Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 975) to amend title 11 of the United States Code, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this substitute amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to make the bill a truly balanced reform measure by promoting responsibility for both debtors and lenders alike.

Unfortunately, the bill being brought to the floor today is little more than a package of special interest amendments that will distort the bankruptcy system, hurting the most financially desperate families, shut down distressed businesses and do nothing to stop predatory lending or collection practices.

The substitute will make a number of changes to the bill to ensure responsibility, without encouraging abuse of the system by debtors or by creditors.

The substitute replaces the one-size-fits-all means test with a clear standard that takes into account the debtor's real income and real expenses. That is not what the bill does now. The bill before us would calculate a family's ability to repay its debts by looking at income they no longer have and costs of living that some IRS bureaucrat thinks their expenses should be, rather than what their expenses really are.

Since when did the IRS bill collectors become the gold standard for accountability and fairness? This Congress ordered the IRS as part of IRS reform a few years ago to exercise more lenience and flexibility in the use of these collection standards. But in this bill these old standards which we discarded for tax cheats are sacrosanct for debtors.

So what happens if the IRS gets it wrong? What happens if rents in your town or other costs of living do not resemble what the IRS thinks they are? Under this bill you would have to get a lawyer and prove that the IRS is wrong and the cost of living in your town is what it is. You would have to go to court and prove that you will not be receiving the income from the job you lost 6 months ago. If not, you will be presumed to be an abuser of the bankruptcy system.

Who is hardest hit by this? Honest debtors who are in real trouble because they were laid off or for whatever other reason they cannot afford a lawyer. Do you know why? Because people who file for bankruptcy are generally broke.

Our substitute has a sensible test that passed the Senate overwhelmingly in the 105th Congress. This substitute will also provide true protection for children by limiting the ability of creditors to preserve their claims after discharge when, without the bankruptcy court's protection, they will be able to capture funds that should go for support of the debtor's children. Making child support the first priority, as the bill does, will do nothing for children if credit card debt survives bankruptcy to compete with child support obligations. Because the priority does not survive the bankruptcy, Mom has to go to the State court where there are no priorities and compete with the banks' lawyer, which she does not have to do now.

The substitute will also undo changes to Chapter 13 to ensure that debtors who want to enter into a repayment plan will be able to succeed. Changes to Chapter 13, which incorporates the same calculations and IRS standards from the means test, even if you are below the median income, even if you file for Chapter 13 voluntarily, would guarantee that these plans will fail even more often than the 60 percent failure rate that we have now with completely volunteer plans.

The substitute also ensures that unsecured creditors will not be able to use new legal tricks to jump ahead of other creditors.

It also prevents debtors from using bankruptcy court to evade lawful debts

for criminal civil rights violations, including discrimination against members of the Armed Forces, discrimination to deprive a person of a federally protected right, threats to religious institutions or individuals on the basis of religion, or using force or the threats of force to deprive women of their right to see a doctor.

That is right; we are still suggesting that people that violate the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act should not be able to use the bankruptcy courts to discharge their debts or to use the courts to evade payments and force people who already have been awarded a judgment to chase them through the bankruptcy system at great expense. That is the rule of law, and that is what this bill should contain.

We should not subordinate the rights of women, of the members of our Armed Forces, of houses of worship or people suffering discrimination just because some banks want to tilt the system in their favor.

Allowing the bankruptcy courts to become a safe haven for people who violate our civil rights laws is inexcusable, even in the cause of providing special benefits to the special interests, which is the chief purpose of this bill.

The substitute also provides enhanced protection for employee benefits in Chapter 11 and salaries, and remedies for corporate wrongdoing in Chapter 11. It is the original version of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). Their compromise is an important start, and I was pleased to support it a few minutes ago. Our substitute finishes the job.

The substitute provides bankruptcy courts with flexibility to protect small businesses from premature or unnecessary liquidation so that they can reorganize and continue in business and not lay off their employees. It also closes a loophole in current law by preventing debtors from taking cases to courts far away from where the business is actually conducted. It also protects the rights of debtors to uphold contracts in bankruptcy.

