Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this bill hurts Americans. One group who will be especially hurt are family forced into bankruptcy because of a medical crisis.

A recent study conducted by professors at Harvard Medical and Law School showed that about half of all personal bankruptcies can be attributed to medical costs.

Among those who cited illnesses as a cause of bankruptcy, the average unreimbursed medical costs totaled nearly $12,000 even though more than three-quarters had health insurance.

How does the bill hurt the families? Under the bill for the first time there will be a presumption that many of these families abuse the bankruptcy system. Under current law, people facing a medical bankruptcy can seek several forms of relief. Chapter 7 is by far the most common. Under 7 debtors are required to forfeit all of their property other than the exempt assets in exchange for having their debts extinguished.

Current law already gives bankruptcy courts discretion to deny chapter 7 relieve where the filing is found to be a substantial abuse. But unlike this bill, current law provides a presumption in favor of granting relief to the debtor.

The other option is chapter 13 where a debtor is required to continue paying creditors. This makes it more difficult for debtors to get back on their feet.

This bill will hurt families facing medical bankruptcy because it will force many of them into chapter 13. That is because it presumes that these families are abusing the bankruptcy system if they fail the means test. The means tests starts with a family's income and then subtracts monthly expenses permitted by IRS guidelines. But instead of using a debtor's actual projected income, the means tests uses the debtor's average income over the prior 6 months. Thus, if a family's bankruptcy was triggered by a loss of income resulting from a serious illness, the means test would still attribute the lost income for the purpose of determining whether the family is abusing the bankruptcy system.

Further, the means test uses the median income for a State. My constituents in Santa Clara County live in a

high-cost area. Almost nobody will be able to discharge their debts in bankruptcy from Santa Clara County because of that high cost, no matter how meritorious for their claim for relief.

Similarly, instead of using the debtor's actual expenses, the inflexible guidelines developed by the IRS is used. As a result, more families facing medical bankruptcy will be presumed to be abusing the system, will be forced into chapter 13 and will never be able to stand on their feet again. That is not right.

The Harvard study found that these struggling families did everything they could to pay their medical bills to avoid bankruptcy. One in five skipped meals. One-third had their electricity cut off. Almost half lost their phone service. One in five was forced to move.

Incredibly, they also cut back on needed medications to try to avoid bankruptcy. In fact, half went without needed prescriptions. And a full 60 percent went without a needed doctor appointment.

Please join me in opposing this unfair bill.

[From Market Watch]

Illness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy

(By David U. Himmelstein, Elizabeth Warren, Deborah Thorne, and Steffie

Woolhandler)

ABSTRACT: In 2001, 1.458 million American families filed

for bankruptcy. To investigate medical contributors to

bankruptcy, we surveyed 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers in

five federal courts and subsequently completed in-depth

interviews with 931 of them. About half cited medical causes,

which indicates that 1.9-2.2 million Americans (filers plus

dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose

illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged

$11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had

insurance at the onset of illness. Medical debtors were 42

percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses

in coverage. Even middle-class insured families often fall

prey to financial catastrophe when sick.

``If the debtor be insolvent to serve creditors, let his

body be cut in pieces on the third market day. It may be cut

into more or fewer pieces with impunity. Or, if his creditors

consent to it, let him be sold to foreigners beyond the

Tiber.''

--Twelve Tables, Table III, 6 (ca. 450 B.C.)

Our bankruptcy system works differently from that of

ancient Rome; creditors carve up the debtor's assets, not the

debtor. Even so, bankruptcy leaves painful problems in its

wake. It remains on credit reports for a decade, making

everything from car insurance to house payments more

expensive. Debtors' names are often published in the

newspaper, and the fact of their bankruptcy may show up

whenever someone tries to find them via the Internet.

Potential employers who run routine credit checks (a common

screening practice) will discover the bankruptcy, which can

lead to embarrassment or, worse, the lost chance for a much-

needed job.

Personal bankruptcy is common. Nearly 1.5 million couples

or individuals filed bankruptcy petitions in 2001, a 360

percent increase since 1980. Fragmentary data from the legal

literature suggest that illness and medical bills contribute

to bankruptcy. Most previous studies of medical bankruptcy,

however, have relied on court records--where medical debts

may be subsumed under credit card or mortgage debt--or on

responses to a single survey question. None has collected

detailed information on medical expenses, diagnoses, access

to care, work loss, or insurance coverage. Research has been

impeded both by the absence of a national repository for

bankruptcy filings and by debtors' reticence to discuss their

bankruptcy, in population-based surveys, only half of those

who have undergone bankruptcy admit to it.

