Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

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

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the Republican's so-called 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. The 9/11 Commission has worked for months in a thoughtful, thorough and bipartisan manner to recommend concrete ways to reorganize and restructure Federal counterterrorism efforts to ensure we are better able to prevent future attacks. Congress should have immediately adopted those recommendations, but Republicans have blocked that effort today. Americans should not be fooled by the House Republicans' cynical exercise today. They are circumventing real reform of our Nation's intelligence community. Republicans may say they have listened to the 9/11 Commission. But, make no mistake, the bill before us does not fully implement the Commission's recommendations--it doesn't even come close. Instead, it flies in the face of the Commission's sound and deliberative efforts. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. House Republicans are simply trying to score political points by passing a bill with the same title as the 9/11 Commission hoping no one reads the fine print. If the Republican leadership were serious about reform, they would have gotten their caucus in line and come forth with a bipartisan bill that mirrors the Commission recommendations like the bill the Senate has passed. Republicans chose not to do so. Let's stand with the families of September 11 and pass real intelligence reform. Let's put the Republican's election politics aside and get on with the business of protecting the American people.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lance Corporal Aaron Boyles, a courageous young U.S. Marine from the East Bay, who was killed in action in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq on September 24, 2004. Lance Corporal Boyles is a graduate of Newark Memorial High School. He enlisted in the Marine Corps where he served in the Headquarters and Service Company, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. Lance Corporal Boyles performed his duties with distinction and valor. He was awarded the Purple Heart, a second Purple Heart is being recommended. He was also awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon and the War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Today, friends and family from our community are gathering in Hayward to warmly remember Lance Corporal Boyles, who will be laid to rest at Golden Gate National Cemetery. I join them in this remembrance. I know all of my colleagues here in the United States Congress share in offering condolences to Lance Corporal Boyles' wife Prabha, who is expecting their first child this month, his mother Wanda Kealaiki, his father Robert Boyles and the rest of his family and loved ones. We mourn Aaron's loss with them today. We are grateful to Lance Corporal Boyles for his selfless sacrifice and courageous service to our country. He no doubt served valiantly through circumstances we here can only imagine. I commend his bravery and am grateful for the contribution Lance Corporal Aaron Boyles has made to our nation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of the Universal Service Act and rise in support of this bill. That being said, this vote today is a cynical political ploy. The Republican Leadership did not bring this vitally important issue forward to have a meaningful debate. They did it to buy themselves political cover from accusations that President Bush's failed policy in Iraq will necessitate a new military draft. I object to this cynical misappropriation of our democratic responsibilities by the Republicans. We are here to do the people's business, not dispose of it thoughtlessly for mere political gain. I am a cosponsor of the Universal Service Act. I support reinstating the draft, not because it is popular, but because I believe it is right. Many of us remember World War II. That was a war fought by Americans of every stripe and every background. It didn't matter if you were rich or poor or the color of your skin. All Americans sacrificed and shared the responsibility for winning that war. It was everyone's patriotic duty and our country was better for it. Today armed forces ought to strive to meet that example. Reinstating a draft with no deferments and no exceptions is both fair and democratic. It will mean that Americans of every background will serve our country, not just the poor and disadvantaged as it is today. It will mean that our troops, reservists and members of the Guard won't be forced into extended deployments well after their tours are up. Ultimately, I would hope that a draft will deter future wars of convenience like that in Iraq. I'm sure many parents--and Members of Congress--will think twice about supporting a war if they know their children may be called to fight. This, of course, is not being genuinely debated here today. Instead this is a political charade that demeans the importance of this issue.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman and support his position.