him. The Democrats are doomed

until they can woo the voters who belong to this new

political force.

It's a neat theory--but wrong. How it came to be regarded

as the real story of Bush's victory is a fascinating and

sobering example of journalism's quest for freshness and

surprise.

Here's the simple fact: The evidence that moral values

determined the election rests on a single dodgy exit poll

question. And it's not at all clear that more voters are

preoccupied with moral values now than were fretting about

``family values'' on Election Day 1996, when exit pollsters

included that phrase in a question about ``priorities for the

new administration.'' But in the often arid and repetitive

arena of American political ideas, fun new contestants can be

hard to disqualify. The myth of the moral values election is

proving hard to snuff out.

The mantra was in full hum on election night. Television

commentators were understandably struck by the results of the

question asked of almost 7,000 voters as they left their

polling places: ``Which one issue mattered most in deciding

how you voted for president?'' The most cited issue on the

list of seven options offered to those surveyed was ``moral

values'' at 22 percent; 80 percent of these voters went

for President Bush, 18 percent for Democratic nominee john

Kerry. ``Economy/jobs'' came next on the list at 20

percent, followed by terrorism (19 percent), Iraq (15

percent) and then health care, taxes and education in

single digits.

Brian Healy was the CBS News producer covering the exit

polls, something he has done in many elections. He recalled

that everyone was surprised that moral values topped the list

as the numbers came in, but it wasn't until about 4 a.m. that

someone quite innocently asked, ``What exactly are `moral

values'?''

Too late. The story line was already set. And the surprise

nature of the moral values result boosted its allure for the

commentariat. When the newspapers could finally write

definitive headlines, the notion that moral values was a

synonym for various conservative positions became a given--as

did its decisive effect on the outcome of the contest.

``Faith, Values Fueled Win,'' reported the Chicago Tribune.

`` `Values voters' key to Bush re-election,'' declared the

Fort Worth Star Telegram. ``Moral Values Decide Election,''

the Tri-Valley Herald in northern California told its online

readers.

From the modest experiment of one exit poll question, a

Unified Theory of Election 2004 was hatched. Pundits began to

spread the word. ``Ethics and moral values were ascendant

last night--on voters' minds, in Americans' hearts,'' William

J. Bennett wrote in a column posted in the National Review

Online at 11:09 a.m. on the morning after the election--even

before Kerry's concession and Bush's victory speech.

Several days later, American Prospect Executive Editor

Michael Tomasky expressed the apocalyptic Democratic

interpretation in his column: ``The reelection of a president

such as George W. Bush for the reasons the exit polls tell us

he evidently won is a culminating event in the political

retreat of modernity, a condition of existence whose

fundamental tenet was the triumph of scientific skepticism

over what used to be called `blind' faith.'' Wow.

And on CNN's ``Crossfire,'' co-host Tucker Carlson opened

the Nov. 5 show with this categorical assessment: ``Three

days after the presidential election, it is clear that it was

not the war on terror, but the issue of what we're calling

moral values that drove President Bush and other

Republicans to victory this week.''

Some reporters were even apologetic for missing the big

story. ``Somewhere along the line, all of us missed this

moral values thing,'' said CNN's Candy Crowley in a speech to

a Florida audience.

Political reporters may have many things to atone for, but

missing ``the moral values thing'' is not one of them. Plenty

of commentators have tried to spike this dogma (including me

in one of my columns), but it has proved a stubborn

adversary. Let's take another swing at it.

Yes, the issues boiled down into the code phrase ``moral

values'' were a factor in this election. There are voters

passionately concerned with gay marriage and abortion, and an

overwhelming number of them supported President Bush. It's

also clear that gay marriage ballot initiatives energized

these voters, as did Republican efforts to get out that vote.

But the size and impact of that cohort has been

exaggerated. And the impact of other issues (war, terrorism)

and leadership qualities was minimized. That's mostly because

of oddities in the exit poll, but also because this Big

Political Idea conforms to what some Republican strategists

are peddling (and their interpretation has the added

credibility that winners get in writing history). It also

fits neatly the red/blue, ``two Americas'' school of thought,

which projects the country as deeply divided and at war over

cultural issues.