The health policy literature is virtually silent on

bankruptcy, although a few studies have looked at

impoverishment attributable to illness. In his 1972 book,

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) gave an impressionistic account of

``sickness and bankruptcy.'' The likelihood of incurring high

out-of-pocket costs was incorporated into older estimates of

the number of underinsured Americans: twenty-nine million in

1987. About 16 percent of families now spend more than one-

twentieth of their income on health care. Among terminally

ill patients (most of them insured), 39 percent reported that

health care costs caused moderate or severe financial

problems. Medical debt is common among the poor, even those

with insurance, and interferes with access to care. At least

8 percent, and perhaps as many as 21 percent of American

families are contacted by collection agencies about medical

bills annually.

Our study provides the first extensive data on the medical

concomitants of bankruptcy, based on a survey of debtors in

bankruptcy courts. We address the following questions: (1)

Who files for bankruptcy? (2) How frequently do illness and

medical bills contribute to bankruptcy? (3) When medical

bills contribute, how large are they and for what services?

(4) Does inadequate health insurance play a role in

bankruptcy? (5) Does bankruptcy compromise access to care?

a brief primer on bankruptcy

``Bankrupt'' is not synonymous with ``broke.'' ``Bankrupt''

means filing a petition in a federal court asking for

protection from creditors via the bankruptcy laws. A single

petition may cover an individual or married couple. The

instant a debtor files for bankruptcy, the court assumes

legal control of the debtor's assets and halts all collection

efforts.

Shortly after the filing, a court-appointed trustee

convenes a meeting to inventory the debtor's assets and debts

and to determine which assets are exempt from seizure. States

may regulate these exemptions, which often include work

tools, clothes, Bibles, and some equity in a home.

About 70 percent of all consumer debtors file under Chapter

7 of the Bankruptcy Code; most others file under Chapter 13.

In Chapter 7 the trustee liquidates all nonexempt assets--

although 96 percent of debtors have so little unencumbered

property that there is nothing left to liquidate. At the

conclusion of the bankruptcy, the debtor is freed from many

debts. In Chapter 13 the debtor proposes a repayment plan,

which extends for up to five years. Chapter 13 debtors may

retain their property so long as they stay current with their

repayments.

Under both chapters, taxes, student loans, alimony, and

child support remain payable in full, and debtors must make

payments on all secured loans (such as home mortgages and car

loans) or forfeit the collateral.

study data and methods

This study is based on a cohort of 1,771 bankruptcy filings

in 2001. For each filing, a debtor completed a written

questionnaire at the mandatory meeting with the trustee, and

we abstracted financial data from public court records. In

addition, we conducted follow-up telephone interviews with

about half (931) of these debtors.

Sampling strategy. We used cluster sampling to assemble a

cohort to households filing for personal bankruptcy in five

(of the seventy-seven total) federal judicial districts. We

collected 250 questionnaires in each district, representative

of the proportion of Chapters 7 and 13 filings in that

district. These 1,250 cases constitute our ``core sample.''

For planned studies on housing, we collected identical data

from an additional 521 homeowners filing for bankruptcy. We

based our analyses on all 1,771 bankruptcies with responses

weighted to maintain the representativeness of the sample.

Data collection. With the cooperation of the judges in each

district, we contacted the trustees who officiate at meetings

with debtors. The trustees agreed to distribute, or to allow

a research assistant to distribute, a self-administered

questionnaire to debtors appearing at the bankruptcy meeting.

Questionnaires (which were available in English and Spanish)

included a cover letter explaining the research project and

human subjects protections and encouraging debtors to consult

their attorneys (who were almost always present) before

participating.

The questionnaire asked about demographics, employment,

housing, and specific reasons for filing for bankruptcy, it

also asked whether the debtor had medical debts exceeding

$1,000, had lost two or more weeks of work-related income

because of illness, or had health insurance coverage for

themselves and all dependents at the time of filing, and

whether there had been a gap of one month or more in that

coverage during the past two years. In joint filings, we

collected demographic information for each spouse.

During the spring and summer of 2001 we collected

questionnaires from consecutive debtors in each district

until the target number was reached.

Follow-up telephone interviews. The written questionnaire

distributed at the time of bankruptcy filing invited debtors

to participate in future telephone interviews, for which they

would receive $50; 70 percent agreed to such interviews. We

ultimately completed follow-up telephone interviews with 931

of the 1,771 debtor families, a response rate of 53 percent.

The telephone interviews, conducted between June 2001 and

February 2002 using a structured, computer-assisted protocol,

explored financial, housing, and medical issues. Many debtors

also provided a narrative description of their bankruptcy

experience.

Detailed medical questions. Each of the 931 interviewees

was asked if any of the following had been a significant

cause of their bankruptcy: an illness or injury; the death of

a family member; or the addition of a family member through

birth, adoption, custody, or fostering. Those who answered

yes to this screening question were queried about diagnoses,

health insurance during the illness, and medical care use and

spending. Interviewers collected information about each

household member with medical problems. In total, we

collected in-depth medical information on 391 people with

health problems in 332 debtor households.