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 106, the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, which proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex couples from getting married or receiving any of the rights of marriage. The right-wing political machine is churning out divisive legislation at a record pace as we get close to the election, but this is a new low. They would, for the first time ever, target a specific group of Americans in our most sacred document, and permanently ban them from having equal rights under the law. This proposed amendment not only bans marriage, but any of the ``legal incidents thereof,'' meaning that the supporter of this amendment think our founding document should keep gay and lesbian couples from filing a joint tax return, inheriting property, or visiting their partners in the hospital. It's one thing for the Republicans to claim that banning flag burning will make us more patriotic or to propose a balanced budget amendment when they're running the highest deficits in history, but to play their political games with millions of Americans is beneath contempt. Apparently, there are a lot of things the supporters of this amendment don't understand about our government: The Constitution has always defined the limitations of government and liberties of people, not the other way around. Citizens of the United States are guaranteed equal treatment under the law, even if they aren't popular. For people who choose a religion, there are two separate marriages: a civil contract and a religious ceremony. That religious ceremony has nothing to do with our laws. A church can marry whomever it wants and refuse to marry whomever it wants. For example, Churches in Massachusetts don't have to marry gay people even though the State does. The civil contract part of marriage is enforced by a set of laws that affect property, children, health care and other responsibilities and rights. In the U.S. we are required by the Constitution to divorce these laws from any religious influence. Passing this amendment would take us down a dangerous path of trying to make civil and religious marriage one in the same. If we're going to bring our civil marriage system in line with religious marriage, then we also need to pass an amendment banning Catholics from getting divorced. The fact that Massachusetts is marrying same-sex couples doesn't mean that other States have to do the same. Already, 44 States have specifically banned gay marriage, and the Constitution guarantees their right to set their own policies on State issues. Constitutional amendments have to be passed by two-thirds of both the House and Senate before being submitted to the States for ratification. This amendment has already failed in the Senate, so today's vote is all a cynical, hateful political game.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Tauscher and I rise today to pay tribute to the 30th Anniversary of the Tri-Valley Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW). The Tri-Valley Chapter represents the cities of Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore, California. Attendees at the Third National Conference of the Commission on the Status of Women established the National Organization for Women on June 30, 1966 in Washington, DC. The Commission on the Status of Women reported in 1963, that despite having won the right to vote, women in the United States were still discriminated against in virtually every aspect of life. In 1974, eight years following the Commission's report, Tri-Valley NOW was founded during a national surge in women's activism. The year 1974 was a time of upheaval and change. President Nixon resigned and Vice President Gerald Ford was sworn in as President. That year's number one television show, ``All in the Family,'' was a controversial reflection of the social struggles of the time. Title IX, the federal law aimed at providing equal educational opportunities, was in its infancy. Local women in the Tri-Valley area, such as Dorris Lee, Denise Gordon and Jean Felton could not sit on the sidelines during this stage of change. They took action and, with encouragement from Contra Costa NOW, they planned the Tri-Valley NOW's first meeting in 1974, which featured guest speakers from East Bay NOW. Since that first meeting of a handful of like-minded feminists in a Livermore, California office, NOW's Tri-Valley chapter has grown to more than 150 members, both women and men. For 30 years, Tri-Valley NOW has taken action to achieve equality for women. Its members have actively supported women candidates for public office, battled for equal rights and opportunities in the workplace and classroom, written hundreds of letters to editors and legislators, endured the struggle to pass the Equal Rights Amendment and staged countless demonstrations for positive social change. Tri-Valley NOW looks back on the last 30 years with great pride in their achievements and deep appreciation for their founding mothers. We agree with their statement that ``there is much work to be done and we will continue to strive for NOW's goal of equality for all women.'' NOW has our full support to help achieve this goal.