Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to sing the praises of our Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms Mr. Livingood for the expeditious manner in which the Capitol was evacuated earlier today. Thank heavens it was not necessary; better safe than sorry.

But I think that the evacuation took place with dignity in record time and with respect for all in the Capitol, not only the Members of Congress but, very importantly, the tourists who are here, our visitors, the press who covers us, our employees who work here in the Capitol and the office buildings and, of course, the Capitol Police.

Thank you to the Capitol Police. Because of you, Americans or people visiting from overseas can come to this Capitol because of your courage with the confidence that they will be safe. Because of you, this evacuation was conducted in a manner of full cooperation from all who participated. Because of their confidence in you, when you gave the signal, everyone moved exactly the way you wanted them to.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add my appreciation to our national security apparatus and all that that involves, for having those airplanes in the air immediately to escort that Cessna to another place. We do not know the full story about it, or I do not anyway, yet, but I do think that they are to be commended for the speed with which they made us safe.

This Capitol is a symbol of freedom throughout the world. And today, I think that the balance between freedom and security was well- demonstrated, and certainly that was because, again, of the professionalism, as our colleague said, and the courage of the Capitol Police, Mr. Livingood and our national security apparatus.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) shares our views; I do not know if he can even speak from the chair, but I have heard the gentleman express his appreciation individually and personally to them, too, and I want to add my voice to that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express our heartfelt condolences to the family of the late Congressman Peter W. Rodino Jr. of New Jersey and my sorrow on his passing.

A man of integrity and humility, Congressman Peter Rodino was a great American who served our nation with great dignity and honor. He was truly a historic figure and consequential leader who changed the course of our history for the better.

By conducting the Watergate impeachment hearings with fairness, Peter Rodino ensured that the rule of law prevailed during one of the gravest Constitutional crises in our history.

As the Washington Post noted, he spoke before this House when the Watergate impeachment hearings began and said: ``Whatever the result, whatever we learn or conclude, let us now proceed with such care and decency and thoroughness and honor that the vast majority of the American people, and their children after them, will say: `That was the right course. There was no other way.' ''

He did all that and more. His contribution was inestimable.

Americans will be forever grateful for his courage and for his defense of the Constitution.

Though most renowned for the service he rendered during the Watergate impeachment hearings, Peter Rodino also left a lasting imprint as a distinguished Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and author of significant legislation, ranging from civil rights to immigration reform to protecting consumers.

He was a main sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1966 and authored the extension to the Voting Rights Act in 1982. He reformed immigration quotas and promoted fair housing laws. And he was one of the authors of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act that protects consumers by preventing anticompetitive mergers.

He was a legislative and legal giant whose work continues to have a profound impact on the lives of Americans.

Peter Rodino's 4 decades of service in Congress can be exemplified by the words of the Constitution that he did so much to protect and defend: ``to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice . . . and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.''

Peter Rodino's passing is a personal loss to me. I was honored to have served with him, and he was always very kind to me.

He was a great source of pride and inspiration to all of us in the Italian-American community.

I hope his wife Joy and his children take comfort in the prayers and thoughts of the many whom he inspired and served. We will miss him greatly.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee, for her courage in bringing this personal privilege before the House.

The very fact that this Member has been mistreated should cause all of us deep concern. It is wrong and unacceptable.

The fact that a report is being supplemented by the Chairman with significant and startling changes attests to the fact that the Majority knew that the original report was wrongly and inappropriately filed. But that does not resolve the matter--an apology is owed to Ms. Jackson-Lee by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

I know that the distinguished Chairman, for whom I have great respect, would like to call it a drafting dispute or return to a discussion on the merits of the bill.

In fact, I would think that the Chairman of the Judiciary would be sensitive to the treatment of committee reports and would share my view that committee reports should not be misused to hurt a Member, given that the distinguished Chairman was the cosponsor of a resolution in 1983 regarding the alteration of committee reports, a matter of seriousness that was ultimately investigated by the Ethics Committee.

This issue is about fundamental respect for our democracy, for the dignity of the House, and for the integrity of the proceedings of this body. It is about how we treat each other, and it is about trust and the betrayal of that trust.

The bounds of trust that we need to function in this Body are weakened even further by this sorry and disgusting chapter. What the leadership of the Committee on the Judiciary did is just another extension of the abuse of power of the Republican majority in both Chambers of the Congress of the United States.

What they are doing with the filibuster in the other body is to try to silence the Minority and break the rules. They are using any means to justify their partisan agenda to the far right, even if it violates the rules, the Constitution, and fundamental decency and trust.

Here in the House, there is an attempt to disregard the rules that protect us all, corrupt the integrity of our proceedings, and demean not only the dignity of this House, but going so far as to demean individual Members.

There is an attempt to limit the voice of the Minority, reducing the opportunity for Members to speak on the floor, and offer substitutes and amendments.

Comity and trust between the Majority and the Minority are essential and must be encouraged. That is why the Republican Leadership has an obligation to come here right now on the floor and disavow this disgraceful behavior.

There is no need for this kind of misbehavior and abuse by the Majority. We should follow the rules of this House and treat each other with the proper respect.

To preserve the trust that the American people place in us, the Republican leadership in this House must pledge that this travesty will never happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our distinguished ranking member, the lead Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations for his leadership for his very important motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into talking about the bill, I want to commend both the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and our distinguished ranking members on the Committee on Appropriations and Subcommittee on Defense. Over the years, they have worked very hard and provided great leadership for our men and women in uniform and for the security of our country.

There is much about this bill that I support. I have some concerns which I will express but none of that diminishes the regard and appreciation I have for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time since the President ordered the invasion of Iraq 2 years ago, Congress has been asked to provide funds for the war outside the regular budget. With nearly 140,000 troops in dire need of equipment and supplies, this legislation will be overwhelmingly approved and I will support it.

A willingness to provide our troops the support they need, however, should not be mistaken for support for the repeated failures in judgment that first put our troops in harm's way and that keeps them there today.

Two years ago this week on May 1, 2003, President Bush stood on an aircraft carrier under a banner that proclaimed ``Mission Accomplished.'' Considering the events that followed and what has been disclosed since then, if the President were to stand under a

banner today it would have to read ``Credibility Demolished.''

We are in the war's third year. Daily headlines are grim reminders of how far we are from a stable and secure Iraq, and the President has yet to provide a plan to get us to that place. We are fast approaching sadly 1,600 U.S. military deaths and thousands of more have suffered grievous and lasting wounds.

I have had the privilege to pay my respects to troops in theater and in hospitals in Europe and in the United States. Whatever our disagreement about the policy which brought us into the war, whatever our disagreement on the lack of planning to end it, it never diminishes the regard that we have for our men and women in uniform. We respect them and we appreciate their courage, their patriotism and the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. And on any opportunity that many of us have, we express that to them personally.