Data analysis. We used data from the self-administered

questionnaires (and court records) obtained from all 1,771

filters to analyze demographics, health coverage at the time

of filing, and gaps in coverage in the two years before

filing.

We also used the questionnaire to estimate how frequently

illness and medical bills contributed to bankruptcy. We

developed two summary measures of medical bankruptcy. Under

the rubric ``Major Medical Bankruptcy'' we included debtors

who either (1) cited illness or injury as a specific reason

for bankruptcy, or (2) reported uncovered medical bills

exceeding $1,000 in the past years,

or (3) lost at least two weeks of work-related income because

of illness/injury, or (4) mortgaged a home to pay medical

bills. Our more inclusive category, ``Any Medical

Bankruptcy,'' included debtors who cited any of the above, or

addiction, or uncontrolled gambling, or birth, or the death

of a family member.

Data from the 931 follow-up telephone interviews were used

to analyze hardships experienced by debtors in the period

surrounding their bankruptcy, including problems gaining

access to medical care. The in-depth medical interviews

regarding 391 people with medical problems are the basis for

our analyses of which household members were ill, diagnoses,

health insurance at onset of illness, and out-of-pocket

spending. Two physicians (Himmelstein and Woolhandler) coded

the diagnoses given by debtors into categories for analysis.

SAS and SUDAAN were used for statistical analyses,

adjusting for complex sample design. To extrapolate our

findings nationally, we assumed that our sample was

representative of the 1,457,572 households filing for

bankruptcy during 2001. Human subject committees at Harvard

Law School and the Cambridge Hospital approved the project.

study findings

Who files for bankruptcy? Exhibit 1 displays the

demographic characteristics of our weighted sample of 1,771

bankruptcy filers. The average debtor was a forty-one-year-

old woman with children and at least some college education.

Most debtors owned homes; their occupational prestige scores

place them predominantly in the middle or working classes.

On average, each bankruptcy involved 1.32 debtors

(reflecting some joint filings by married couples) and 1.33

dependents. Extrapolating from our data, the 1.5 million

personal bankruptcy filings nationally in 2001 involved 3.9

million people: 1.9 million debtors, 1.3 million children

under age eighteen, and 0.7 million other dependents.

Medical causes of bankruptcy. Exhibit 2 shows the

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the women of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, I am proud to pay tribute to our friend Judi Kanter on her retirement from EMILY's List. It is a pleasure and an honor to recognize Judi Kanter for fifteen years of outstanding work with EMILY's List, where she has been a leader in changing the face of politics today. She has truly made a difference in our lives and in the political life of our nation. Judi's work will have a lasting impact on the face of power in California.

Judi Kanter's tenure with EMILY's List began in the Bay Area and Northern California where she concentrated on expanding EMILY's List's presence and membership base. Over the years, however, her influence and reach grew exponentially. From San Diego to the Central Valley, from Los Angeles to Sacramento, Judi has become a key ally of pro- choice Democratic women.

The fruits of Judi's hard work are most evident with the development of the EMILY's List Majority Council, a powerful network of committed and generous activists. Through the Majority Council Judi has devoted her immense talents to supporting women candidates, helping them organize strong campaigns, and mobilizing women voters to elect progressive women.

The clearest example of Judi's effectiveness is the changing face of our Congressional delegation. When Judi began at EMILY's List in 1989 there were only seventeen women in the U.S. Congress. Today, the California Democratic Congressional Delegation alone includes two female Senators and eighteen women Members of Congress. There are a total of eighty-three women in Congress. And we know that Judi is as proud as we are that California's Democratic women in Congress represent the richness of California's diversity in background and political persuasion.

Outside the political arena, Judi has been an equally strong advocate for women. She serves on the board of the Family Violence Prevention Fund and other nonprofit organizations that empower women in our society. She has an unmatched talent for getting people involved and inspiring them to act.

Judi Kanter is smart, tough and elegant. She is a model for the women she inspires. For fifteen years, she has devoted herself to cultivating and investing in the next generation of pro-choice Democratic women leaders.

My colleagues Nancy Pelosi, Lois Capps, Susan Davis, Anna Eshoo, Jane Harman, Doris Matsui, Juanita Millender-McDonald, Grace Napolitano, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Linda Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez, Hilda Solis, Ellen Tauscher, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson and Lynn Woolsey join me in thanking Judi for her support, encouragement and friendship over so many years. We are proud that she will still serve EMILY's List in an advisory capacity, and offer her our best wishes as she begins this new chapter in her life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the achievements of Peter Giles, the retiring President and CEO of The Tech Museum of Innovation headquartered in San Jose, California.

