Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, people are dying because the drug industry is making billions marketing drugs they know to be unsafe. Today I propose a bill that will end this dangerous practice by increasing accountability for pharmaceutical manufacturers and their executives who withhold evidence of drug risks. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Accountability (PhRMA) Act would impose criminal penalties and fines on those who fail to disclose evidence of serious adverse drug experiences. It is unfortunate we need this legislation, but the only way to make manufacturers accountable for drug safety is to hit them where it hurts--putting executives in jail and imposing large individual and corporate fines for wrongdoing. In the past six months alone, Vioxx has been taken off the market for causing heart attacks and strokes, and a new ``black box'' warning has been added to antidepressants due to increased risk of suicide in children. What's worse, evidence suggests the manufacturers knew about these deadly safety issues, but masked or withheld the information from consumers and the FDA because they were making so much money on these drugs. Profit before public safety is the modern mantra of pharmaceutical manufacturers. These companies continued to market drugs that caused individuals to be severely physically disabled or die. While the companies have been civilly sued for their actions, their typical response has been to pay enormous monetary settlements that don't even put a dent in their outrageously high drug profits. Even worse, the manufacturers never admit guilt and require injured parties to sign non-disclosure agreements as part of the settlement, effectively hiding from the public the horrific tales of death and disability. The PhRMA Act will put an end to this irresponsible corporate citizenship by placing responsibility for the knowing concealment of serious adverse drug experiences on the pharmaceutical executives who ultimately decide to place profits over people's lives. In the wake of Enron and other corporate accounting scandals, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act created 10-year prison terms for withholding financial information from shareholders and regulators. The PhRMA Act would impose a minimum jail term of 20 years and fines of up to $2 million on executives who withhold information, proving once and for all that life is more valuable than the almighty dollar. The bill would also require CEOs to annually attest that they have disclosed all evidence of serious adverse drug experiences to the FDA. Failure to meet this requirement would result in fines up to $100,000 per month for the CEO and $1 million per month for the Corporation. Under today's fast track process at FDA, drugs are often approved with the caveat that manufacturers complete specified post-marketing studies of safety and effectiveness. Unfortunately, drug companies currently ignore these requirements because they know FDA will not revoke approval of a drug unless it is clearly unsafe. This perverse system actually provides an incentive for manufacturers to ignore required post-marketing studies so there is no new safety evidence available for FDA to justify a market withdrawal. The PhRMA Act ameliorates this problem by requiring post-marketing studies to be completed in a time-period specified by the FDA. Failure to complete these studies can lead to fines of $5 million for each month the study goes unfinished. As always, FDA retains the authority to pull a drug from the market, but the PhRMA Act would give them an important intermediate sanction to make drug companies accountable for meeting their obligations. The influence of the drug industry has infiltrated every aspect of society. The Bush Administration gave drug manufacturers a huge windfall in the Medicare prescription drug bill, the FDA bows to the industry while ignoring the science, and millions are taking unnecessary prescriptions because of TV commercials or doctors bribed by manufacturers. The PhRMA Act can begin to turn the tide on an industry that continually puts profit and shareholder earnings above patients' lives and health. By holding pharmaceutical manufacturers and their executives responsible for the safety of their products we can ensure prescription drugs save lives, not destroy them.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 310, the so- called Broadcast Decency bill. I am as concerned as any parent about the content on television. I do not want my young children or grandchildren exposed to programming that is unsuitable for them. Yet, nowhere in this bill is there a definition of indecent material. All this bill does is increase fines over tenfold for what the Bush administration deems to be indecent. Our laws are only as good as the people enforcing them and I do not trust this administration to exercise the appropriate judgment without clear standards. I'm concerned they'll use this new enforcement authority as a Trojan horse to arbitrarily target programming they deem unacceptable. I could not possibly give this administration more leeway to choke free speech. We have reached the point in this country where questioning our leaders is called unpatriotic and characterized as aiding the terrorists; columnists are paid our tax dollars by the Federal Government to spout the Bush administration's official propaganda; the very agency charged with maintaining a diversity of ideas on the airwaves wants to give free rein to a handful of corporations to control information; and where stations refuse to air the movie ``Saving Private Ryan'' lest the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission might be ordered to find a sacrificial lamb to appease the religious right. I do not support the rush to media conglomeration and I do not trust religious zealots to decide for every American what they can and can not watch. Since that is who this administration is serving, I vote ``no'' on giving them more authority to undermine freedom of speech.