Zoe Lofgren

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, amidst the controversy surrounding recent disparaging remarks regarding women in science, I was encouraged to read an editorial from a shining star in Silicon Valley, Carol Bartz, the President and CEO of Autodesk and a member of the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. Ms. Bartz is right, while the controversy of women in science rages on, ``unless we bring the other half of our population [women] into the engineering ranks, that [U.S.] leadership [in engineering] inevitably will evaporate.'' I would like to include Ms. Bartz' editorial, printed in the San Jose Mercury News on March 24, 2005, in the Record. [From the San Jose Mercury News, Mar. 24, 2005] Engineering a Solution: Bring Women Into the Fold (By Carol Bartz) Last week, Harvard University President Lawrence Summers suffered the sting of a faculty no-confidence vote, stemming from his remarks in January about women in science. But every day, U.S. companies and the U.S. economy suffer the far more significant sting of girls avoiding science and engineering career paths in droves. Despite interesting work and excellent pay--an average of $81,000 a year, almost twice U.S. median household income-- employers are begging people to fill positions. Yet just one in 10 engineers is a woman, a far worse track record than science or math. Why are girls who are fully capable of planning cities, designing jet engines or creating the next iPod avoiding engineering? Is it some biological difference in the female brain, the premise that cost Summers so dearly? Or is it simply a lack of encouragement during those crucial teen years when career paths are forged? Does it matter? Even with top salaries, the free-market supply of electrical and mechanical engineers is well below U.S. demand. Something is clearly wrong. The answer is obvious: We are relying on archaic, boys' club traditions to supply an industry that instead should serve as a role model for pure efficiency and reason. And we risk global competitiveness as a result. No responsible CEO would try to build a business by ignoring the value of half her available capital. That would abrogate her responsibility to shareholders, employees and customers. Yet the engineering world is engaged in precisely this irresponsible corporate behavior by failing to take advantage of one-half of the available human ``capital.'' And in America we do so at our peril, because a perfect storm is brewing. On one side of our nation looms international competition in engineering-dependent industries we once dominated. The only answer to maintaining our competitive edge is to use our engineering expertise to create innovation. Looming on the other side is an immense gap between the demand for innovative young engineers and the number of students awarded degrees in mechanical and electrical engineering. Every day the gap grows, as an aging national workforce of some 2 million engineers gradually retires without nearly enough graduates to take their place. With our national competitiveness for the 21st century at stake, we have no choice. We must work to change the status quo and ensure that the female half of our population makes its proportional contribution to the ranks of engineering. As a software engineer by training, and the CEO of a company whose products are used by millions of engineers globally, I have seen the current system firsthand. Even at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's School of Engineering, the No. 1-ranked school in the country, U.S. News & World Report found women made up only 25 percent of graduate enrollment last year. The private sector must shoulder much of the burden of attracting women to the field. Offering competitive salaries is not enough. It is incumbent on companies to make an engineering career compelling in all of its aspects to young women--to re-energize the field and reintroduce the ``cool'' factor that engineering once possessed. There is some hope. Already, the National Science Foundation, the Business-Higher Education Forum and other organizations are working hard to encourage women to join the ranks of American engineers. As for the ``cool,'' this weekend, San Jose State University will host the regional round of the FIRST Robotics competition, offering high school students (girls included!) the opportunity to solve engineering design problems using robotics. For more than a century, America's global economic leadership has rested on innovation by our engineers, the best in the world. Through them, we have been able to meet tremendous challenges, building the world's most complex infrastructure, some of the world's largest and most important cities, and products that have changed the lives of people everywhere. Unless we bring the other half of our population into the engineering ranks, that leadership inevitably will evaporate.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the achievements of Dr. Patricia Senn Breivik as she retires from her position as Dean of the University Library at San Jose State University. Dr. Breivik's was a leader of the collaboration between the San Jose Public Library and the San Jose State University--a merged library that opened in August 2003. As a result, the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library encompasses the spirit of Silicon Valley as an innovative model serving as the area's 21st century information hub. It took 6 years to propose, plan, and execute an idea that evolved during a breakfast meeting between former San Jose Mayor Susan Hammer and former San Jose State University president Robert Caret. After Dr. Breivik inherited the idea, she went to work with the director of the San Jose Public Library to establish a center of exploration and learning that would serve the University's 27,000 students, 1,153 faculty and a busy city of 924,950 people. During the time of the planning of this jewel, both libraries faced a steady erosion of support as a