If the national exit poll had been worded differently,

moral values would not have been the top issue and this

argument wouldn't be happening.

If, for example, one of the choices on the exit poll list

combined ``terrorism'' and ``Iraq,'' it probably would have

been the top concern and nobody would be talking about moral

values.

If economy/jobs and taxes were one item instead of two, it

might have been the winner. Who knows what the exit poll

would have found if ``truth in government'' were an option.

Or ``character.''

And, most, importantly, the definition of moral values is

in the eye of the evaluator. Most voters probably did think

moral values meant being against gay marriage, stem cell

research and late-term abortion; but others undoubtedly

thought it meant helping poor people or not invading Iraq.

For some, moral values may have referred to character

attributes of the candidates. It is a bit of a Rorschach

test. Moral values are not a discrete, clear political issue

to be set next to taxes or terrorism; it's public-opinion

apples and oranges.

Gary Langer, the polling director for ABC News who helped

design the exit poll but objected to including the moral

values option on the issues list, pointed out some of these

flaws in a Nov. 6 op-ed for the New York Times. He argued

that ``this hot-button catch phrase had no place alongside

defined political issues on the list of most important

concerns in the 2004 vote. Its presence there created a deep

distortion--one that threatens to misinform the political

discourse for years to come.''

Now, to the hard question: Are there more values voters

than there used to be?

In 2000, the consortium that ran the national exit poll did

not list ``moral values'' as an option on their issues menu.

At that time, it would have been seen as a question about

Bill and Monica, and so pretty useless. So it's hard to know

whether the slice of the electorate concerned with such

matters has grown during President Bush's term.

We do know that in the 1996 question about the next

administration's priorities, ``family values'' was tops for

17 percent (behind the winner, ``health of the economy,'' at

21 percent), and that group largely went for Bob Dole. So you

could argue that the 17 percent whose top worry was family

values and went heavily Republican turned into 22 percent

worried about moral values in 2004. That's a slight shift,

but hardly a cultural tsunami--and remember, no one asked

these voters for their definition of family values then, or

moral values now.

Nonetheless, analysts have been surfing on tidal-wave

conclusions. It has become a breast-beating crisis for

Democrats that the values voters who were 22 percent of the

electorate went for the Republican by a crushing margin, 80

percent to 18 percent. By that logic, it must follow that

it's a crisis for Republicans that the 20 percent who care

most about the economy and jobs went 80-18 for the

Democrat.

Or perhaps it's a crisis for the Republicans that the 45

percent slice of the electorate that describes itself as

moderate went for Kerry 54-45? Or that first-time voters went

53-46 for Kerry? So many crises, so few facts to support

them.

Voting behavior does divvy up Americans into certain

patterns. Rural residents and heavy churchgoers vote

Republican. City people and church-avoiders vote Democratic.

But these cleavages have persisted in several elections.

Moral values didn't just seep into the drinking water.

Yet the myth persists. Sometimes it's perpetuated by

partisans claiming that Democrats are hostile to values

voters. ``There simply aren't enough voters in Berkeley,

Santa Monica, Santa Fe, Manhattan and Cambridge to offset the

many concerned evangelicals, Catholics and Jews in the rest

of the nation for whom moral values are a determining

issue,'' wrote Richard A. Viguerie and David Franke in a Nov.

15 Los Angeles Times op-ed.

Sometimes it's perpetuated by those looking at the red and

blue divide. Even after many debunking pieces came out, a

story in

the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle about strained relations

in the Christian community noted that ``it has gotten

stickier than ever in the aftermath of a presidential

election in which moral values played a key role in keeping

George W. Bush in the White House.''

A Nov. 22 op-ed in Newsday by political scientist Laura R.

Olson also took off from the fatal assumption. ``The much-

touted exit poll finding that moral values were the most

important Election Day concern of 22 percent of voters

highlights the fact that a sizable number of Americans expect

political leaders to offer a prophetic vision,'' she wrote.