Among Mr. Giles impressive accomplishments is his strong commitment to education and provocative methods that garner greater levels of understanding to those who do not have a collegiate engineering degree.

Under his leadership, The Tech has empowered 1 million educators and youth through teacher training institutes, web-based resources, field trips and various community partnerships with area schools and youth groups. His museum can also boast of the development of a signature learning approach called, ``Design in Mind Learning,'' which provides professional development to educators and enhances curricula throughout the United States.

Mr. Giles has also committed himself to the sustainability of The Tech and the community it serves. The opening of the Tech Museum was funded by $113 million, including an unprecedented $32 million of in- kind contributions from the industry; in addition, his endowment fundraising totals $14 million currently.

The Tech is one of the top tourist attractions for anyone visiting Silicon Valley. It has earned this reputation because of the unique mix of art, culture, education, and of course, technology. In addition, The Tech has subtly, but firmly espoused its core belief that science, engineering and technology are fun--and must remain to be fun in order for our country to thrive.

The tremendous success of this jewel is due in great part to Mr. Giles' visionary leadership. During Mr. Giles' 18 years of service at The Tech, he fostered a spirit of collaboration and innovation that is the keystone of what makes Silicon Valley a truly unique locale.

Peter Giles is an amazing person. The former President of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group he had other, possibly more financially rewarding, career paths than the Tech. But Peter, who is a techie, a father and a visionary, has never been interested in his own aggrandizement so much as he is interested in the public good. Not only did he develop the Tech from a mere idea, he made sure that idea included our entire community. Let me give you just one example: To protect her privacy I'll just refer to ``Az''. This young woman started working for the Tech while in high school. Neither of her parents were college or high school grads, but Peter understood that reaching out to a community that had not been steeped in education was the Tech's most important mission. From Peter's own life, he understands how families reinforce each other.

Now ``Az'' has completed college and is embarked on teaching. Understanding the reach of families, her little brother is a math major at MIT.

Although Peter Giles is retiring, his legacy and contributions to Silicon Valley will remain in the hearts and minds of The Tech's supporters, contributors and patrons for many years to come; and even more importantly, in the living rooms of the homes of ordinary families, things have changed for the better.

Mr. Speaker, no child should be left to fend for herself in a complex immigration system that even you and I would fear. This is why today I am again introducing the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act.

It is true that in 2002 Congress transferred the care, custody, and placement of unaccompanied alien children from the Department of Justice to the Department of Health and Human Services to improve the treatment children receive when encountered at our borders. This is certainly a big step in the right direction and I commend the Department of Health and Human Services for taking important steps to improve the care and custody of these vulnerable children. But these positive actions did not end the plethora of problems unaccompanied children experience when they come into contact with our immigration authorities.

Health and Human Services inherited a system that relied upon a variety of detention facilities to house children and was given little legislative direction to implement their new responsibilities. As a result, some children from repressive regimes or abusive families continue to fend for themselves in a complex legal and sometimes punitive system, without knowledge of the English language, with no adult guidance, and with no legal counsel. Some unaccompanied children are treated in a manner that our country usually reserves for criminals, not helpless victims.

The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act would not change the ultimate decision on what happens to the quest by children for permanent safe haven in America. It would ensure that while the decision-making process is underway, children are housed in a humane and civil way and that those deciding are accurately informed about the facts of each case and the law.

Consider the compelling story of Esther, a nine-year-old victim of abuse, neglect and abandonment by her parents. She escaped to the U.S. with relatives who later turned her over to immigration authorities at the age of fourteen. Esther was detained for over six months in a juvenile jail and represented by an unscrupulous attorney who failed to appear at her immigration hearing, leaving her defenseless. The immigration judge ordered Esther to leave the United States.

Well after the Homeland Security Act transferred the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children to Health and Human Services, the Associated Press reported on a ten-year-old boy from Ghana who ``immigration officials, unsure of where the boy's parents were or how he boarded the plane without travel documents, sent him to a detention center . . . while they figured out what to do with him. Three years later, he [was] still in custody.''

Another child, Malik Jarno, was detained in various adult and juvenile detention facilities for almost three years. It took several letters from over 50 members of Congress before Malik was released to a home for refugees as he continued proceedings to determine his immigration status.

It is the time to complete the positive steps we have already taken to more fully protect children who arrive in the U.S. with no parents or guardians to watch over them. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act will ensure minimum standards for the care and custody of unaccompanied children and require a smooth transfer of minors from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Health and Human Services. It will also ensure that children receive adult and legal guidance as they navigate through our complex immigration system. I urge this body to swiftly consider and pass the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act.

Mr. Chairman, this bill does have flaws, as have been identified, and I think the criticisms are fairly taken. And the ranking gentlewoman's amendment is a sound one I will support. But in the end, we do need to have special elections in the case of a catastrophe. I voted for this last year and will vote for it again.