result of the passage of Proposition 13. In addition to shrinking coffers, the libraries also faced the challenge of having to remain open substantially more hours than either libraries had previously offered because of its increased patronage. Now, not only is the King Library co-owned and co-managed, it has one online system and one website. Library materials are accessible to all users and the staffs work together in technical services, reference, circulation and Information Technology support. Within a year of its opening, the King Library garnered a number of prestigious awards. Among them is the 2004 Gale/Library Journal ``Library of the Year'' Award that was presented for innovative collaboration and acknowledged the cooperative planning between university and city officials in risk-taking and vision. The King Library is one of the precious jewels of San Jose's cultural ``necklace'' of treasured museums, theaters, and historical landmarks. It serves as a place for friends to meet for a cup of coffee and discuss the latest news; a study hall for nerve-wracked students; and a place of learning, sharing and, of course, collaboration between people of differing education and income levels, ethnicity, language, culture and beliefs. Special thanks go to Dr. Breivik for her outstanding work.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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 proportion of debtors (N = 1,771) citing various medical contributors to their bankruptcy and the estimated number of debtors and dependents nationally affected by each cause. More than one-quarter cited illness or injury as a specific reason for bankruptcy; a similar number reported uncovered medical bills exceeding $1,000. Some debtors cited more than one medical contributor. Nearly half (46.2 percent) (95 percent confidence interval = 43.5, 48.9) of debtors met at least one of our criteria for ``major medical bankruptcy.'' Slightly more than half (54.5 percent) (95 percent CI = 51.8, 57.2) met criteria for ``any medical bankruptcy.'' A lapse in health insurance coverage during the two years before filing was a strong predictor of a medical cause of bankruptcy (Exhibit 3). Nearly four-tenths (38.4 percent) of debtors who had a ``major medical bankruptcy'' had experienced a lapse, compared with 27.1 percent of debtors with no medical cause (p < .0001). Surprisingly, medical debtors were no less likely than other debtors to have coverage at the time of filing. (More detailed coverage and cost data for the subsample we interviewed appears below.) Medical debtors resembled other debtors in most other respects (Exhibit 1). However, the ``major medical bankruptcy'' group was 16 percent (p < 03) less likely than other debtors to cite trouble managing money as a cause of their bankruptcy (data not shown). Privations in the period surrounding bankruptcy. In our follow-up telephone interviews with 931 debtors, they reported substantial problems. During the two years before filing, 40.3 percent had lost telephone service; 19.4 percent had gone without food; 53.6 percent had gone without needed doctor or dentist visits because of the cost, and 43.0 percent had failed to fill a prescription, also because of the cost. Medical debtors experienced more problems in access to care than other debtors did; three-fifths went without a needed doctor or dentist visit, and nearly half failed to fill a prescription. Medical debt was also associated with mortgage problems. Among the total sample of 1,771 debtors, those with more than $1,000 in medical bills were more likely than others to have taken out a mortgage to pay medical bills (5.0 percent versus 0.8 percent). Fifteen percent of all homeowners who had taken out a second or third mortgage cited medical expenses as a reason. Follow-up phone interviews revealed that among homeowners with high-risk mortgages (interest rates greater than 12 percent, or points plus fees of at least 8 percent), 13.8 percent cited a medical reason for taking out the loan. Following their bankruptcy filings, about one-third of debtors continued to have problems paying their bills. Medical debtors reported particular problems making mortgage/ rent payments and paying for utilities. Although our interviews occurred soon after the bankruptcy filings (seven months, on average), many debtors had already been turned down for jobs (3.1 percent), mortgages (5.8 percent), apartment rentals (4.9 percent), or car loans (9.3 percent) because of the bankruptcy on their credit reports. Medical diagnoses, spending, and type of coverage. Our interviews yielded detailed data on diagnoses, health insurance coverage, and medical bills for 391 debtors or family members whose medical problems contributed to bankruptcy. In three-quarters of cases, the person experiencing the illness/injury was the debt or spouse of the debtor; in 13.3 percent, a child; and in 8.2 percent, an elderly relative. Illness begot financial problems both directly (because of medical costs) and through lost income. Three-fifths (59.9 percent) of families bankrupted by medical problems indicated that medical bills (from medical care providers) contributed to bankruptcy; 47.6 percent cited drug costs; 35.3 percent had curtailed employment because of illness, often (52.8 percent) to care for someone else. Many families had problems with both medical bills and income loss. Families bankrupted by medical problems cited varied, and sometimes multiple, diagnoses. Cardiovascular disorders were reported by 26.6 percent; trauma/orthopedic/back problems by nearly one-third; and cancer, diabetes, pulmonary, or mental disorders and childbirth-related and congenital disorders by about 10 percent each. Half (51.7 percent) of the medical problems involved ongoing chronic illnesses. Our in-depth interviews with medical debtors confirmed that gaps in coverage were a common problem. Three-fourths (75.7 percent) of these debtors were insured at the on-set of the bankrupting illness. Three-fifths (60.1 