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join Congressmen Ramstad and Kennedy in introducing the bipartisan, bicameral ``Keeping Families Together Act.'' This bill would help parents obtain necessary mental health treatment for their severely emotionally disturbed children without being forced to relinquish them into State custody to get that care. Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mark Pryor (D-AK) are introducing the companion legislation in the Senate. No family should be required to relinquish legal custody of their mentally ill child to a State child welfare agency or the juvenile justice system as their only means of obtaining desperately needed mental health services. Yet as Maryland resident Diana Miller recounted to me last year, State officials gave her this exact ultimatum when she sought potentially life-saving mental health care for her daughter, Erica. Tragically, Diana and Erica Miller are not alone in their predicament. In April 2003, the GAO reported that parents in 19 States placed over 12,700 children in State child welfare or juvenile justice agencies in 2001 to obtain mental health services for them. We know that the nationwide number is even higher because 31 States did not respond to the survey. According to GAO, these middle class parents find themselves trapped between not having the resources to pay for private mental health care and making too much money for their children to be eligible for Medicaid. Parents are therefore forced to choose between not treating their child's severe illness and transferring custody to the State, which has the resources to provide the necessary care. Families wind up torn apart at the expense of the taxpayers. A Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law further elaborated on the situations that cause parents and guardians to give up their seriously emotionally disturbed children to State agencies. These situations include the following: The family has either exhausted their private health insurance benefits, or their benefits do not cover required mental health services (e.g. Residential Treatment Program). The family lives in a State or jurisdiction in which Medicaid services do not adequately address mental health needs, and agency placement provides access or priority status for entry into needed care. The family lives in a State or jurisdiction in which children are deprived of federally mandated mental health services through the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) as a result of an exceedingly restrictive definition of serious emotional illness. That is, these schools often label these children as solely ``discipline problems.'' The family lives in a State or jurisdiction in which the local child welfare system erroneously interprets Federal law (Title IV-E of the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program) as requiring relinquishment of custody even for temporary out-of-home placements. As all of these reports highlight, families are acting out of desperation to get immediately needed mental health services for their children. The juvenile justice and child welfare systems have become the mental health providers of last resort for far too many families. Both the child welfare system and juvenile justice systems are ill- equipped to meet these children's needs. Even worse, the psychological bond between parent and child is unnecessarily disrupted. Their children feel abandoned and their parents feel guilty over turning their parental rights and decisionmaking authority to a State agency. The stigma is real to families themselves and to those around them. Good parents don't have their children taken away. But, in fact, the need to relinquish custody in these instances doesn't have anything to do with parenting skills. It has everything to do with our system being broken and continuing to allow these children with significant mental health needs to fall through the cracks. We have known about this problem for many years. In fact, I first introduced legislation in 1995 attempting to address this issue. Since then I have been working with my colleagues to educate the public and other members of Congress about this issue and to find a bipartisan solution. Our legislation, the ``Keeping Families Together Act'' is the result of this bipartisan and bicameral process. Our bill provides new funding to States that are willing to develop systems that assure these children get the mental health services they need without pulling apart their families. It provides $55 million over 6 years in new family support grants to States that are willing to end the practice of child custody relinquishment and cover all these children's mental health services under Medicaid, CHIP or any other health program of their choosing. These monies can then be used to improve access to mental health and family support services that keep families together. They can also be used to create Statewide