The problem is it misses the point of what happens in the 45 days or, if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) passes, in the 75 days. What happens then?

I read with some alarm the ``Roll Call'' article of December 6, 2004, on this subject, and I will quote from that article: ``The country is going to be under martial law until we have elections anyway.'' That was actually said by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee. And I just must say, is the agenda martial law? Because that appears to be the case, and absent a constitutional amendment to allow for a temporary appointment, we will have martial law and the elimination of a Republic in this country.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise on my behalf and the behalf of Mr. Michael Honda to pay tribute to Mr. Michael E. Fox, Sr. and his lifelong dedication to community service and the public good.

Michael E. Fox, Sr. was born on September 23, 1936 in Chicago, Illinois. Mike graduated high school in 1954 from Campion Prep School in Prairie DuChein, Wisconsin. From there he earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1958 and continued on to do his post-graduate work at the Siebel Institute of Technology studying Brewing Science. That training foreshadowed Mike's eventual establishment of M.E. Fox & Company in 1965, a major distribution company in the Silicon Valley. Before Michael made his great entrepreneurial leap, he married Mary Ellen Croke. Mike and Mary Ellen have been married for almost forty-six years and have six children.

Mike is known throughout the Bay Area for his generosity and willingness to help those less fortunate. In countless instances, Mike has used his name to support worthy causes that simply needed the recognition of a respected member of society to open doors to a wider audience. Much of Mike's generosity is due to an upbringing which stressed charity and caring of those around him, regardless of whether he knew them well or not.

Mike's devotion to community is never more apparent than in his service to San Jose's East Side Union High School District. Whether it was providing flatbed trucks for floats, paying SAT testing fees for students who could not afford them, or spearheading the Animation Studio project, Mike used his professional

and personal network to assist staff and students achieve their goals.

Mike's interests are varied and far flung as evidenced by his many board memberships and chairmanships. His main interest centers around his beloved family, his Roman Catholic faith, educational matters at all levels, medical issues, and alcoholism prevention and abuse. From his hard work he built a successful family business, renown throughout the region.

If there is a task force or committee seeking to improve life in Santa Clara Valley, Mike Fox, Sr. is sure to be a valued member, using all his resources to bring about change. Mike served as Chair of United Way Silicon Valley's

Board of Directors in 1997 and 1998. His guidance and expertise were instrumental in seeing United Way successfully through a period of financial difficulty and organizational restructuring. He served as Chairman of the Regional Healthcare Consortium where he worked with hospital administrators, colleges, and healthcare providers to protect the quality of healthcare in Santa Clara County. Mike participated in the Silicon Valley Blue Ribbon Task Force on Aviation Security.

Mike is a man who cares about others. I know this first hand, because in the 1970's my father, who was a beer truck driver, found himself out of a job. My dad was recording secretary of Teamster's local 888. He was a hard worker and never missed a day's work. He was renowned for his honesty. But he was having trouble finding employment for two reasons: first, the reluctance of some employers to hire a driver in his 50's and also, he believed, his history of union activism.

Mike Fox gave my dad a job and it made all the difference for our family. So while the public knows of Mike's philanthropy and generosity, I know him from the perspective of the families of those he employed. He was and is a fair man willing to give others a chance to succeed.

My parents have both passed away, but my brother and I will never forget Mike Fox's lasting impact on our lives as have been others in our community who were not so personally connected to the Fox family

His generosity of spirit afforded opportunities to so very many in our community. We hold a debt of gratitude to Mike and an obligation to continue his work by following his personal philosophy which states, ``You can change the world''.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a federally mandated bipartisan commission, released a comprehensive report documenting the mistreatment of asylees in America. For those seeking asylum, we strip- search them and then we thrown them in jail with criminals.

As we debate this bill, thousands of people seeking safety from persecution are in jail with criminals in the United States. They are here fleeing from torture, from rape; some are here seeking freedom because they have been denied the opportunity to practice their religion, say Christianity, in a place where religion is not permitted. But when they get here, we lock them up. And today we are considering a bill that will make it harder for those fleeing oppression, trying to find safe haven in our Nation.

This bill does nothing to make us safer. In fact, we have heard references to those who came prior to the first World Trade Center bombing. We made changes in the law subsequent to that. That fix has already been done. We do not need to do what is before us today.

So it is surprising we are not addressing today the shocking findings of the Commission Report.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say something else. This bill, despite the protestations, is in fact creating a de facto national ID card. It establishes one type of ID that most Americans will carry. All our information will be held in databases linked together and readymade for use by the Federal Government. How much will they really know about each and every one of you?

This is not just about immigrants, this is about all Americans; and I think we need a national conversation about whether we want that form of big brother.