I'm not picking on her; that's just one example of many I

could have cited.

Other scholars have tried to put the exit poll question in

perspective. Lawrence R. Jacobs, a political science

professor and director of the 2004 Election Project at the

University of Minnesota, wrote: ``The initial conclusion of

media commentators that `moral values' determined the outcome

of the 2004 presidential election was off the mark,

neglecting the impacts of partisanship and the economy.''

Despite the best efforts of myth-busters, the moral values

doctrine has morphed from a simple poll finding to a grand

explanatory theory to gospel truth. This contaminated strain

of punditry needs to be eradicated before it spreads further.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize an essay composed by Helen Lu, a 16-year-old junior at Washington High School in Fremont, CA. Miss Lu delivered her essay at the Alameda County Veterans Affairs Commission's Veterans Day commemoration on November 11, 2004.

Be Proud To Be an American

Be proud to be an American. Be proud that you are part of

this great democratic society, founded on the ideals of

liberty and freedom that our forefathers have fought for in

the American Revolution.

Be proud to be an American. Remember our role in the

destruction of that Fascist dictatorship in the Second World

War.

Be proud to be an American, that you live in the most

democratic nation in the world and take part in the most

dynamic and developed economy.

Be proud to be an American, though you may look at what is

going on these days, and sigh in disappointment at our

divided condition regarding a war. But we have known greater

division, the American Civil War. Yet we still come together

as a nation. We still have come together to build this great

nation into what it is today.

Be proud to be an American, even though we are uncertain if

every war has been justified. There are those who call

Vietnam a mistake. There are those who call the war in Iraq

an error. You can dwell on those issues the other 364 days of

the year, but today just remember the millions of men and

women who have so selflessly devoted their lives to their

country.

Be proud to be an American, for there is one thing certain,

and remember it when you feel lost amidst all the political

argument: there have always been brave men and women who

would lay down their lives to protect those of yours and

mine. There have always been courageous men and women who

would sacrifice themselves for their country. We may look

back at any war and condemn it as a grave mistake. We may

look back on this war in Iraq, where thousands of young men

and women have died, as a grave mistake. History may show

that we had mistakes, but we will always be certain of the

absolute heroism of those who sacrificed for their country.

Be proud to be an American. Your country is a nation in

which people may disagree over values and beliefs, yet always

come together in the end to fight any battle that needs to be

fought.

To all our veterans, those who are here with us and to

those who gave their lives in the service of their country,

you have our utmost respect.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an excellent article recently published in the New York Times. For years I have talked about the benefits of real managed care, not the managed cost model Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration blindly push at the expense of patients.

In his article, Steve Lohr presents the facts about Kaiser Permanente and its non-profit staff model health maintenance organization. For thousands of people in my district and millions across the country Kaiser provides quality, cost effective care, while still finding the resources necessary to be a leader in the development of health information technology. At the same time, Kaiser keeps costs down by effectively managing chronic conditions and educating healthy members to avoid chronic conditions down the road.

Tax credits and personal responsibility will do little or nothing to ameliorate the crisis of 45 million uninsured Americans. The Kaiser model is the most reasonable approach to creating a single-payer universal health care system. Obstacles to reaching the goal of universal coverage are many, but this article presents the hard fact that Kaiser is the future of American health care.

It is with pleasure that I submit the attached article, ``Is Kaiser the Future of American Health Care?'' for inclusion in the Congressional Record. The article originally appeared in the October 31, 2004 edition of The New York Times.

[From the New York Times, Oct. 31, 2004]

Is Kaiser the Future of American Health Care?

(By Steve Lohr)

Oakland, CA--After 18 years in private practice, Dr. Victor

Silvestre was exhausted from his lonely battle, day after

day, with a health care system that seemed to be working

against him. A general practitioner, Dr. Silvestre found it

increasingly difficult to get his patients appointments with

specialists, who tended to focus on lucrative procedures

instead of routine care. Paperwork and haggling with

insurance companies, he said, took more and more time.