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Marjorie Burns Sherratt for her dedicated service as an educator and advocate for students. Ms. Sherratt retired from her position as Principal of Alameda High School in Alameda, CA, on July 1, 2004, having served 4 years. Her retirement marks the culmination of an exemplary career in the field of education that spans 34 years. Ms. Sherratt is a lifelong resident of Alameda, CA. She earned her B.A. from California State University, Chico, and a M.A. in School Counseling from the University of LaVerne. During her three decades of commitment to education and prior to her tenure as Principal of Alameda High School, Ms. Sherratt was a teacher at Wood Middle School, Paden Elementary, Washington Elementary, Lincoln Middle School and Chipman Middle School. She was a counselor at Wood Middle School, a Head Counselor at Alameda High School, District Coordinator of Regional Occupational Programs and Principal of Alameda High School. In addition to her years in the classroom and administrative duties, Ms. Sherratt has also served on numerous committees for youth and educational advancement. She has also served on boards of civic and professional organizations, including Children's Hospital, Xanthos, Alameda Civic Light Opera, where she was president and on the Board of Directors during the Opera's founding years. Ms. Sherratt was honored by the P.T.A. with two outstanding service awards. She is also a member of the Alameda Boys and Girls Club and the Alameda Girls Club. Countless young people in the community of Alameda have been guided, inspired, and encouraged by the care and concern shown them by Marjorie Sherratt. I join Ms. Sherratt's friends and admirers in commending her for her illustrious record of accomplishments during her career in the field of education and applaud her for her dedicated efforts.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in outraged opposition to H.R. 3193, the so-called District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. This bill strips away gun safety laws passed by the City Council here in our Nation's capital. It allows people in DC to buy assault weapons and use ``cop-killer'' bullets. It overturns laws that ban criminals from owning guns. Mr. Speaker, the internal contradictions and extremism of this bill say a lot about the Republican majority's desperation to please the National Rifle Association shortly before the election. In order to chock up a vote for the NRA scorecard, Republicans play lip service to States' rights and local control while nullifying laws passed by the elected leaders of DC. Do the people of Washington, DC want their gun laws repealed? Not on you life. Residents of DC will be less safe, but who cares say the Republicans. They've got to reward the NRA for millions in campaign contributions dumped into their reelection coffers. They have no shame. Consider the parents of the 16 DC children killed by guns this year. They have to relive their nightmare every day and now the tragedy of more children murdered by guns and more parents mourning as assault weapons again rule the streets. Their wishes are being dishonored and stripped away today. Their calls for safe streets ignored. Their hope for safer neighborhoods--gone. All capriciously taken away by Republicans and the NRA. I bet these parents, like any other parent in any community across this Nation, wish they had the same grip over their local gun laws as the National Rifle Association. The 230 cosponsors of this legislation work in a building where guns are banned. Every visitor has to pass through a metal detector. Millions have been spent on Homeland Security upgrades in and around the Capitol. Yet, they foolishly think the Global War on Terror stops at the banks of the Potomac. Or maybe they figure they're safe behind the barricades and armed police so why worry about gun laws that protect other people who life in this city? If you're worried about your safety in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods just blocks from the Capitol, here's the Republicans' message to you: buy an AK-47 and pray that you're a better shot than the other guy. Never mind studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine that conclude that guns kept in the home for self- protection triple the risk of homicide, and are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder. Any member of this body who feels safer because of the extensive gun control here in the Capitol Building has an obligation to vote against this bill so that the people of DC have the same right to control their personal safety. If you vote for a firearms free-for-all in Washington, DC, then you should have the decency to introduce legislation allowing assault weapons right here, in your own workplace, in this Capitol. Even Republicans know that would be wrong, but if that's really where you stand, then I stand with the citizens of DC who know what's best. Do what they'd do. Vote down this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor two outstanding individuals, Larry and Marie Danner, for their outstanding civic contributions to Alameda County, California. They have been involved with their community work for over 35 years. Larry Danner began his career in 1965 as a police officer with the Fremont Police Department where he worked for nine years before joining the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Police Department. He retired in 1994 as a Commander and second in command of the BART Police Department. Larry was instrumental in the growth of BART's security system. The system developed into a full-fledged Police Department that required 90 college credits for employment. Marie Danner is a California State Certified Trial Court Interpreter and has been sole proprietor of Contreras Court Interpreters for over 35 years in the San Francisco Bay Area. Marie and Larry have been involved in numerous projects. They have worked together as well as single-handedly to make a difference in the lives of others. Marie is most proud of her work as a board member of the Hispanic Community Affairs Council of Alameda County, an organization that raises $100,000 in scholarships yearly