The President's rationale for the invasion was discredited long ago. Iraq remains unsafe. I talked about credibility in terms of the lack of planning. There is also a lack of credibility in budgeting. Although appropriations for Iraq approaches $200 billion, the President's budget requests no money for the war on the grounds that the cost is unknowable. Instead, the President chooses to include a figure for the war's cost, zero, that everyone knows to be wrong.

Here we are today on Thursday talking about a supplemental with a set amount in it of emergency funding for our troops, and we passed the budget last Thursday. It was not one week ago we did not know what the cost would be and now we do this week.

This is simply not an honest way to do our budgeting.

Our troops need relief and their equipment needs repair and replacement. The risk assessment released by the Joint Chiefs of Staff this week shows the strain on our military is real and unsustainable. And it is clear that the figure in the supplemental is really not enough to meet to meet the measure that the chairman mentioned.

Providing money alone as this bill will do is not enough. A way out must be provided as well. We must focus on quality rather than quantity when training Iraqi security forces, accelerate Iraq's reconstruction in ways that give Iraqis a major stake in rebuilding their country, and step up regional diplomatic efforts to heal the strife on which the insurgency thrives.

I was pleased to be part of the bipartisan delegation that visited Iraq during Holy Week, and I can tell you that firsthand that we have a long way to go to reaching those goals.

Our experience in Iraq strongly suggest that if we do not take these steps and soon, about training the security forces, accelerating Iraq's reconstruction, and stepping up regional diplomacy or as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) would say, Iraq-atize, internationalize and energize, if we do not do this and soon, Americans may wonder for years to come if the end will ever be in sight.

The funds provided for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the relief of those devastated by the tsunami, to aid those suffering in Darfur and elsewhere, and to promote Middle East peace are necessary and important.

Were conferees able to focus solely on these issues, their final product would have been much stronger. However, since this bill is must-pass legislation, House Republicans demanded the inclusion of controversial immigration provisions. These provisions would be much better considered as part of a comprehensive immigration reform effort. These provisions will make asylum harder to obtain for those seeking a haven from persecution and place a huge unfunded responsibility on the States to verify information used to support a driver's license application.

This is an unfunded mandate. This is an unfunded mandate and it is not part of the Contract With America, no unfunded mandates.

Since this is a conference report, we cannot have a ruling from the Chair that will allow us to discuss some specifics about the unfunded mandate, the driver's license application that is in the bill. It sounds like a good idea. But if you are at the desk at the Department of Motor Vehicles and you have now become an immigration officer because you have to prove the citizenship, or at least the legality of somebody being in the country, it is a big burden, it is costly, and it is unfunded.

We have given a mandate without the money and really without the consideration that this provision should have been given.

In addition, we unwisely vest in the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to weigh Federal and State environmental and labor laws. This in the name of securing our borders. Securing our borders should be a national priority, which makes it all the more inexplicable that the President did not request in his budget the extra border patrol agents and detention beds authorized by Congress last year in response to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Bipartisan efforts in the Senate do more for border security in this bill and were rebuffed by House Republicans in favor of provisions that trample on the rights of individuals and States, and may result in the diminishment of the safety of the American people.

I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for offering his motion to recommit to fund border security at the Senate levels. He also had this as a motion to instruct when the conferees were named, to add $1 billion so that we could have the border security that was recommended by the 9/11 Commission. But that was rejected.

So we talk a great deal about securing the border, but we are not putting the resources there to do the job. Thank heavens Senator Byrd prevailed with part of the money in the Senate. We can do more. We should have done more. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has been a champion on this issue year in and year out as far as this discussion has been going.

Again, border security, border security, border security, and then we can talk about a comprehensive immigration policy.

I hope that all of our colleagues will give an overwhelming support of this body to the Obey motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, for many reasons, this is not an easy bill to support. The legitimate emergency needs to which it responds, particularly the needs of our men and women in uniform overseas, are real and must be addressed.

A much better job, though, must be done to create conditions to allow large numbers of them to come home and to come home soon.

Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the gentleman from Wisconsin's motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member, the lead Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me time, and for his great leadership to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, the oath of office that we all take.

I, too, want to express my respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the committee. I know that all the members of the Committee on the Judiciary have a difficult task. I commend all of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary for the very important responsibility that they have in protecting the civil liberties of our country. There are so many complicated issues where there are differences of opinion but, hopefully, respect for that diversity of opinion, which is intrinsic to our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I am very sad that it is necessary to come to the floor to speak on a resolution offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), again the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

I think it is important to note why we are here. I understand why our Republican colleagues want to talk about the bill and not talk about this privileged resolution, because this resolution strikes right directly to the heart of our democracy and our right of freedom of speech on this floor and how our words are interpreted.

Questions of privilege, according to the House rules and manual, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Speaker well knows, questions of privilege shall be those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity and the integrity of its proceedings. It is that last point, the integrity of our proceedings, which is what is under assault by the Republicans in this action that they took last week. Truth and trust, they are the fundamentals of our work. We must speak truth so that we will be trusted.

I view what the Committee on the Judiciary leadership did on this bill as just another extension of the abuse of power of the Republican majority in the Congress of the United States, both in the House and in the Senate.

In both bodies, and let us just speak to our own, there is an attempt to limit the opportunity for Members to speak on the floor, to have substitutes, alternative amendments, that can come to the floor; and on the occasions when they do allow an amendment, they decide to misrepresent the amendment. Just when we think we have seen it all on the part of curbing debate in this House, the Republicans not only curb the debate; they decide what it is that we said and what it is that we wrote in our amendments that we were putting forth.

The disgusting misrepresentations that were advanced by the Republicans demand an apology by the chairman of the committee and a pledge by the Republican leadership in this House that this will never happen again; that this will never happen again.

We must be mindful of a standard we must uphold, not only for ourselves, but for the American people, to conduct ourselves at all times in a manner which shall reflect credibly on the House of Representatives. In doing so, the House must maintain the integrity of all of its proceedings, as the rules of the House dictate in the House Rules and Manual.

What happened last week to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) was an outrage. An official report that the majority of the Committee on the Judiciary prepared to the legislation at hand deliberately and purposely mischaracterized their amendments in a manner that was insulting and derogatory.

Again, no wonder the Republicans do not want to talk about what is on the floor right now, which is a privileged resolution addressing the gross abuse of power of the Republicans. We had tried to say at meetings, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) tried to get an agreement with the majority that they would change the record and apologize; to admit that there was something wrong with what happened last week, and that would have made a difference in bringing this resolution to the floor. But, no, there was no admission that there was anything wrong with misrepresenting, not telling the truth about what was contained in those amendments.

Administrative functions, such as reporting of amendments and descriptions of these amendments, relate to the integrity, again, of the proceedings of the House and must be fairly described. If there is a controversy, then you go to the maker of the amendment and say, what is it, how would you characterize your amendment, you who are the maker of the amendment? But no, we had placed our trust that the majority would fairly describe something as administrative as an amendment offered by a Member.