``There just had to be a better way,'' he recalled.

For Dr. Silvestre, the better way was not across the border

in Canada, or in some affluent nearby suburb, but in his own

backyard, in Oakland. Two years ago, he joined Kaiser

Permanente, the huge health maintenance organization based

here. ``So many of the solutions, the ingredients of a more

rational system for delivering health care, were there,'' he

said.

It may seem unlikely, given Kaiser's past image as a ham-

handed H.M.O., but plenty of others are reaching the same

conclusion. High-level visitors from across the political

spectrum--the Bush administration and National Health Service

of Britain, for example--are coming to California these days

to look at Kaiser as an institution that is actually doing

some of the things needed to improve health care.

Obviously, there is no single model for revamping the

nation's costly, disjointed health care system, and Kaiser

certainly has its share of problems. But according to

economists and medical experts, Kaiser is a leader in the

drive both to increase the quality of care and to spend

health dollars more wisely, using technology and incentives

tailored to those goals. ``Quality health care in America

will never be cheap, but Kaiser probably does it better than

anywhere else,'' said Uwe E. Reinhardt, an economist at

Princeton who specializes in health issues.

HEALTH care systems in most industrialized countries are in

crises of one form or another. But the American system is

characterized by both feast and famine: it leads the world in

delivering high-tech medical miracles but leaves 45 million

people uninsured. The United States spends more on health

care than any other country--$6,167 a person a year--yet it

is a laggard among wealthy nations under basic health

measures like life expectancy. In a nutshell, America's

health care system, according to many experts, is a

nonsystem. ``It's like the worst market system you could

devise, just a mess,'' said Neelam Sekhri, a health policy

specialist at the World Health Organization in Geneva.

In this political season, the health care debate has been

mostly about who will pay the bill. President Bush talks

about tax credits and health savings accounts that are

intended to give people more control over their care but

would also mean that they would pay more out of their own

pockets. Senator John Kerry wants the government to pay more,

and he has proposed a major, and costly, program to cover the

uninsured.

The favored solution of many liberals--and of no small

number of health care experts--is a single-payer system of

health insurance, covering the entire population and

underwritten by the government. For the foreseeable future,

that is considered politically off-limits, which was the

message Washington absorbed from the abandoned effort to

fashion a national health program in the Clinton

administration.

How to finance health care is only one side of the problem.

The other is how to deliver the care more intelligently, and

that is where the Kaiser experience holds lessons. Given the

demands of an aging population and steady advances in medical

technology, national health spending will continue to climb.

Yet by all accounts, there is plenty of waste--estimates

range up to 30 percent or more of total spending--from

unnecessary clinical tests, hospital stays and prescriptions,

and the bedeviling sea of paper used to handle bills, claims

and patient records.

``We're not going to spend less, but figuring out how to

get the most value out of our health spending is going to be

the big issue of the future,'' said David Cutler, a health

care economist at Harvard.

But Kaiser as a model? Wasn't Kaiser, an H.M.O., part of

the ``managed care'' movement that faltered in the 1990's

amid protests from doctors and patients? In fact, Kaiser,

with its origins in the 1930's and 1940's, when the

industrialist Henry J. Kaiser provided health care for his

construction and shipyard workers, has always been a hybrid.

The managed care concept of the 1990's was about having an

outside bean counter, usually an insurance company, looking

over the shoulder of the doctor--managing costs instead of

managing care.

Kaiser has a different setup with different incentives. It

emphasizes preventive care and managing chronic diseases like

heart disease and diabetes to keep people healthier. And that

saves money because healthier people require less costly care

like hospitalization.

The country's largest private-sector provider of health

care, Kaiser employs more than 11,000 physicians and 135,000

other workers, owns 30 hospitals and hundreds of clinics

and serves more than eight million members in nine states and

the District of Columbia. Seventy percent are in California.

Kaiser is both insurer and provider; employers typically pay

fixed yearly fees for each member, no matter how much care is

provided.