for Hispanic students. For over twenty years, Marie was a commissioner for the Fremont Sister Cities Commission. She was one of the first women to join the Rotary Club and was one of the first women to serve on the Board of Directors of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. She is the former chair of the National Women's Political Caucus and the Hispanic Community Affairs Council Scholarship Fund. Larry was among the founders of Fremont Babe Ruth Baseball, Inc. and helped with fundraising to build the Fremont Senior Center. He is former vice-president and current treasurer of the American G.I. Forum, and was the project director and designer for the U.S. flag monument at Fremont's Veterans Park. On October 1, 2004, Larry and Marie Danner will be honored by SAVE (Shelter Against Violent Environments) for their outstanding work to raise domestic violence awareness in the community. Larry served on SAVE's board of directors for six years. Larry and Marie continue to work tirelessly to support SAVE and many other organizations in their community. Their many years of advocacy and service are exemplary and I join all who admire their good works in expressing appreciation for Marie and Larry Danner's contributions.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Motion to Instruct Conferees on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. This motion would instruct conferees to include the hate crimes bill in the conference report, to stop the perpetration of violence against Americans merely because of who they are. The fact is that while there has been a significant drop in overall crime in this country, the number of hate crimes continues to grow. Hate crimes send a chilling message that some Americans are second- class citizens who should fear for their lives because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. These crimes target entire communities with the message that others in the community could be next. The hate crimes bill would seriously address this oppression by expanding existing Federal law involving acts of violence motivated by bias against race, religion, or national origin. In addition, the bill would broaden Federal jurisdiction to include offenses that are motivated by bias against gender, sexual preference, or disability. Mr. Speaker, we should be embarrassed that we're having this vote today, because in 2000, in response to several shocking hate crimes that received national attention, 232 Republicans and Democrats in the House and a bipartisan group of 57 Senators voted to pass the hate crimes law. It was later taken out of the defense bill at the insistence of the Republican leadership in closed-door negotiations. So for 4 years, thousands of American hate crime victims have gone without the protection of their government because the will of the majority was subverted. I urge all of my colleagues to right this wrong and vote ``yes'' on the motion.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2028, the So- Called ``Pledge Protection Act.'' This potentially unconstitutional piece of legislation speaks volumes about the uncontrollable extremism of the Republican Party and its desperation to look ``conservative'' in the face of $400 billion deficits and nation-building in Iraq. The fact that the Supreme Court already threw out the decision striking ``Under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance makes this bill irrelevant with regard to the Pledge, and all the more frightening with regard to the true intentions of the Republicans. In the interest of politics, they would unravel our system of checks and balances and close the courthouse doors to religious minorities. They would set a new, disastrous precedent of letting 50 different state courts be the final arbiters of our laws. They prefer that state judges, rather than federal judges confirmed by the Senate, make Constitutional law. If the right wing had been in control of the Republican Party in the 1960s, we wouldn't have desegregation or Miranda warnings, as there were court-stripping proposals on those subjects, too. Mr. Speaker, everyone here realizes that if Congress could just pass whatever laws it wanted and throw in a line to keep them from being held unconstitutional, our Constitution and Separation of Powers would be rendered meaningless. So let's just admit what this is really about: rallying the base and attacking defenseless Americans. Shame on any Member of this body who will trample on our Constitution just to score a few political points. If the Oath we all took to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States'' means anything to you, you will vote ``no'' on this election-year ploy.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I guess that there are people in the hall who are hearing things. Maybe they have receptors in their teeth. I heard no chuckles, but there are people who do get messages that are from strange sources; and they are certainly not in this hall. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It was the gentleman from Arizona, not the gentleman from California, who suggested that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) opposed the bill, and that was the misunderstanding that I wanted to correct. The chairman is correct, he did not suggest that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) was not in favor of the bill, and that was my point, to set that part of it straight. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman ready to close?