In short, this should not even be an issue we need to be reviewing and scrutinizing. If this were to pass without discussion, think of the precedent that it would create; that the majority, on a regular and repeated basis, could use their power and abuse their power to write any characterization of any amendment that anyone made. Its simply wrong.

The behavior exhibited by the Republican majority with the Committee on the Judiciary report flies in the face of the comity and civility and honesty that we should all strive for. It is a further reflection, again, of the abuse of power we have seen here. It is an embarrassment to the House.

I was deeply disappointed to learn that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has refused to apologize on his own accord. Our rules, Mr. Speaker, are our best defense. They are what make the debate and the democracy work. As I said, Mr. Speaker, you even see in this close on this important debate that there is an interest in stopping the conversation. I hope that the Speaker and the Republican leadership will reflect on their obligations to the House, and indeed, to all the Members of both parties, and that they will ask the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to apologize for the affront to this House and the blatant abuse of position as the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

This is, in my view, an aberration for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). As I said, many of us, while we may disagree on issues, have held him in great esteem and respect. He is an articulate spokesperson for his point of view. But his point of view is not necessarily the point of view of everyone in this body, and his point of view should not be the description of the amendments that Members in the minority are presenting to the Congress. The leadership has a responsibility to ensure that this will not happen again.

I want to commend all the Members of the Committee on the Judiciary once again, Republicans and Democrats alike. I think you have a very challenging task. I want to particularly commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the people who were offended by this, though all of us were, but particularly in terms of the retelling of their amendments, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by thanking the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his courage, because it takes a degree of courage to bring a privileged resolution to this floor when you know there will be a continuation of a misrepresentation of what happened last week. We are doing this not because of this bill, we are doing this because it is our responsibility to have an honest reflection of the proceedings of the House. I urge our colleagues to support the resolution of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the month of May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and to pay tribute to the contributions of the Asian American and Pacific Islander community, including immigrants, refugees, and natives.

As the Representative of California's 8th District, it is my privilege to represent a strong Asian American and Pacific Islander community that is a vital part of San Francisco's world-renowned diversity.

As the Democratic Leader in Congress, I am proud to join my colleagues in honoring more than 13 million Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs), representing a diverse community of backgrounds, cultures, and experiences, who make their homes in the United States. Their unique contributions enhance the moral fabric and character of our great country.

As we celebrate the significant progress made by Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, it is right for us to honor the memory of great leaders of the AAPI community who have recently passed away--including Fred Korematsu, who dared to challenge the U.S. government over the Japanese internment camps, John Tsu, former chair for the White House Initiative on AAPIs and longtime community activist, Patrick Okura, a great civil rights leader and Japanese American internee, and Magdaleno Duenas, a Filipino veteran and community leader.

Mr. Speaker, let us remember our former colleague and my dear friend Congressman Robert Matsui, who despite imprisonment in an internment camp during World War II, never lost faith in our country. He went on to become a national champion for all of America's seniors, and the first Asian-American to serve in the leadership of the House of Representatives.

Their legacies are part of the ongoing struggle of all Asian American and Pacific Islanders, who, in spite of having to overcome great hardship and discrimination, maintain an abiding and unbreakable belief in the promise of our country, and move forward to make remarkable contributions to our country.

In memory of these great figures in the history of our Nation, it is only fitting that this year's theme for Asian Pacific American Heritage Month is `Liberty and Freedom for All.' Each of these individuals leaves us with a legacy that still burns to be fulfilled. For despite the great progress that we have made, we still have a long way to go to ensuring equality and expanding opportunities so that all Americans have a chance to achieve their full potential. Their work will continue on in all of us.

This year we also commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Immigration Act of 1965, and the 30th Anniversary of the Refugee Assistance Act of 1975. These laws demonstrate our national commitment to serving as a beacon of hope for all those in search of the opportunity and freedom that are the promises of America. In the three decades since the signing of the Refugee Assistance Act, the United States has provided shelter to millions of refugees escaping persecution, tyranny, and often, unspeakable tragedies. Each time we look into the face of diversity, we see great heroism and personal dignity.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage month, let us rededicate ourselves to answer their enduring call to service, and fight for justice in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time, and also, more importantly, for his very distinguished service to our country through his leadership on issues relating to our budget and other matters of concern to working families in America. I thank him for his great leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided budget resolution because it is a missed opportunity. Instead of strengthening Social Security, this budget spends 100 percent of the Social Security surplus, $160 billion for this year alone, on tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. Instead of being an engine of growth, this budget and its deficits will put the brake on job creation.

Do not take it from me. Chairman Greenspan said just recently, ``The Federal budget deficit is on an unsustainable path in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years. Unless this trend is reversed, at some point these deficits would cause the economy to stagnate, or worse.''

A missed opportunity, because instead of being a blueprint of positive initiatives for the future, this budget is an assault on our values. The budget calls for $10 billion in Medicaid cuts, maybe more, despite the fact that both this House and the other body explicitly rejected such cuts. That is a cut that is deeper than was even originally proposed by the President.

Republicans must explain to the American people, who oppose Medicaid cuts by 4 to 1, why they insist on slashing funds for sick children, seniors in nursing homes and the disabled. Governors across the country, both Democrat and Republican, oppose these cuts, because they know the devastating impact they will have on Americans, more than 1 million of whom will likely lose their health coverage.

The reckless Republican budget does not stop with cuts in Medicaid and Social Security.

Its wrong priorities mean cuts in education, medicare, student loans, and changes in the pension guarantee program which will cause American workers to lose their pensions.

Democrats have a better idea. During the last years of President Clinton's administration, the entire Social Security trust fund surplus was saved, and we were on a budget path to continue saving that money. We were on a path of $5.6 trillion in surplus. America would have been debt-free by 2008. Think of it: our country would have been debt-free by 2008. No more spending a big chunk of our budget on debt service interest payments which soon will be bigger than all of our domestic discretionary spending. But the Republicans have turned that $5.6 trillion surplus into a $4 trillion deficit; a $10 trillion, I repeat, a $10 trillion failure of leadership on the part of the Republicans.

This budget we are passing today will pass mountains of debt on to our children and grandchildren, jeopardizing economic security by increasing our debt to China and Japan and other foreign investors. The Republican budget does not do justice, it does great harm, to our country. Instead of being a statement of our values, the Republican budget is an assault on our values.

I urge my colleagues to return to fiscal discipline, to honor our values, and to oppose this disgraceful Republican budget.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for upholding a high ethical standard in the House, and I rise in strong support of the resolution before us.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for the American people. Across the country they have spoken out and editorial boards have reflected their views throughout our nation that not any one of us is above the law. No Member of Congress is above the law.

I come to this podium as the House Democratic leader, but I also would note that I bring to my office that I serve in now and to this podium the experience of serving on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for 6 years, and an additional 7th year to be part of the Livingston task force. Mr. Livingston, a Republican Member, chaired our committee, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) was our ranking member on the task force that wrote the rules that we have been talking about this evening.