care coordination programs and to deliver mental health care and family support services for these families. Additionally, the bill establishes a Federal interagency task force. The task force will monitor the family support grants and work with representatives of affected families to make recommendations to Congress to improve mental health services and to foster interagency cooperation. The task force is also required to provide biannual reports to Congress on its progress in improving the delivery of mental health services to seriously ill children. The bill also provides States with the option of moving children out of hospital-based psychiatric care and into home- and community-based care options, which will allow them to remain with their families. The ``Keeping Families Together Act'' is an important first step toward eliminating child custody relinquishment. I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly enact this legislation so States can develop innovative new programs that address these children's mental health needs while keeping their families together. Once we've learned what has effectively worked at the State level to restructure these programs, we will need to return to this issue at the Federal level and enact broad legislation to end the practice of forced child custody relinquishment nationwide.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, last week, United States Marine Corps LTG James Mattis made public comments that were unbecoming of a military officer. As quoted in numerous newspaper articles and media broadcasts, Lieutenant General Mattis told a San Diego, California audience of 200 civilians that ``It's fun to shoot some people.'' Referencing combatants in Afghanistan he added, ``You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.'' Lieutenant General Mattis has no doubt served his country with courage and distinction as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. It is, nonetheless, inexcusable that, as a high-ranking officer of the U.S. military, he would make these callous and insensitive remarks that denigrate the value of human life. Furthermore, comments of this nature reinforce negative perceptions of U.S. military actions abroad and have the potential to incite greater animosity toward our troops. The price to be paid for this irresponsible conduct cannot be exaggerated given the vital role support from the Iraqi people and the international community is to the success of ongoing operations in Iraq. The U.S. Marine Corps Commandant has said that he has counseled Lieutenant General Mattis with regard to his comments. However, it is incumbent on our military's leadership to ensure that this behavior is not repeated on the part of Lieutenant General Mattis or any other military officer in the future. It is critically important that a clear and resounding message is sent that this type of conduct will not be tolerated in the United States military. It is wholly inconsistent with the values we hold dear as Americans. Mr. Speaker, it is hard enough in this day and age to protect my 9- year-old-son--or any child--from graphic violence rife in popular video games, which demean the value of human life and portray killing as just a game--an act without moral consequence. I suppose they make war look like fun, but tell that to the over 10,000 Americans who've been critically wounded or the families of the nearly 1,500 Americans who gave their lives in Iraq. Now, we have a general from the field saying how fun it is to shoot people. I think that's wrong, its despicable, it's an unconscionable message to be telling our children. It is time to put a stop to this unnecessary, obscene war in Iraq and the obscenities of generals like James Mattis, both of which demean and denigrate the moral fabric of our country.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Safe Nursing and Patient Act with Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH). Assuring quality medical care and addressing our nursing shortage should not divide us on partisan lines. That's why I'm especially pleased to be working across the aisle with my friend from Ohio, Mr. LaTourette, in this important endeavor. Senator Kennedy is introducing the companion legislation in the Senate. There are some 500,000 trained nurses in this country who are not working in their profession. Of course, their reasons for leaving nursing are many. But nurses consistently cite their concerns about the quality of care they feel that are able to provide in many health care settings today. Nurses are also greatly concerned about being forced to work mandatory overtime. Listen to these words of a nurse in the state of Washington: I have been a nurse for six years and most of the time I have worked in the hospital environment. It is difficult to tell you how terrible it is to ``work scared'' all the time. A mistake that I might make could easily cost someone their life and ruin mine. Every night at work we routinely ``face the clock.'' All of us do without lunch and breaks and work overtime, often without pay, to ensure continuity of care for our patients. Yet, we are constantly asked to do more. It has become the norm for us to have patient assignments two and a half times greater than the staffing guidelines established by the hospital itself. I cannot continue to participate in this unsafe and irresponsible practice. So I am leaving, not because I don't love being a nurse, but because hospitals are not safe places: not for patients