percent) initially had private coverage, but one-third of them lost coverage during the course of their illness. Of debtors, 5.7 percent had Medicare, 8.4 percent Medicaid, and 1.6 percent veterans/ military coverage. Those covered under government programs were less likely than others to have experienced coverage interruptions. Few medical debtors had elected to go without coverage. Only 2.9 percent of those who were uninsured or suffered a gap in coverage said that they had not thought they needed insurance; 55.9 percent said that premiums were unaffordable, 7.1 percent were unable to obtain coverage because of preexisting medical conditions, and most others cited employment issues, such as job loss or ineligibility for employer-sponsored coverage. Debtors' out-of-pocket medical costs were often below levels that are commonly labeled catastrophic. In the year prior to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs (excluding insurance premiums) averaged $3,686 (95 percent CI = $2,693, $4,679) (Exhibit 5). Presumably, such costs were often ruinous because of concomitant income loss or because the need for costly care persisted over several years. Out-of-pocket costs since the onset of illness/injury averaged $11,854 (95 percent CI = $8,532, $15,175). Those with continuous insurance coverage paid $734 annually in premiums on average over and above the expenditures detailed above. Debtors with private insurance at the onset of their illnesses had even higher out-of-pocket costs than those with no insurance. This paradox is explained by the very high costs--$18,005-- incurred by patients who initially had private insurance but lost it. Among families with medical expenses, hospital bills were the biggest medical expense for 42.5 percent prescription medications for 21.0 percent, and doctors' bills for 20.0 percent. Virtually all of those with Medicare coverage, and most patients with psychiatric disorders, said that prescription drugs were their biggest expense. The human face of bankruptcy. Debtors' narratives painted a picture of families arriving at the bankruptcy courthouse emotionally and financially exhausted, hoping to stop the collection calls, save their homes, and stabilize their economic circumstances. Many of the debtors detailed ongoing problems with access to care. Some expressed fear that their medical care providers would refuse to continue their care, and a few recounted actual experiences of this kind. Several had used credit cards to charge medical bills they had no hope of paying. The co-occurrence of medical and job problems was a common theme. For instance, one debtor underwent lung surgery and suffered a heart attack. Both hospitalizations were covered by his employer-based insurance, but he was unable to return to his physically demanding job. He found new employment but was denied coverage because of his preexisting conditions, which required costly ongoing care. Similarly, a teacher who suffered a heart attack was unable to return to work for many months, and hence her coverage lapsed. A hospital wrote off her $20,000 debt, but she was nevertheless bankrupted by doctor's bills and the cost of medications. A second common theme was sounded by parents of premature infants or chronically ill children; many took time off from work or incurred large bills for home care while they were at their jobs. Finally, many of the insured debtors blamed high copayments and deductibles for their financial ruin. For example, a man insured through his employer (a large national firm) suffered a broken leg and torn knee ligaments, He incurred $13,000 in out-of-pocket costs for copayments, deductibles, and uncovered services--much of it for physical therapy. Discussion Bankruptcy is common in the United States, involving nearly four million debtors and dependents in 2001; medical problems contribute to about half of all bankruptcies. Medical debtors, like other bankruptcy filer, were primarily middle class (by education and occupation). The chronically poor are less likely to build up debt, have fewer assets (such as a home) to protect, and have less access to the legal resources needed to navigate a complex financial rehabilitation. The medical debtors we surveyed were demographically typical Americans who got sick. They differed from others filing for bankruptcy in one important respect: They were more likely to have experienced a lapse in health coverage. Many had coverage at the onset of their illness but lost it. In other cases, even continuous coverage left families with ruinous medical bills. Study strengths and limitations. Our study's strengths are the use of multiple overlapping data sources; a large sample size; geographic diversity; and in-depth data collection. Although our sample may not be fully representative of all personal bankruptcies, the Chapter 7 filers we studied resemble Chapter 7 filers nationally (the only group for whom demographic data has been complied nationally from court records). Several indicators suggest that response bias did not greatly distort our findings. As in all surveys, we relied on respondents' truthfulness. Might some debtors blame their predicament on socially acceptable medical problems rather than admitting to irresponsible spending? Several factors suggest that our respondents were candid. First, just prior to answering our questionnaire, debtors had filed extensive information with the court under penalty of perjury--information that was available to use in the court records and that virtually never contradicted the questionnaire data. They were about to be sworn in by a trustee (who often administered our questionnaire) and examined under oath. At few other points in life are full disclosure and honesty so aggressively emphasized. Second, the details called for in our telephone interview-- questions about out-of-pocket medical expenses, who was ill, diagnoses, and so forth--would make a generic claim that ``we had medical problems'' difficult to sustain. Third, one of us (Thorne) interviewed (for other studies) many debtors in their homes. Almost all specifically denied spend-thrift habits, and observation of their homes supported these claims. Most reflected the lifestyle of people under economic constraint, with modest furnishings and few luxuries. Finally, our findings receive indirect corroboration from recent surveys of the general public that have found high levels of medical debt, which often result in calls from collection agencies. Even when data are reliable, making casual inferences from a cross-sectional study such as ours is perilous. Many debtors described a complex web of problems involving illness, work, and family. Dissecting medical from other causes of bankruptcy is difficult. We cannot presume that eliminating the medical antecedents of bankruptcy would have preventing all of the filings we classified as ``medical bankruptcies.'' Conversely, many people financially ruined by illness are undoubtedly too ill, too destitute, or too demoralized to pursue formal bankruptcy. In sum, bankruptcy is an imperfect proxy for financial ruin. Trends in medical bankruptcy. Although methodological inconsistencies between studies preclude precise quantification of time trends, medical bankruptcies are clearly increasing. In 1981 the best evidence available suggests that about 25,000 families filed for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious medical problem (8 percent of the 312,000 bankruptcy filings that year). Our findings suggest that the number of medical bankruptcies had increased twenty- threefold by 2001. Since the number of bankruptcy filings rose 11 percent in the eighteen months after the completion of our data collection, the absolute number of medical bankruptcies almost surely continues to increase. Policy implications. Our data highlight four deficiencies in the financial safety net for American families confronting illness. First, even brief lapses in insurance coverage may be ruinous and should not be viewed as benign. While forty- five million Americans are uninsured at any point in time, many more experience spells without coverage. We found little evidence that such gaps were voluntary. Only a handful of medical debtors with a gap in coverage had chosen to forgo insurance because they had not perceived a need for it; the overwhelming majority had found coverage unaffordable or effectively unavailable. The privations suffered by many debtors--going without food, telephone service, electricity, and health care--lend credence to claims that coverage was unaffordable and belie the common perception that bankruptcy is an ``easy way out.'' Second, many health insurance policies prove to be too skimpy in the face of serious illness. We doubt that such underinsurance reflects families' preference for risk; few Americans have more than one or two health insurance options. Many insured families are bankrupted by medical expenses well below the ``catastrophic'' thresholds of high-deductible plans that are increasingly popular with employers. Indeed, even the most comprehensive plan available to us through Harvard University leaves faculty at risk for out-of-pocket expenses as large as those reported by our medical debtors. Third, even good employment-based coverage sometimes fails to protect families, because illness may lead to job loss and the consequent loss of coverage. Lost jobs, of course, also leave families without health coverage when they are at their financially most vulnerable. Finally, illness often leads to financial catastrophe through loss of income, as well as high medical bills. Hence, disability insurance and paid sick leave are also critical to financial survival of a serious illness. Only broad reforms can address these problems. Even universal coverage could leave many Americans vulnerable to bankruptcy unless such coverage was much more comprehensive than many current policies. As in Canada and most of western Europe, health insurance should be divorced from employment to avoid coverage disruptions at the time of illness. Insurance policies should incorporate comprehensive stop-loss provisions, closing coverage loopholes that expose insured families to unaffordable out-of-pocket costs. Additionally, improved programs are needed to replace breadwinners' incomes when they are disabled or must care for a loved one. The low rate of medical bankruptcy in Canada suggests that better medical and social insurance could greatly ameliorate this problem in the United States. In 1591 Pope Gregory XIV fell gravely ill. His doctors prescribed pulverized gold and gems. According to legend, the resulting depletion of the papal treasury is reflected in his unadorned plaster sarcophagus in St. Peter's Basilica. Four centuries later, solidly middle-class Americans still face impoverishment following a serious illness.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 106, I had turned off my pager during a committee meeting and neglected to turn it back on. When the vote was called, therefore, I did not learn of it. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``nay.''

Ms. LOFGREN of California

Ms. LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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''.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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).

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.)

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

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

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.)

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.)

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

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

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

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. 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.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. 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.