They were very important. We came together in a bipartisan way, hammered out all of the challenges that Members proposed, and came up with bipartisanship. When we did that, we were acting in the tradition of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the House of Representatives, bipartisan in nature in terms of writing the rules and in implementing them.

My friends, we all should be deeply indebted to all of the Members who have served on the bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Anyone who has served on it will tell Members it is not an easy task, and one that any one of us would like to avoid. It is very hard to pass judgment on your peers.

What I learned on the committee was that there are only three things that matter in the discussion: the facts, the rules of the House, and the law of the land. Anything else, discussion, hearsay and the rest of it was irrelevant to the decision-making. So in a bipartisan way, friendships were developed, we worked together. Members are down in the lower levels of the Capitol for long, long hours; and it was sometimes very difficult and sad to make those judgments. We deliberated; we exchanged ideas. Indeed, we even prayed over our decisions because we knew what impact they would have on the lives of our colleagues.

In short, we took our responsibility to act in a bipartisan way very, very seriously. And so should the committee regarding the rules that we will be returning to now. They should be taken in the most serious way. I hope when we vote on these rules tonight, we will have a big vote and that big vote will show not only our support for this resolution but our respect for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and its need to act in a bipartisan way.

One concern that I do have that has not been addressed is something that has happened not by a rules change but by a practice, a one-time practice.

Mr. Speaker, this book is called the ``House Rules and Manual,'' and it determines how we function in the House and how each of the committees functions. This rule says here: ``All staff members shall be appointed by an affirmative vote of a majority of the committee.'' The rules governing staffing have been the standing rules of the House since the bipartisan task force recommendations were adopted in the 105th Congress, in the 106th Congress, the 107th Congress, the 108th Congress, and they are indeed the rules of the House now even without action being taken tonight.

Central to a bipartisan upholding of a high ethical standard is nonpartisan staffing of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Certainly the Chair and the ranking member have their staff person for liaison purposes to the committee, but the work of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct must be done in a nonpartisan way. Those are the rules of the House.

They must be upheld. They have been departed from in this Congress.

I would hope that it is implied in what we do here that the intent of Congress is to obey the rules of the House. If any Member has a different view of the intent of Congress regarding the hiring of staff for the committee in a nonpartisan way, I think that Member should speak up now because the intent of Congress should be clear, unequivocal, and not controversial.

I want to commend those that served during the 108th Congress, and especially the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley); and I agree with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) whole-heartedly: if there are rules changes that need to be made, let us subject these rules to the scrutiny that Members feel they should have, and let us do it in a bipartisan way.

In fact, on at least two, maybe three, occasions, I have brought that very proposal to the floor in a privileged resolution by saying, ``let us form a bipartisan task force to examine the rules and see how we go forward.'' We can still do that, but we cannot do it until these rules are in place for the committee to function and then to review them.

I commend the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and am so proud of the dignified, serious way he approached his responsibilities to upholding a high ethical standard. And the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) is absolutely right, we will not compromise ever on the integrity of the House. I support the gentleman's statement and associate myself with the gentleman's statement in that regard.

And as we return to bipartisanship in upholding a high ethical standard in the House, let us also heed the voice of the American people who want us to return to bipartisan cooperation in growing our economy so we can create good-paying jobs in our country. Let us expand access to affordable health care for all Americans. That is what the American people want us to do. Let us work in a bipartisan way to broaden opportunities for our children so no child is left behind and so our children can go to college without going into crushing debt.

Let us listen to the American people who want us to work in a bipartisan way to truly protect our homeland, to strengthen Social Security; and let us listen to the American people when they say, ``we need relief at the pump now. We cannot pay these high prices at the pump. We cannot pay these high prices at the pharmacy.''

I contend that ethics impact policy. Certainly a high ethical standard is its own excuse for being. Integrity of the House should be unquestioned, and part of our responsibility is to uphold that ethical standard. But ethics does impact policy. The American people must believe that we are working in this House in the public interest and not in the special interest. A higher ethical standard is essential to creating policy which is consistent with our values.

And so I support this resolution, and I urge our colleagues all to vote for it and hope that the strong vote that it will receive will not only speak to the resolution but speak to the respect that we all have for the ethics process, for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, for upholding a high ethical standard, and for saying not any one of us is above the law.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I commend her for her leadership in bringing this very important motion to instruct to the floor.

It is crystal clear, Madam Speaker, that a majority of Members in both bodies oppose cuts to Medicaid. The other body voted to remove such cuts on the floor of the Senate. With 44 House Republicans signing a letter calling for no Medicaid cuts and a solid Democratic opposition, a majority of this body also prefers a solution with no Medicaid cuts.

The regular order, as my colleagues know, Madam Speaker, is to appoint conferees, instruct those conferees, resolve differences with the other body, and report back a conference agreement. But the Republican leadership knew they could not defeat a motion to protect Medicaid, so rather than follow the regular order, they negotiated behind closed doors to include Medicaid cuts in the final budget report, regardless of how the majority in both Houses vote and how we vote in this House on the motion to instruct.

I usually do not like to talk about process in the House, but this is a time when process has a very direct impact on policy, and a policy that has a direct impact on the health of the American people.

Press reports indicate that the final agreement between the House and Senate will contain between $8 billion to $10 billion in Medicaid cuts. This conference report would not only ignore the will of the majority of both houses but, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it would include deeper cuts than originally proposed by the President, and vehemently opposed in both houses.

Madam Speaker, States have undergone a wrenching budget process. When the President first proposed Medicaid cuts in early February, many Republican Governors spoke out against them. One of them, Republican Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, said, ``People need to remember that to balance the Federal budget off the backs of the poorest people in the country is simply unacceptable.''

It is unacceptable but, unfortunately, it is standard operating procedure for the Republican leadership in Congress.

I am hopeful that a significant number of Republicans will join our motion to instruct, being true to the letter that they sent opposing cuts, and protect Medicaid.

If Congress cuts Medicaid funding, States will be forced to reduce Medicaid coverage or benefits, jeopardizing needed services for low- income Americans. Over the last 4 years, more than 5 million people have joined the ranks of the uninsured. That number would more than double if it were not for the Medicaid program.

Make no mistake: Cutting Medicaid funds will increase the number of low-income Americans who are uninsured to partially pay for $70 billion in tax cuts. Many of these uninsured poor Americans are children. I do not think that it really is a statement of our values in a budget to cut the health care for our children, for the poorest children in America, in order to give the tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America.

And yet at the end of the day, this budget will do all of that and increase our deficits. This is wrong. This is unjust. And I urge my colleagues to vote for this very important motion to instruct to return a conference report to this body with zero Medicaid cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Marla Ruzicka who was tragically killed on Saturday in Iraq at the age of 28. Marla's courageous work on behalf of civilian victims of war demonstrated the compassion of the American people and extended a hand in friendship to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Marla gave so much of herself in her short life; it grieves us to think how much more she had to give. She devoted her life to making the lives lost count. Marla's death is a loss to the world.