Mr. Speaker, I give thanks to the chairman and ranking member for having this resolution before us this evening. When we turn on the TV, when we read the

news and we learn of just the scope of the magnitude of this disaster, it is simply staggering. In India and Sri Lanka and Thailand and Indonesia, Malaysia, the Maldives, Bangladesh, Burma, even Kenya and Somalia on the African coast, the devastation is simply stunning. And it is important that the United States show leadership to the world and to the victims in coming to grips with this. I really cannot think of an event in my lifetime that has been this enormous in terms of loss of life and long-term implications for this part of the world. So I am glad that we are here on this first day of the 109th Congress to show the world that we stand ready and in solidarity with those who have lost their lives, those who have lost members of their family, and certainly there are those from other parts of the world visiting South Asia.

I want, as others have mentioned, to give great thanks to my constituents in Silicon Valley first started by Americans who were from South Asia or whose families were originally from South Asia, organizing volunteer efforts; and the response has been dramatic and huge from every corner of Silicon Valley to step forward and to help with the relief effort. However, as others have mentioned, our assistance is going to be needed for some time to come.

I heard on the radio news this morning that in some of the towns, 80 percent of the teachers have been lost, 85 percent of all the police officers have died. The infrastructure of civilization for many of the towns and localities is simply gone. So we will look to so many of our fellow citizens to do volunteer efforts and to donate generously. They are not disappointing us. But it is the institution of the United States Government that is going to have to be in with a helping hand to help these parts of the world become civilized again, to come up from the muck that the tsunami brought to them and to take once again their place in the world. I am pledged to work with all of my colleagues in the House towards that end. I am proud that the Speaker and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our leader, each made this tragedy part of their opening remarks at the start of the 109th Congress. I thank them for that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our fellow Californian and Bob's colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), our colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), our wonderful colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

We have heard tonight so many of our colleagues speak of Bob and describe Bob in so many different ways. He was a great American. We are in mourning in this House. His constituents are in mourning. California is in mourning, and the Nation has lost a giant.

Bob was a giant through and through. He grew up in Sacramento out in the valley, went to Cal Berkeley, went to law school at Hastings College of Law. He was the first Asian American to hold a leadership position in the House of Representatives. When I became the chairperson of the California Democratic Delegation in the 108th Congress, and he had always been a mentor to me, he upped his mentorship of me at that time. It is something I have always been immensely grateful for.

We have talked about his leadership on a variety of issues: Social Security, the reparations bills, and health care for children. The list goes on and on. But we are mourning him today as someone we knew also as a friend.

Some in the papers have said he was mild-mannered, and my thought was that the Bob I knew was tough as nails and focused. Yes, he was mild- mannered. He was polite is what he was, but he never lost focus on what he was for. He loved his parents because they gave him a framework to understand the world. And it is important to understand that a great injustice was done to his family and to him, but he was never bitter about that because it allowed him to appreciate also the gift he was given, as so many of us were, of opportunity here in America.

I believe that is really what fueled his passion here for the issues he fought for, the opportunity that others should have that was given to him. It was not just limited to his constituents, whom he loved dearly, but was for all Americans.

I can recall several years ago a situation in Silicon Valley. He was very interested in technology. Entrepreneurs had been hit with a weird tax and had lost everything in the AMT-ISO disaster. These were Silicon Valley people, but Bob came from Sacramento and sat all day in San Jose to listen to their stories because he cared about them, whether they were his constituents or not.

Bob was one of our most compassionate Members, one of our most focused Members, but I also want to talk about Bob the family person. I do not think there was ever a son as brilliant as Brian, if you listened to Bob. Nor was there a daughter-in-law as wonderful as Amy; and never a grandchild as creative and adorable as Anna; not to mention his wonderful spouse, Doris. Many of us have spouses. We love our spouses, but Doris had almost a unique relationship among spouses in the House because not only was she Bob's life partner, she was Bob's partner in political life and in policy life. She stood up for the people of the Fifth District of California every bit as much as Bob Matsui stood up for those people.

We thank Doris for her many, many years of service with Bob for those constituents and for Americans.

Just a final word. Bob had said he was having a few health problems. I had no idea how serious they were; but certainly Bob Matsui knew how serious they were. Even though Bob knew he was ill, he kept working for us. He was chair of the DCCC, not because he was on an ego trip. In fact, he did not want the job; we made him do it. He fought those fights because he believed that the ideals of the Democratic Party for Social Security, for a safety net, for education, for opportunity for hard-working people who play by the rules to get ahead, those were values that were core to him. And even though he put his own health at risk, he fought on for us.

I want to thank Doris for allowing him to do that. It is a sacrifice that is immense. We all feel the loss today. I thank Doris; his wonderful son, Brian; Amy; his granddaughter, Anna. I think back on the many times we spent in California enjoying ourselves. He was a Cal graduate, but it did not stop him from being a Stanford fan as well, which I always appreciated.