Clearly, Kaiser has its limits as a model for others. It is

unlike many mainstream health plans in that it is a not-for-

profit company--though one with annual revenue of more than

$25 billion and operating margins of 5 percent. Its

facilities tend to be large, and it has a lingering

reputation for practicing an impersonal, regimented style of

medicine that limits patient choice, despite recent efforts

like the creation of physicians' personal Web pages and e-

mail communication with patients.

Still, most health care experts who have studied Kaiser are

impressed. ``Kaiser has a model that consciously manages both

quality and costs in a way that has been very effective,''

said Margaret O'Kane, president of the National Committee for

Quality Assurance, an independent group that monitors health

plans.

Kaiser's approach is best illustrated in two ways: its

management of chronic illnesses like heart disease and

diabetes, and its $3 billion initiative to use information

technology to improve clinical care and streamline

operations.

Across the country, health costs are skewed. In any given

year, 90 percent of spending provides care for 30 percent of

the population, and more than half of total spending goes to

5 percent of the population. Much of it is spent on people

with chronic illnesses like heart disease and diabetes. So

helping people with those ailments stay as healthy as

possible offers much opportunity for cutting costs--and for

improving lives.

In Northern California, Kaiser has sharply reduced the

death rate for its three million members there in recent

years by monitoring and controlling blood pressure and

cholesterol levels and by promoting the use of aspirin and

beta blockers (to reduce the risk of heart attacks) and

statins (to lower cholesterol). The death rate from heart

disease among the Kaiser members is 30 percent lower than it

is in the rest of the Northern California population,

adjusted for age and gender.

Four months ago, Jose Flores, 44, a postal worker in San

Francisco, had double-bypass heart surgery. While still in

the hospital, he was enrolled in a program of education and

treatment, which is run by nurses and lasts a year. Patients

receive instruction on diet, exercise and cholesterol

management; smokers are placed in a course to help them quit.

Mr. Flores says he is on a drug regimen that includes beta

blockers and Lovastatin, a generic cholesterol-lowering

statin. He takes large doses of niacin, a vitamin that raises

the level of high-density lipoprotein, the ``good''

cholesterol that protects against heart attacks. He walks for

an hour, five days a week. His eating habits have been

transformed, too: fried foods were once a staple of his diet,

but no more. Blacklisted, too, are sour cream, cheese and

corn chips. ``Now, I try to avoid all that,'' Mr. Flores

said.

In Northern California alone, Kaiser spends $55 million a

year on chronic-care management programs. ``But what's really

expensive is if we don't take care of these people and manage

their chronic conditions,'' said Dr. Robert Mithun, chief of

internal medicine at Kaiser's medical center in San

Francisco.

Dr. Mithun's comment may seem like no more than common

sense, but it does not reflect the typical logic of the

dominant fee-for-service model of health care. Most doctors

and hospitals get a fee from insurers for each patient visit,

clinical test, surgical procedure or day a patient spends in

a hospital. In practice, the fee-for-service system is often

an invitation to do more of everything--more visits, more

tests, more surgery. What gets done is what gets paid for,

and insurers usually do not pay for preventive care or

chronic care management provided by nurses or in group

classes, like the ones at Kaiser.

In the fee-for-service medical economy, doctors and

hospitals routinely strike different deals at different fees

with many different insurers. The results are complexity,

inefficiency and a constant bureaucratic tug-of-war between

health care providers and insurers over claims.

The Kaiser economy seems a world apart. ``What works at

Kaiser is the integration of the financing and delivery of

care, and the aligned incentives that allow you to make more

rational decisions about health care for members,'' said Ms.

Sekhri, the policy expert at the World Health Organization,

who has studied Kaiser.

Ms. Sekhri was a co-author of a 2002 report that compared

Kaiser in California with the National Health Service of

Britain. The report found that for comparable spending, the

Kaiser system in California did a better job of keeping

people with chronic conditions out of hospitals. And when

Kaiser patients were admitted to hospitals, their stays were

generally shorter. Recently, Britain sent groups of primary

care physicians and hospital administrators to California to

learn from Kaiser.