Ms. Ruzicka was born in Lakeport, Calif. and came to San Francisco at the age of 17 to start her career at Global Exchange. During her time with Global Exchange, she worked with African AIDS victims, Palestinian refugees, and Nicaraguan campesinos. When her work took her to Afghanistan during the war to remove the Taliban, she came face to face with the human costs of the conflict and dedicated the remainder of her life to aiding the civilian victims of war.

Two years ago, Ms. Ruzicka founded the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict. With little staff and scarce funding, she successfully lobbied Congress for $2.5 million to help Afghan war victims. The fund has since grown to $7.5 million, and she has secured $10 million for Iraqi victims.

Ms. Ruzicka worked not just in Washington, but on the literal frontlines of the conflicts. In Iraq, she was the leader of more than 150 volunteers who went door-to-door to compile a list of civilian casualties to determine the civilian cost of the war. She was a fierce advocate for the victims' families, serving as the point of contact between affected Iraqi civilians and the U.S.-led forces. Ms. Ruzicka helped direct aid where it was most needed, and she helped many Iraqi families begin to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives.

On April 16, Ms. Ruzicka was on her way to visit another Iraqi family devastated by the conflict when a suicide bomber attacked a nearby U.S. convoy. She died in the blast.

Mr. Speaker, Marla Ruzicka reminded us of the immense scale of human suffering that war brings. She gave her time, her energy, and ultimately her life to help ease the suffering of its victims. She is an inspiration to people around the world.

I hope that it is a comfort to her parents, Clifford and Nancy, her brothers and sisters, and all her family and friends, that so many people share their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time, and I thank her for her leadership on protecting the environment and the health of America's children. I particularly commend her for her resourcefulness in bringing this amendment to the floor. Because of a letter dated April 19 from the Congressional Budget Office which deems the MTBE giveaway an unfunded mandate, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) was able to bring this amendment to the floor. I thank the gentlewoman from California. It is important to all who care about the health of our children.

I rise in support of the gentlewoman from California's amendment to strike, really, this disgraceful MTBE giveaway, and I commend her for seizing the opportunity to offer this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as we discussed yesterday in general debate, a few drops of MTBE can poison an entire drinking water system. But the industry lobbied for MTBE to be added to gasoline, anyway. The dirty little secret is that the industry knew all along that MTBE could leak out of gasoline storage tanks and contaminate groundwater. In fact, there was a deliberate attempt by the MTBE producers to hide the groundwater impacts of their product from Congress.

Today, communities across America are suffering the effects of MTBE. MTBE contamination of groundwater and surface water is a major problem in my State of California, and many drinking water wells have had to be shut down because of this contaminant. MTBE contamination has been detected in all 50 States, and a recent study indicates that it costs between $12 billion and $63 billion to clean it up. It will cost between $12 billion and $63 billion to clean it up, to clean up something that the industry knew was dirty to begin with and withheld information about that from Congress.

Not surprisingly, the MTBE producers and the big oil companies want to be protected from liability for contaminating our drinking water supplies. And not surprisingly, Tom DeLay and House Republicans are happy to oblige. The gentleman from Texas insisted on the MTBE provision in the last Congress, even at the cost of killing the energy bill. He insisted on it again this year. In fact, this is the majority leader's bill we are debating today.

Instead of eliminating MTBE now, the Republican energy bill gives 9 years for a phaseout, 9 years of MTBE leaking into our water supply. And a loophole in this very law may even allow MTBE to be used indefinitely. It gives MTBE producers liability protection in contamination lawsuits, and it gives a $2 billion subsidy to MTBE manufacturers.

Let me repeat: this is a contaminant, a small supply of which can poison a water supply. And this bill is giving the manufacturers 9 years to phase it out and a loophole that may even make the use of MTBE indefinite. It is saying that you have no liability, MTBE manufacturers, for contamination, no liability, long term to phase out, if ever; and third of all, we are going to fund it. For $2 billion, we are going to give a subsidy to MTBE manufacturers.

According to the Republican Congress, the punishment for polluting the groundwater, if you pollute our groundwater, you get $2 billion. That is your gift for contaminating our groundwater. Republicans are not even giving MTBE polluters a slap on the wrist. They are giving them a pat on the back. But in their attempt to shield MTBE producers and big oil companies from accountability, Republicans have created a huge unfunded mandate for States and localities, and it is taxpayers who are stuck with the bill.

Remember unfunded mandates? Was that not principle number one of the Contract with America, no unfunded mandates? Here it is. The CBO, the

Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan CBO, says that this amounts to an unfunded mandate. That is why the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) was able to get this amendment made in order under the rules.

And then in their attempts to shield MTBE producers and big oil companies from accountability, Republicans have created this unfunded mandate, which is called such by the National Water Resources Association, the American Public Works Association, Western Coalition of Arid States, American Water Works Association, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors. These organizations say that this provision agrees with the Congressional Budget Office that it amounts to a massive unfunded mandate on local governments and citizens.

Republicans used to oppose these, as I mentioned; and the rules of the House still allow us to strike them. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). I urge my colleagues to support the Capps amendment and to demand accountability and to stop the outrageous MTBE giveaway.

Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) who I am very proud of for yielding me time and for his leadership.

I want to commend four of our ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) of the Committee on Science for their exceptional leadership in presenting an alternative view to the Republican bill that is on the floor today. Unfortunately, we will not have a Democratic substitute, contrary to what the gentleman said.

Madam Chairman, the American people deserve an energy policy that is worthy of the 21st century, not one mired in the policies of the past, but a bill that looks forward, not backward. It is imperative that our country have an energy policy for the future, and it is a matter of national security that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that we will be able to take care of our own security and not have to send our troops in harm's way for oil.

It is critical to our environment that we invest in emerging technologies and renewable energy and invest in energy efficiency and conservation. It is vital for our economy that our country's economic growth is not constrained by the price of oil and that our consumers do not have to pay such a serious price at the pump for gasoline.

The opportunity is here, really, for an energy bill that would put our country on the right path. But this bill that the Republicans have put forth today misses that opportunity. Instead of a positive plan for moving our country forward, the Republican bill is warmed-over stew of old provisions and outdated policies.

The Republican bill is anti-consumer, anti-taxpayer, anti- environment, and with its MTBE provisions, it is harmful to children and other living things.

The Republican bill was conceived in secrecy. It was written with the influence of the energy lobbyists, and it shows. It should be rejected by this Congress.

First, this bill is anti-consumer. Gas prices are soaring, and this bill makes matters worse. The price of gasoline is approaching $3 in some parts of our State; and nationwide, gas prices are up 42 cents above a year ago. When it costs nearly $50 for an American worker to fill his tank, it is time for relief. Yet it is the fifth year of the Bush administration, and there has been no meaningful action to lower gas prices at the pump.