I loved Bob Matsui, as did the entire delegation. We miss him a great deal. Other people will follow his steps, but no one will be able to fill them completely in our hearts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would like to conclude by thanking all of those who have participated this evening as well as some of our colleagues who were unable to actually physically be here but who have prepared their statements for our colleague, a giant of the legislature, a man who warmed our hearts, who

broke our hearts when he died, someone who was never petty, always modest but always a leader, always someone who could make America proud.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed changes in the ethics rules.

I served for 8 years on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and it is not an enviable assignment. But Members who have never served on the committee would be proud of how these tasks are approached. It is a committee that is evenly split. In the 8 years I served, we had unanimous votes.

The Members who serve think about the institution. They are there to serve the American people and the institution. It has not been a partisan body. It has been one that holds other Members to a high ethical standard. These rules will undermine the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and the process of using the Committee on Rules rather than the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to deliberate on the changes is also undercutting the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

I recommend that we do not support these rule changes. And I also want to mention on the homeland security provision of the rule, it is a huge mistake to ``murky up'' the jurisdiction over cybersecurity. We are at tremendous risk for a cyberattack, and the changes in that area will make us less safe.

Mr. Speaker, as the 108th Congress draws to a close, I think it is important that those of us who serve as Members of Congress pause to thank those whom the public rarely sees, our staffs. I think that all of us, both Republican and Democrat, acknowledge that without the talented staff we have to help us do our jobs, the Congress would be a poorer institution.

During this last year a significant--yes life-altering event-- occurred for one of my key staff attorneys. Andrew Kugler, and his wife Jennifer celebrated the birth of their daughter Elliana Grace Kugler at 4:37 p.m. on September 6, 2004 at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C. She weighed in at a healthy 7 pounds, 3 ounces, and was 21 inches long.

Ellie has been blessed with a large, doting family. She's already had visits from her grandparents Hymen and Sharon Childs and Andy and Hedy Kugler, as well as her aunts Allyson Hale and Christine Kugler. Soon, she'll also get to meet her Uncle Marty and cousins Jacob and Benjamin Hale, as well as her many new friends in California, Texas and across the country.

Just as being parents makes each of us Members of Congress more able to appreciate the importance of our jobs here in the House of Representatives, when our staffs become parents their lives are also enriched, and their understanding of the importance of families is enhanced.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming Ellie into the world and wishing her and her family all the best. She has a very bright future ahead of her.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Weldon amendment language that will reduce health care for women.

Mr. Speaker, once again the Republican majority is trying to pass major legislation detrimental to women written in the still of the night. They know they can't get this legislation passed in the light of day when the American public is watching and listening, so they stealthily add it to a huge omnibus bill at midnight. And now we're debating this on a Saturday morning as most of America is just getting up on a weekend before Thanksgiving. We're about to vote on this major bill without a proper national debate.

Mr. Speaker, this is no simple piece of legislation that merely extends current law as its author claims. This is sweeping new legislation that would allow any individual physician, health care professional, hospital, HMO, health insurance plan or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan from providing, paying for, or even referring a patient for abortion services. There isn't even an exception for the health and safety of women, even in cases of life- threatening emergencies, rape or incest.

Worse yet is the draconian enforcement provision. If a state chooses to enforce its own law protecting women's health, that state will lose all of its federal funds for health and human services--funds for Medicaid, SCHIP, Head Start, child care services, and the list goes on.

Whatever happened to a Republican party and its support for states' rights and, more importantly, their compassion for all Americans?

This provision is outrageous--both procedurally and substantively and by itself provides sufficient reason to vote no on the entire bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in memory of Scott Ewbank to recognize his lifelong achievements and indisputable legacy as a respected San Jose lawyer and longtime member of Santa Clara County's Juvenile Justice Commission.

Scott Ewbank was born on August 15, 1947 in Sunnyvale, California. Scott attended Stanford University, where he received his bachelor's degree in political science in 1969. After college, he volunteered for two years with International Volunteer Services (IVS), a non-profit group that at the time helped central Vietnam's highland tribes develop new agricultural practices. While there, he learned Vietnamese and in the mid-1990s served on the IVS board of directors.

After his return from Vietnam, Scott attended the University of Michigan law school, and received his law degree in 1975. He also received a master's degree in Southeast Asian studies in 1990 from the same university.

Scott began his solo criminal law practice in San Jose in 1976. He was a tough fighter who believed in his young clients, many of them charged with felonies.

Outside of the courtroom, Scott was a volunteer mentor to youths. He joined Volunteers in Parole, a non-profit group that helps juvenile delinquents by pairing them with adult mentors. He also volunteered as an adult chaperon with the Boy Scouts. Scott helped out those in his own neighborhood. He spoke up against the proliferation of all kinds of group homes and questioned the city's land use ordinances as they pertained to potential development nearby.