The Labor government in Britain may look to Kaiser as an

efficient model for its health service, which is run by the

government. But the Bush administration is more interested in

Kaiser as a model for the efficiencies and integration that

can be achieved through information technology.

In May, the Bush administration appointed Dr. David J.

Brailer to the new post of national coordinator of health

information technology. His mandate is to prod the nation's

health care system into the computer age. Bringing patient

records and prescriptions out of the pen-and-ink era promises

to save both dollars and lives. The automation of an

electronic system could sharply reduce medical errors, which

are estimated to be responsible for 45,000 to 98,000 deaths a

year, according to the Institute of Medicine of the National

Academy of Sciences.

Kaiser has been investing heavily in information technology

for years. Its clinical information system includes

electronic records with a patient's history, prescriptions

and preventive health recommendations. A doctor can call up a

patient's X-ray or magnetic resonance image on a desktop

personal computer. Electronic prescribing--a goal in the

government plan--is routine at Kaiser.

Yet Kaiser is in the midst of a several-year, $3 billion

program, called KP HealthConnect, to drastically improve and

integrate its clinical and administrative systems and Web-

based services for members. Once it is in place, Kaiser

clinicians will be able to tap into a vast but flexible

storehouse of data that uses intelligent software to

automatically flag potentially harmful drug combinations for

a patient or to suggest what treatments have been most

effective for other people who are of the same sex, age group

and--eventually--genetic profile.

Dr. Brailer, for one, checks in regularly on the progress

of HealthConnect. George Halvorson, Kaiser's chief executive,

said, ``Policy makers are looking to us as the cutting edge

of how health care can be supported electronically.''

Kaiser has had setbacks in the program. Last year, it

abandoned I.B.M. as its main partner on the project and chose

to go with specialized health care software provided by Epic

Systems, a private company in Madison, Wis. Despite the

switch, HealthConnect is scheduled to be rolled out during

the next couple of years across Kaiser's operations.

The conversion of inefficient paperwork to a digital

network also opens the door to fostering more efficient

markets in health care. Markets rely on information, yet the

health care economy is one in which information on patients,

treatments and outcomes is trapped on paper and isolated in

clinics, hospitals and insurance offices--instead of being

shared, analyzed and compared, while still insuring privacy.

The fee-for-service model exists because patient visits,

clinical tests and surgical procedures can be measured. They

are inputs, in economic terms. Whether those inputs are

effective is another matter.

In recent years, there have been efforts to focus on the

quality of health care. The National Committee for Quality

Assurance conducts annual reports based on a health plan's

use of practices shown to improve patients' health, from

timely prenatal care to cholesterol management. Kaiser plans

consistently earn excellent ratings in the group's reports,

and, this year, it had four of the five top-rated plans in

the Pacific region, its stronghold.

Dr. Francis J. Crosson, the executive director of the

physicians' side of Kaiser, said, ``Our future has to be to

compete on quality, offering people demonstrably better care

and better value.''

And the Kaiser system delivers quality while controlling

total costs. A recent survey of health care costs in 15

metropolitan areas by Hewitt Associates, the human resources

consulting firm, found that the cost for care per employee

last year was lowest in the San Francisco area, where Kaiser

members were about 35 percent of the insured population, at

$5,515, and was highest in regions where Kaiser did not

operate--led by New York, at $6,818 a worker.

Quality yardsticks are helpful, but they still measure

inputs--ones associated with better health--instead of

tracking how patients fare. The longer-term goal is for

health plans to use technology more, as leading companies in

the rest of the economy do. For the health plans, that may

mean constantly tracking patients, treatments and results.

``To have a real market for quality in health care, you need

a product,'' Mr. Halvorson said. ``And that means reliable,

timely information about outcomes, clinical-trial sorts of

databases that show things like, for example, 50-year-olds in

our system have fewer heart attacks.