Madam Chairman, according to the Bush administration's own Department of Energy, this Republican bill will actually increase gas prices by three cents a gallon and will have almost no effect on production, consumption, or prices.

The consumer is not served well when the public interest is not served, and the public interest is not served by this bill. Indeed, it is a gift to the special interest.

This bill is wrong because by its electricity provisions it fails to protect the public from Enron-style fraud and abuse. By arbitrary caps on private spending to improve the reliability of

our Nation's electricity grid, the bill goes wrong. It is also wrong by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which protects consumers and investors from corporate abuses.

Second, the bill is anti-taxpayer, and I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and some of the members of the Committee on Ways and Means addressed some of these concerns. The bill is loaded with tax breaks and royalty relief for oil and gas companies. Of $8.1 billion in tax incentives in the bill, $7.5 billion, a staggering 93 percent, is for traditional energy sources such as oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and electricity transmission.

Even President Bush has said that when the price of oil is over $50 a barrel that the oil industry does not need relief; and yet the President wants this bill to come to his desk from Congress as soon as possible.

Democrats have better ideas. I particularly want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their amendment to lower gas prices, promote energy efficiency, advance emerging technologies for energy efficiency and conservation and to improve consumer protection.

This bill is anti-environment, as the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) pointed out. It will open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, all for the sake of a 6-month supply of oil that will not even be available for 10 years. If this unspoiled place is not special enough to save for our grandchildren, what is? Once they despoil the ANWR, nothing else is sacred.

Indeed, this bill makes it easier for oil drilling in protected areas off our magnificent coastlines.

The bill contains other anti-environmental provisions, including weakening the Clean Air Act, weakening the Clean Water Act, weakening the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Finally, this bill is harmful to children and all living things. The provision on the gasoline additive MTBE, a few drops of which can poison entire drinking water systems, the provisions in this bill for MTBE are a breathtaking example of pandering to special interests. Instead of eliminating MTBE now, remember I said a few drops can poison entire drinking water systems, instead of eliminating it now, the bill gives the MTBE industry 9 years for a phase-out, and it would give MTBE producers liability protection in contamination lawsuits.

Okay. You are poisoning the water supply, you do not have to stop for 9 years, you have no liability for contamination, and on top of that, we are going to give you $2 billion in subsidies, $2 billion in subsidies to help MTBE manufacturers.

The dirty little secret is that the MTBE industry knew all along that it would leak out of gasoline storage tanks and contaminate groundwater, but they lobbied for it to be added to our gasoline anyway. Now they do not want to pay for the cleanup. They want taxpayers to pick up the tab.

The provision on MTBE included in this bill, at the majority leader's insistence, killed the bill in the last Congress, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, is insisting on including it again this year. In fact, this is the majority leader's bill that we are debating today.

Madam Chairman, it is time for us to look forward. It is time for an energy policy worthy of the 21st century.

This Republican energy bill is clearly designed to help energy companies make more money, not to help Americans consumers save money.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for a forward-looking energy bill to ensure our national security, to grow our economy, to protect our environment, and to keep our water and air safe for our children.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Democratic amendments for an energy policy for the future, and I urge my colleagues to ``just say no'' to the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. DeLay) disgraceful MTBE giveaway and his outdated boondoggle of an energy bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution to name the United States courthouse in Sacramento, California after my dear friend and our beloved former colleague, Bob Matsui, who passed away so suddenly on New Year's night.

Time and time again, Bob's constituents elected him to serve as their Representative in the United States Congress. As all of us know, he rose to national prominence as a senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, a national spokesman for Social Security, and as the first Asian American in leadership of the Congress.

Bob was a living combination of intellect and passion--someone who understood the complexities of the Social Security system, and who never forgot what it meant to the lives of America's seniors. As an architect for a better America, Bob expanded opportunities for our county's children, built a more secure future, and protected precious freedoms for all of us.

In our more than 30 years of friendship, I deeply admired Bob's personal courage. Despite being imprisoned in an internment camp as a very young boy during WorId War II, Bob always had hope in the promise of America. He loved America enough to want to make it better. In fact, he worked tirelessly to pass legislation that awarded payments and an apology from the government to Japanese Americans who had been sent to internment camps.

When it came to politics, Bob was a maestro, orchestrating campaigns across the country that addressed the aspirations of the American people, particularly on his signature issues of economic opportunity, civil liberties, and retirement security.

It seems like only yesterday that Bob was among us, doing the people's work here in Congress. Bob's spirit and energy have been greatly missed. We are saddened by the loss of our dear friend and colleague, but we are fortunate to have his wife Doris here to continue and build on Bob's outstanding work.

President Bush rightly called him a ``dedicated public servant and a good and decent man who served with distinction and integrity.'' I know that our friends on the other side of the aisle miss Bob as well, and join in paying him this tribute.

Bob Matsui was a true patriot who had a dream for a better America. I urge my colleagues to support naming this courthouse in his beloved Sacramento in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise in regard to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution that would create a bipartisan task force to return to ethical rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and thank him for his distinguished leadership as the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary and his important statements on this bankruptcy bill today.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that every person in our country must be financially responsible, that we take responsibility for our action, for our debts and we do so in a way that is honorable.

In the course of our country's history, our economy, our government has always provided for people to get a fresh start under the bankruptcy law to enable them to go forward to make a contribution to our economy and our society. Recognizing that tradition and recognizing the appreciation that we have for personal responsibility, I regretfully rise in opposition to this bill because this bankruptcy bill seeks to squeeze even more money for credit card companies from the most hard-pressed Americans.

It would bind hardworking and honest Americans to credit card companies and other lenders as modern day indentured servants. I think it is our duty to speak up for those who would be hurt by this bill.

This duty is paramount because we have been shut out of the process here, the legislative process to bring any amendments to the floor. That would have been an amendment on identity theft, which this week's news accounts demonstrate there are real problems of identity theft, and an amendment was rejected.

We tried to take a legislative course of action in our previous question, which is a technicality, is a procedure here on the floor; but we were not able to get any Republican support to address the issue of identity theft and how individuals can be protected from identity theft under the bankruptcy bill.

According to the sponsors of this bill, 1.6 million Americans who filed for bankruptcy last year are deadbeats who are avoiding their debts. That is really the essence of what they are saying with this bill. Proponents claim that there is a bankruptcy tax in which honest Americans are footing the bill for abusive users of credit cards.

We should be vigilant for any abuse of any legal process. There is no evidence, however, of widespread bankruptcy abuse. In fact, a recent study indicated that 45 percent of those filing for bankruptcy had skipped a needed doctor's visit, 25 percent had utilities shut off, 20 percent went without food. They are not using this money that they should be paying in for luxuries. They just simply do not have money to survive.