and not for nurses. While stories like this are telling, we also have a growing body of research to back up the anecdotes. Premier among these studies is a comprehensive report issued by the Institute of Medicine in November 2003 entitled, ``Keeping Patients Safe, Transforming the Work Environment of Nurses.'' Highlighting their concern with regard to this issue, the IOM headline for their release of the report was, ``Substantial Changes Required in Nurses' Work Environment to Protect Patients from Health Care Errors.'' Within the report, they concluded that ``limiting the number of hours worked per day and consecutive days of work by nursing staff, as is done in other safety-sensitive industries, is a fundamental safety precaution.'' The report went on to specifically recommend that ``working more than 12 hours in any 24-hour period and more than 60 hours in any 7-day period be prevented except in case of an emergency, such as a natural disaster.'' Another study published in the July/August 2004 Health Affairs Journal, ``The Working Hours of Hospital Staff Nurses and Patient Safety,'' found that nurses who worked shifts of twelve and a half hours or more were three times more likely to commit an error than nurses who worked eight and a half hours (a standard shift) or less. The study also found that working overtime increased the odds of making at least one error, regardless of how long the shift was originally scheduled. Finally, this article illustrates how nurses are being forced to work more and more overtime. The majority of nurses surveyed reported working overtime ten or more times in a twenty-eight day period and one-sixth reported working sixteen or more consecutive hours at least once during the period. Nurses reported being mandated to work overtime on 360 shifts and on another 143 shifts they described being ``coerced'' into working voluntary overtime. As these studies show, the widespread practice of requiring nurses to work extended shifts and forgo days off causes nurses to frequently provide care in a state of fatigue, contributing to medical errors and other consequences that compromise patient safety. In addition to endangering patients, studies also point to overtime issues as a prime contributing factor to our nation's nursing shortage. For example, a 2001 report by the General Accounting Office, Nursing Workforce: Emerging Nurse Shortages Due to Multiple Factors, concluded: [T]he current high levels of job dissatisfaction among nurses may also play a crucial role in determining the extent of current and future nurse shortages. Efforts undertaken to improve the workplace environment may both reduce the likelihood of nurses leaving the field and encourage more young people to enter the nursing profession . . . We have the voices of nurses and the research evidence to prove that the practice of requiring nurses to work beyond the point they believe is safe is jeopardizing the quality of care patients receive. It is also contributing to the growing nurse shortage. Current projections are that the nurse workforce in 2020 will have fallen 20 percent below the level necessary to meet demand. We have existing federal government standards that limit the hours that pilots, flight attendants, truck drivers, railroad engineers and other professions can safely work before consumer safety is endangered. However, no similar limitation currently exists for our nation's nurses who are caring for us at often the most vulnerable times in our lives. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act would change that. It would set strict, new federal limits on the ability of health facilities to require mandatory overtime from nurses. Nurses would be allowed to continue to volunteer for overtime if and when they feel they can continue to provide safe, quality care. But, forced mandatory overtime would only be allowed when an official state of emergency was declared by federal, state or local government. These limits would be part of Medicare's provider agreements. They would not apply to nursing homes since alternative staffing and quality measures are already moving forward for those facilities. To assure compliance, the bill provides HHS with the authority to investigate complaints from nurses about violations. It also grants HHS the power to issue civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for violations of the act and to increase those fines for patterns of violations. Providers would be required to post notices explaining these new rights and to post nurse schedules in prominent workplace locations. Nurses would also obtain anti-discrimination protections against employers who continued to force work hours for nurses beyond what a nurse believes is safe for quality care. Providers found to have violated the law would be posted on Medicare's website. Often the states are ahead of the federal government when it comes to pinpointing problems that need to be addressed. It is worth noting that many states are considering such laws to strictly limit the use of mandatory nurse overtime. Several states--including California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia--have already passed laws or regulations limiting the practice. This bill is an important first step, but it isn't the complete solution. I believe that standards must be developed to define timeframes for safe nursing care within the wide variety of health settings (whether such overtime is mandatory or voluntary). That is why the legislation also