``With the right information and the right incentives,'' he

added, ``capitalism creates very good solutions.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Barbara J. Sidari, who is retiring from the San Lorenzo Unified School District Board. Mrs. Sidari has served the students, parents, teachers, and administrators in the school district of San Lorenzo, California since she was first elected in April 1979. She served until 1983 and was reelected in November 1988 and has served continuously since that time. Mrs. Sidari was elected by her fellow Board members to serve as president and vice president/clerk of the Board several times.

During her twenty years as a Board member, Mrs. Sidari represented the Board of Education on numerous committees and councils throughout the county. She is especially proud of her accomplishments as a member of the Eden Area Regional Occupational Center Council, a position she has held for nineteen years. She has also served as chair of the Council for several terms.

Mrs. Sidari has always been active in school affairs having held several positions from Historian to President of the local PTA. She is a former Cub Scout Den Mother and Brownie Leader and continues her active service in a number of educational and civic organizations.

Barbara J. Sidari exemplifies commitment and service. Her contributions to her community are noteworthy. As she ends her twenty- year tenure on the San Lorenzo School Board, I congratulate her and applaud all that she has done to make a difference in the lives of others. Mrs. Sidari will be honored at a reception on January 25, 2005. I join her colleagues, friends, and admirers in expressing good wishes and appreciation for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 2986, a bill that increases the federal debt limit by $814 billion while doing nothing to ensure a return to fiscally responsible economic policy. If we continue to spend at the current rate while giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, our national debt will top $8 trillion in the very near future.

Just weeks ago, President Bush and many Republican candidates across the country were campaigning on a platform of fiscal responsibility and cutting the deficit in half during the next 4 years. Now that they've won the campaign, that rhetoric is gone and their actions today-- increasing the debt limit for the third time in 4 years--certainly don't meet their election promises.

We could have had a real debate today about re-implementing the pay- as-you-go rules that led to historic surpluses at the end of the Clinton administration. That would be a real move toward fiscal responsibility. Instead, Republicans are giving themselves the freedom to further reduce tax revenue while funding an ill-conceived war in Iraq, and claiming they just

can't afford to pay for the government programs vital to this country's health and well-being.

Republicans will, however, continue to run up huge deficits while lowering taxes, especially for corporations and individuals making over $200,000 a year. Unfortunately, they don't want to pay for the loss of revenue caused by these tax-cutting measures. That means less money to spend on everything from education to Medicare.

Increasing the debt limit is a statutory necessity to keep the government running, but it is also a sad commentary on the fiscal stewardship shown to the American people by this administration and the Republican leadership in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to two of Hayward, California's outstanding citizens, Carl and Marilyn Baker-Madsen. Marilyn and Carl are celebrating 50 years of service as they retire from their employment in the city of Hayward.

Marilyn has been the Library Director of the Hayward Public Library since October 1985. During her tenure, the Library has implemented a number of programs and services with outstanding demonstrable outcomes that are models for libraries in other cities. In the fall of 1996, Marilyn was recognized at the California Library Association Annual Conference as Librarian of the Year for outstanding service to libraries. In January 2000, she received the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration Committee Annual Community Service Award which honors individuals who have contributed substantially to keeping Dr. King's work alive and active in the Hayward community. In October 2001, she received the Hayward City Employee Award for volunteering in the community beyond work commitments. In November 2003, Marilyn received the HEARTS of Service Award for demonstrating commitment to the organizational values of the city of Hayward.

Carl is retiring from his position as equipment manager for the city of Hayward. He is described as an employee who goes beyond the call of duty to serve his community and stands tall in his field. He has volunteered over many years, in many capacities to benefit Hayward. He was named Hayward City Employee Volunteer of the Year.

Carl and Marilyn have been very active supporters of the Hayward Arts Council and its projects. Both have been tireless volunteers on behalf of the arts programs and services at events, such as Cinco de Mayo, Youth Pride fairs, Kids' Art Day and Farmer's Market and police department neighborhood events where Carl has helped set up and staff booths that provided free art projects for children.

Carl describes himself as ``a Friend of the Library . . . Director.'' Through the years, he has given more and more of his own time to ease the work of the Library staff. He has been active at Literacy Plus receptions, the Celebrating Cultures in Harmony Festival and major outdoor book sales. Friends of the Library know they can count on Carl to contribute to the success of Library events.