As a distinguished group of law professors wrote: ``Some people do abuse the bankruptcy system, but the overwhelming majority of people in bankruptcy are in financial distress as a result of job loss, medical expense, divorce, or a combination of those causes. This bill attempts to kill a mosquito with a shotgun.''

I have a problem with the bill on several counts as to what is contained in the bill. The bankruptcy bill fails miserably, I believe, on its merits. It employs, for the first time, a stringent and unworkable means test that limits access to chapter 7 and forces individuals into payment plans that will fail.

It frustrates a key goal of the bankruptcy code, to give individuals who suffer economic misfortunes through no fault of their own a fresh start. That is an American tradition.

The bill neglects the real causes of bankruptcies, as I just mentioned, medical concerns, divorce, in some cases death, while rewarding irresponsible corporate behavior.

It lets those who truly abuse and game the bankruptcy system, the wealthy debtors who shield their assets in asset trusts and homestead exemptions, keep their loopholes and get off, in some cases, scot-free.

It is wholly unnecessary. Current law already allows a bankruptcy judge to deny a discharge in chapter 7 to prevent abuses. That is why bankruptcy judges are uniformly opposed to the bill.

I just would like to quote Keith Lundin, a Federal bankruptcy judge in Tennessee and an authority on bankruptcy repayment plans. Judge Lundin says, ``The folks who brought you `those who can pay, should pay' are pulling the stuffing out of the very part of the bankruptcy law where debtors do pay.'' He says, ``The advocates aren't trying to fix the bankruptcy law; they're trying to mess it up so much that nobody can use it.''

They interviewed dozens of bankruptcy judges, whose names have been suggested by proponents and opponents of this legislation, for their standing on this issue, to speak out; and the reasons why these judges are opposed are several reasons.

One is the judges now have broad discretion to determine how much a debtor must pay to creditors and on what schedule, and the schedule is very important, after declaring bankruptcy under what is known as chapter 13; but under the legislation, that discretion would be substantially curtailed.

The new legislation would bar courts from reducing the amount that many debtors would have to repay on their cars and other big-ticket items. It

would also extend the length of time people would have to make repayments and impose repayment schedules that critics describe as so onerous that debtors would fall behind. It just prescribes that they would.

The bankruptcy judges say the result would be the collapse of more repayment plans, forcing debtors out of bankruptcy court protection. Creditors could then force debtors to pay the full amount owed, not the reduced amount, and by moving to repossess their belongings. Many people would have to pay creditors far into the future and thus be unable to restart their economic lives, a long-held aim of bankruptcy.

I will submit this article from the Los Angeles Times for the Record at this point.

[From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 29, 2005]

Judges Say Overhaul Would Weaken Bankruptcy System.

(By Peter G. Gosselin)

For nearly a decade, proponents of overhauling the nation's

bankruptcy laws have described their aim as ensuring that

Americans who enter bankruptcy court do not escape bills that

they can truly afford to pay.

But only weeks before Congress is likely to approve the

long-sought overhaul, bankruptcy judges across the country

warn that the measure would undermine the very section of the

law under which debtors are now repaying more than $3 billion

annually to their creditors.

These judges say the effect of the overhaul would be to

discourage most forms of personal bankruptcy, which--for

nearly two centuries has served as a safety net for people in

economic trouble.

``The folks who brought you `those who can pay, should pay'

are pulling the stuffing out of the very part of the

bankruptcy law where debtors do pay,'' said Keith Lundin, a

federal bankruptcy judge in the eastern district of Tennessee

in Nashville and an authority on bankruptcy repayment plans.

``The advocates aren't trying to fix the bankruptcy law;

they're trying to mess it up so much that nobody can use

it,'' Lundin charged.

In interviews, a dozen current or former bankruptcy judges,

whose names were suggested by proponents as well as opponents

of the overhaul legislation, described what they saw as the

problems that could result from key provisions of the new

measure.

Judges now have broad discretion to determine how much a

debtor must pay to creditors and on what schedule after

declaring bankruptcy under what is known as Chapter 13. But

under the legislation, that discretion would be substantially

curtailed.

The new legislation would bar courts from reducing the

amount that many debtors would have to repay on their cars

and other big-ticket items. It would also extend the length

of time people would have to make repayments and impose

repayment schedules that critics describe as so onerous that

many debtors would fall behind.

The result, the judges said, would be the collapse of more

repayment plans, forcing debtors out of bankruptcy court

protection. Creditors then could try to force debtors to pay

the full amount owed--not the reduced amount a judge had

ordered--by moving to repossess their belongings or bringing

legal actions. Many people would have to pay creditors far

into the future, the critics said, and thus be unable to

restart their economic lives, a long-held aim of bankruptcy.

Repayment plans ``are pretty fragile documents to begin

with, but they're going to get a lot more fragile under these

conditions,'' said Ronald Barliant, a former bankruptcy judge

from the northern district of Illinois in Chicago.

``It's going to take away a lot of the incentives'' for

people to enter repayment plans, said David W. Houston III, a

bankruptcy judge from the northern district of Mississippi in

Aberdeen.

Overhaul proponents respond to such criticisms by

contending that the current bankruptcy system is rife with

fraud and abuse and is stacked against creditors. Many

proponents are deeply scornful of bankruptcy judges, who they

charge have let the system spin out of control.

``They're part of the . . . problem,'' declared Jeff

Tassey, a Washington lobbyist who heads the coalition of

credit card companies, banks and others that has spearheaded

the overhaul drive.

``They're not real judges, not Article 3 judges,'' Tassey

said. He was referring to Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution,

under which judges in the regular federal court system are

appointed for life. Bankruptcy judges are appointed under

Article 1 to 14-year renewable terms.

As matters now stand, financially distressed Americans

generally have two options in bankruptcy. They can file a

Chapter 7 case, in which they forfeit most of their assets in

return for cancellation of most debts and a debt-free ``fresh

start.'' Or, they can file a Chapter 13 case, in which they

get to keep most of their property but must agree to repay a

portion of their debts over a period of time.

Some advocates for changing the system have contended that

these provisions should be rewritten to address a kind of

moral laxness in bankruptcy practices.

``When you have seen a system that has gone from a few

hundred thousand cases to 1.5 million last year--most of that

increase during the fat years of the Clinton administration--

you must conclude something is not right,'' said Edith H.

Jones, a federal appellate court judge in Houston who served

on a blue-ribbon panel to review bankruptcy law in the 1990s

and is widely believed to be seen as on President Bush's

short list for a position on the Supreme Court.

``People have been encouraged to see bankruptcy as an easy

way out of uncomfortable situations,'' Jones said.

Overhaul proponents have also said that the new measure is

so narrowly cast that it would affect no more than 15 pecent

of bankruptcy filers.