It was on Saturday, November 6, 2004 that Scott Ewbank died of apparent heart attack while hiking with a Boy Scout troop in Monterey County. He was 57 years old.

Scott Ewbank is survived by his wife Susan Hart, and his children, Jack and Anne, all of San Jose; his mother Lois Ewbank of Sunnyvale; and his brothers, Gary of Sacramento and Brian of Fresno.

Mr. Speaker, today we mourn the loss of a role model and a constant inspiration. Scott Ewbank's heroic service to our community and guidance to individuals inspired many to go beyond their expectations and, as a result, contribute to the betterment of our beautiful and diverse community in Santa Clara County. Scott was a true hero, in every word and action. He was also my friend and neighbor.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman Honda and I would like to congratulate Janet C. Redding, Vice President for University Advancement of San Jose1 State University (SJSU) as she retires after 19 years of dedicated and honorable service.

Redding was the Special Assistant to the President for Governmental and External Relations for San Jose State University, Silicon Valley's Metropolitan University. SJSU is the oldest public institution on the West Coast (founded in 1857) and one of the largest institutions in the 23-campus California State University System. With more than 3,000 employees, SJSU is the fourth largest public employer in Silicon Valley, with an annual operating budget of over $350 million.

A former schoolteacher at both public and private schools, Redding has been at SJSU for 19 years, where she oversees External, Governmental and Community Relations. Under her leadership as Vice President for University Advancement contributions to the university have totaled more than $100 million in the last decade. During her tenure, Redding created the Division of University Advancement by expanding the Alumni Association, the Office of Communications and Public Affairs, and the Office of Development. She also created the President's Advisory Council, whose members serve as advocates and advisors to the President of the university on issues affecting the university. In addition Janet was involved with helping to secure both public and private funds for the new Martin Luther King, Jr. joint library serving both the University and the City of San Jose. She helped raise $10M from private sources and $90M from the California State Legislature. Over the past two years she worked to secure Federal funding for the CSU Coastal Initiative at Moss Landing and for Nanotechnology Research in the College of Engineering here at SJSU.

A 1993 graduate of Leadership San Jose, Redding served on the San Jose Convention and Visitors Bureau Board for six years, including a term on the executive committee as treasurer. In 1997, San Jose Mayor Susan Hammer honored Janet as one of the Outstanding Women of Silicon Valley. She is a member of the National Society of Fund Raising Executives, Silicon Valley Chapter, the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, and the Silicon Valley Planned Giving Council.

Throughout the years, we have always been impressed by her energy and dedication to the

many causes she has worked so hard for. She leaves big shoes to fill and we will miss working with her for the betterment of San Jose State University. Good luck Janet.

Mr. Speaker, the President and Vice President insist that things are improving in Iraq and that all America must do is ``stay the course.''

Their evaluation of our situation in that troubled land has been challenged by many. And, of course, we all know that one cannot find a diagnosis until one admits that there is a serious problem.

One of the most gripping accounts of the situation in Iraq I have read recently was prepared by Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi. Regrettably, it appears that this reporter may be facing ramifications for speaking the truth. The New York Post has defended her editorially.

It is important for Americans to deal with the truth. I recommend reading this reporter's account as well as her defense by the New York Post.

[From the New York Post, Sept. 30, 2004]

WSJ Editor Backs Iraq Screed

(By Keith J. Kelly)

Wall Street Journal Editor Paul Steiger has come to the

defense of his beleaguered Baghdad correspondent, who blasted

the war in Iraq as a ``disaster'' that has deteriorated

``into a raging barbaric guerilla war'' that will haunt the

United States for decades.

``Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a

disaster,'' Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi wrote

in a group e-mail to friends that inadvertently became widely

posted on the Web.

Yesterday, the e-mail was mentioned prominently on the

journalism blog by Jim Romenesko on the Poynter.org site.

Steiger said Fassihi's missive included ``a few expressions

of purely personal opinion about the situation there.''

But the Wall Street Journal editor said the musings in no

way distorted his reporter's ability to deliver fair coverage

from Baghdad.

In her e-mail, Fassihi laments, ``Being a foreign

correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under

virtual house arrest.''

Fears of abductions have sharply curtailed reporters

ability to cover events or move about.

``My most pressing concern every day is not to write a

kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi

employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel

first, a reporter second.''

She also said the ``Iraqi government doesn't control most

Iraqi cities.'' She said there are car bombs, assassinations,

kidnappings and beheadings. ``The situation, basically, means

a raging barbaric guerilla war.''

Steiger said: ``Ms. Fassihi's private opinions have in no

way distorted her coverage, which has been a model of

intelligent and courageous reporting, and scrupulous accuracy

and fairness.''