The Baker-Madsen's have worked with exemplary commitment to enhance the quality of life in Hayward, California. Their contributions have been felt at the Hayward Public Library, the Hayward Arts Council, in City Hall, as well as in the many community venues in which they participate.

I join their friends and admirers in expressing appreciation and a hearty thank you for exemplifying the ``Heart of the Bay'' at its very best.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strident opposition to the conference report on H.R. 4520, the so-called ``Jobs Creation Act.'' This bill does nothing to create jobs at home, and actually provides incentives for corporations to move jobs offshore. The conference report is a $140 billion solution to a $57 billion problem, and how the Republicans intend to pay for this solution is both a sham and a disgrace.

Repealing the extraterritorial income, ETI, regime is absolutely necessary to avoid retaliatory duties imposed by the European Union. This tax scheme was found to be illegal by the World Trade Organization because it unfairly advantaged U.S. corporations in the international arena. Given that judgment, my preferred approach was to simply repeal the tax and save $57 billion for America's taxpayers.

That's what should have happened. But, even if one felt that the corporations shouldn't be penalized for the WTO ruling, keeping them whole after the ETI repeal would cost $57 billion. Unfortunately my colleagues have decided to go much further. They are replacing that illegal regime with $140 billion in unnecessary corporate tax cuts and extraneous provisions that have no business in this bill.

This bill isn't only loaded with expensive, unnecessary tax breaks, it then goes so far as to induce U.S. companies to move even more jobs overseas through its bizarre tax incentive structure. During this jobless economic recovery, we cannot afford to give corporations even more incentive to ship jobs offshore. But, I guess this is consistent with the Bush administration and Republican belief that outsourcing jobs is good for America. I disagree.

This bill also gives U.S. companies a tax break on the profits they have previously made by shipping jobs offshore. In fact, corporations are temporarily allowed to repatriate foreign profits at a rate of 5.25 percent. Why would we ever give companies a tax holiday so they can line the pockets of executives and investors? That doesn't create jobs, it just breeds more corporate greed.

The Republicans will claim that this bill is fiscally responsible because it is paid for. In reality the $80 billion in closed loopholes and other revenue raisers are just a pipe dream. Two of the biggest revenue raisers in the bill make it much harder for individuals to take the charitable deduction for donating property to non-profit organizations. I thought this was a corporate tax bill. I guess the Republicans think it is OK to raise taxes on charitable individuals so that billion-dollar corporations can

have a little more money for their multimillion dollar executive salaries.

The most egregious portion of this legislation is a $10.1 billion buyout for the tobacco industry, most of which would line the pockets of large tobacco manufacturers like Phillip Morris. The tobacco buyout is nothing more than an election year bribe to enlist southern Democrats' votes on a bill they would otherwise be unlikely to support. Instead of using this opportunity to include the Senate provision to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco, Republicans have decided to give a huge windfall to the tobacco industry, while doing nothing to reduce tobacco production and improve public health. That is just plain wrong.

Finally, the Republicans have once again thwarted the democratic process by bringing a partisan 650 page bill with 617 pages of explanation up for a vote only hours after it was released. Are the Republicans afraid of what we might find if they actually gave us time to read and study the bill? I guess they just don't want to give us the time to make the public aware of the special interest giveaways loaded in their bill--covering everything from tackle boxes to sonar device industries.

This so-called American Jobs Creation Act does not create jobs. Instead, it creates new incentives for U.S. corporations to send jobs overseas. The conference report is a $140 billion solution to a $57 billion problem. Regardless of what my Republican colleagues say today, it will never be fully paid for. The extraneous provisions in this bill are mere gifts to big corporate donors and bribes to buy enough Democratic votes to pass the bill. This bill a disgrace to the American people and our tax code. Republicans should be hanging their heads in shame--but Republicans have no shame, as this bill clearly shows. I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote against the conference report for H.R. 4520.