The legislation would require courts to check whether

people make more than their state's median income and can

pass a ``means test,'' which gauges whether they have enough

to cover allowable living expenses, pay secured creditors

such as mortgage lenders and still have some left over for

unsecured creditors such as credit card companies. Those who

are above the median and have the means would no longer be

allowed to file under Chapter 7 and wipe out most of their

debts, but would have to file Chapter 13 cases and agree

to a repayment plan.

Nearly all congressional Republicans, together with many

Democrats, support the overhaul measure, which the president

has warmly endorsed and said he would sign. The Senate passed

the measure this month in a 74-25 vote. Approval from the

House is expected next month.

However, largely overlooked in the debate has been a series

of proposed changes in Chapter 13 that critics say would make

it harder for debtors to stick with repayment plans--the

opposite effect of what supporters say they want.

Critics, including bankruptcy judges in California, North

Carolina, Massachusetts, and Florida say there is nowhere

near the fraud in the system that advocates claim.

They cite a study by the nonpartisan American Bankruptcy

Institute, which concludes that only about 3 percent of those

who wipe out their debts in Chapter 7 could afford to repay a

portion in Chapter 13. Lobbyists for the credit card and

banking industries estimate that 10 percent or more would be

able to pay.

Those opposed to the changes contend that most people who

file for bankruptcy are truly distressed finanacially--and

say the success that courts have in collecting as much as

they do under Chapter 13 shows the system is working.

According to figures from the U.S. Trustee Program, a

Justice Department agency, Chapter 13 debtors repaid almost

$3.6 billion in 2003, the latest year for which figures are

available.

But critics say the courts' success with Chapter 13 is

threatened by several little-noticed elements of the proposed

legislation:

Under current law, those who file under Chapter 13 must

repay car loans only up to the amount the car is worth at the

time they enter court, or they risk losing the vehicle. A

debtor who bought a $24,000 sport utility vehicle and filed

for bankruptcy two years later, for example, might have to

pay far less because the vehicle had depreciated.

By reducing what debtors owe auto lenders in this fashion,

the law ensures more money for other creditors. And,

according to bankruptcy experts, it means that auto lenders

are treated on an equal footing with other ``secured''

creditors--they are promised repayment only to the value of

the item they could repossess.

Under the new measure, debtors would have to pay the full

amount on any vehicle purchased within 2 \1/2\ years of

bankruptcy, or risk losing the vehicle. The change may seem

minor to an outsider, but not to Chapter 13 debtors or

bankruptcy judges. ``That's going to be a big deal,''

predicted A. Thomas Small, a bankruptcy judge for the eastern

district of North Carolina in Raleigh. It would mean that

many repayment plans that work now would fail under the new

measure, he said.

Under current law, the debtor and his lawyer work out a

repayment plan that they think represents the most the debtor

can pay and still cover basic living expenses. A bankruptcy

judge must eventually approve the plan, which usually has

reduced or stretched-out payments to creditors. In the

meantime, the debtor immediately begins making payments to a

court-appointed trustee.

Under the legislation, many debtors would have to make full

payments on such big-ticket items as houses, furniture and

appliances. They would have to make those payments directly

to the lenders. And at the same time, they would have to

start paying the court-appointed trustee for debts to

doctors, credit card companies and other unsecured creditors.

Many bankruptcy judges say debtors who come before them

often do not have enough income to make both sets of

payments.

The result, they warned, would be that many debtors' plans

would quickly fail.

Under current bankruptcy law, two guiding principles are

that debtors should not be required to repay indefinitely, or

they effectively become indentured servants to their

creditors, and that they should eventually be given a debt-

free ``fresh start'' on their economic lives.

The legislation would require debtors to agree to repayment

plans with a five-year minimum repayment schedule, up from

the current three-year minimum. It would also

boost the chances that debtors would be required to continue

paying some debts even after a plan's successful completion.

Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University in

Virginia, said the shift away from the ``fresh start''

philosophy is justified because another bedrock American

value--that people who incur debts should pay them--is being

sullied under the current system.

But many bankruptcy judges and independent experts warn

that equally compelling values would be lost if the proposed

measure becomes law.

Practically, they warn, debtors who would no longer qualify

for Chapter 7 and fail to complete Chapter 13 repayment plans

would either have to keep paying creditors indefinitely or

drop out.

``If you're confronted with a mountain of debt and have no

hope of getting out from under it, you're either going to go

underground or turn to crime,'' said Kenneth N. Klee, a

former Republican congressional staffer who was one of the

chief authors of the last major bankruptcy law change in 1978

and now teaches law at UCLA.

More broadly, say judges and others, the ability to start

over after running into financial problems should not be

discounted.

``Loads of people have filed bankruptcy--Mark Twain, Buster

Keaton, Walt Disney,'' said Lundin, the Nashville-based

bankruptcy judge. ``Bankruptcy is a very American safety net.

``It's part and parcel of the American dream.''

Mr. Speaker, while this bill fails to improve the bankruptcy system, the bill succeeds in being harsh, punitive and mean-spirited.

The bill is particularly harsh on women who are often the primary care givers for their children or their parents and are the largest single group in bankruptcy; on older Americans who are the fastest growing group in bankruptcy due to medical costs; and on children. Parents seeking child support will compete with credit card companies and other lenders in State courts, but will have little protection and fewer resources than the large credit card companies they are up against.

Finally, the bill does a disservice to those who serve our Nation, especially our National Guard troops and Reservists who are not protected by an amendment passed by the other body.

National Guard and Reservists make up nearly 40 percent of those serving in the Iraqi theater. They often leave behind small businesses and jobs and incur debt, but they do not have the benefits and services offered to active duty Armed Forces.

This bill would not stop abusive creditors who are stalking down military families while their loved ones are serving our Nation bravely and heroically.

I would hope that our Republican colleagues would join us in a bipartisan way to support our motion to recommit that would give some opportunities for the National Guard not to be treated this way under the bankruptcy bill.

As for the bill, instead of addressing real causes of bankruptcy, this bill rewards irresponsible corporate behavior and fattens the already large profits of the credit card industry.

While bankruptcy filings have increased 17 percent in the last 8 years, credit card profits have increased more than 160 percent, from $11 billion to more than $30 billion. There are now 5 billion credit card solicitations a year stuffed into our mail boxes and many targeted at teenagers with no jobs, no income, no visible means of support to pay these credit card bills.

It is an industry with little oversight and loose underwriting that charges enormous fees and unfair interest payments. The legislation does nothing to address these failings. In fact, the other body rejected an amendment to tell customers how much it would cost in additional interest if they make only minimum payments on their credit card bills.

For these and other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I sadly oppose this bill. I say sadly because this is an area where there should not be any major disagreement. If the point is to honor a tradition in our country where people are entitled to a fresh start so they can begin contributing back to our economy and to our society, then we should uphold that; and if people are abusing the system, existing law already covers that.

Instead, we have a situation where it is mean and harsh to those who can least afford to pay back and gives opportunity to the wealthiest, the wealthiest, and corporate abusers of the system.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am giving my reasons for why I oppose the bill.