requires the Agency on Healthcare Research and Quality to report back to Congress with recommendations for developing overall standards to protect patient safety in nursing care. Once we have better data in that regard, I will support broader limitations on all types of overtime. But, we must not wait to act until that data can be developed. The data collection will take years and the crisis of mandatory overtime is upon us now. I know that our nations hospital trade associations will claim that my solution misses the mark because it is precisely the lack of nurses in the profession today that is necessitating their need to require mandatory overtime. Let me respond directly. Mandatory overtime is dangerous for patients plain and simple. It is also a driving force for nurses leaving the profession. These twin realities make mandatory overtime a dangerous short-term gamble at best. We should join together to end the practice. Mandatory overtime is a very real problem facing the nursing profession and that is why our bill is endorsed by the American Nurses Association, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, AFT, SEIU, AFGE, UAW, UAN, and UFCW-- organizations that speak for America's nearly 3 million nurses. Again, our bill is not the sole solution. I supported the Nurse Reinvestment Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law in August 2002. That legislation authorizes new federal investment and initiatives to increase the number of people pursuing a nursing education. Such efforts will help in the future, but it will be years before that law's impact is felt in our medical system. And, it will take even longer if the President and Republicans in Congress continue to withhold the funding necessary for the act to be fully implemented. We need to help now. We must take steps to improve the nursing profession immediately so that today's nurses will remain in the field to care for those of us who need such care before new nurses can be trained. We also need today's nurses to be there as mentors for the nurses of tomorrow. Mandatory nurse overtime is a very real quality of care issue for our health system and I look forward to working with my colleagues enact the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act. It will start us down the right path toward protecting patients and encouraging people to remain in-- and enter--the nursing profession.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I'm starting to wonder if the Republican Majority was listening to the President when he called for the United States to act as a beacon of freedom for the world. For our first substantive legislation of the year, they would make it nearly impossible for victims of torture and religious persecution to seek refuge in the U.S. and they would get us ever closer to establishing a national ID. We all accept that sometimes freedom must be sacrificed for security, but the 9/11 Commission itself said that these big brother, anti- immigrant provisions do nothing to enhance national security. This bill makes changes to the asylum process and state drivers licenses, presumably to address the widely-reported anecdote that the first World Trade Center bombers abused the asylum system and had a total of 63 drivers licenses. However, you have to question the motives of the supporters of this bill when the asylum system was already strengthened ten years ago and the 63 drivers licenses are simply an urban legend. The 9/11 Commission found that the hijackers actually had 13, and this bill would not have prevented any of them from being issued. So without making the country safer, we're going to deny refugees and victims of torture, rape, and other atrocities safe haven in this supposed beacon of freedom. I guess the asylum system, which is the most rigorous immigration process in this country, resulting in 30,000 denials last year, is not good enough for the immigrant-bashers. If this bill were to become law, an asylum applicant would have to provide documentary evidence of persecution. I hope that residents of the Darfur region of Sudan remember to grab their personal files as their villages are being burned, because under this law, the presumption of credibility would go to the torturers and rapists. The bill would also retroactively make legal donations, even donations made decades ago, grounds for deportation of green-card holders who have lived here for decades if the organization to which a donation was made was later added to a government terrorist list. The last section of the bill then goes after American citizens. The sponsors know that nobody would support a national ID, so they're just going to turn your drivers license into one without telling you. It'll look the same, but if this bill became law, all states would have to share all drivers license information in a national database, including identifying information, drivers' histories, and motor vehicle violations. On behalf of the oppressed people of this world who actually believed President Bush when he said the U.S. would stand with them, and on behalf of Americans who don't confuse secret databases with security, I will vote No on this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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. STARK

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. STARK. 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. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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.