The substitute provides for additional bankruptcy judges according to the most recent needs assessment by the Judicial Conference. We have a crisis in the bankruptcy courts that will only be made worse by the litigation explosion this bill will cause, yet the sponsors of this bill have refused to update it to reflect current needs for judges. That will only result in delay and increased costs for everyone who has a stake in the bankruptcy system, debtors, creditors, everyone.

It also strikes pro-IRS amendments that would elevate the rights of taxing authorities over that of other creditors and debtors. Many of you have probably not taken the time to read title VII of the bill. You should show it to a tax lawyer at home, to someone you trust, and ask them what it does. Is there any rational reason to give taxing authorities more rights than other creditors in bankruptcy?

Is there any reason to shortchange businesses and individuals to pay off the government? Since when did this House become a bunch of cheerleaders for the tax collectors?

The substitute will prevent bankruptcy by providing real disclosure of the borrower's actual credit card debt and the cost of borrowing. A similar amendment was adopted by the Senate in the 105th Congress. The current bill provides only an 800 number and deceptive ``examples'' of repayment costs, rather than the actual costs of credit to inform the debtor. Is it too much to ask that people should be given the information they need on the costs of interest and fees so they can plan their finances responsibly and avoid bankruptcy? The substitute, unlike the bill, will require that.

The substitute also protects against corruption of bankruptcy proceedings by deleting amendments that would allow for abusive motions, that would allow for conflicts of interest on the part of investment bankers, that would allow bankruptcy professionals to delay accountability in court for their wrongdoing.

Bankruptcy reform is an important and laudable goal; but it must be balanced and everyone, debtors and creditors alike, must be held accountable. The current bill would encourage abuse of genuinely distressed families and allow credit card companies to continue their abusive practices.

I urge everyone to support the Democratic substitute so that we can have real reform in the bankruptcy system rather than the sham bill before us that simply reaches into the pockets of low- and middle- income people in situations of distress and in 60 or 70 different ways, takes the money out of their pockets and gives it to the big banks and the credit card companies, which is the entire purpose of the bill before us, without the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is true, as the distinguished gentleman said a moment ago, that this bill has been before us for a long time. It is not true that it has gotten a consensus. Well, actually it is true that it has gotten a consensus: a consensus of opposition from just about every professional group, every consumer group, every labor group, every women's group, every minority group, every children's welfare group, every professional bankruptcy group, every trustees' group, every Chapter 13 trustees' group, all the judicial groups. They all oppose the bill.

Now, it is true that it has gotten a majority of this House in the past. That is unfortunate. Hopefully we will reconsider that.

For example, the Committee on the Judiciary has received testimony from many sources, most recently from the Commercial Law League of America, the Nation's oldest creditors' rights organization, to the effect that the business provisions in this bill will destroy businesses, especially small businesses. The substitute would correct this problem by giving distressed companies the needed flexibility to reorganize successfully.

Organized labor has also spoken out against the business provisions of this bill because they recognize that a failed reorganization hits workers the hardest. They are the ones who lose their jobs, they are the ones who lose their benefits, they are the ones who see their pensions evaporate.

If you had a large or small business bankruptcy in your district, you know what happens when a company goes under. Preserving value in a company through successful rehabilitation where it is possible benefits everyone: the employees, the creditors, the communities.

This bill, however, imposes rigid and inflexible deadlines on small businesses, especially those dealing with the time in which a company may propose a plan of reorganization. It also places absolute limits on the time in which a business must decide whether to assume or reject a commercial lease, even if they are current in their rent payments. So you cannot wait for the Christmas season to see how you are doing and whether you can survive or not or whether you should throw in the towel. That limit could prove disastrous in cases involving businesses with hundreds of stores. Does anyone know about the K-Mart bankruptcy or the cinema multiplex bankruptcies? How would arbitrary deadlines have affected those cases?

Other arbitrary rules that would force a conversion of a case from reorganization to liquidation are dangerous to our economy and to American small business.

When this bill first appeared in 1997, everyone was singing ``Happy Days Are Here Again.'' There were few fears that massive bankruptcies in our airline industry, the collapse of much of our high-tech industry, the implosion of such market bellweathers as Enron and WorldCom were just over the horizon.

It would be foolhardy for the Members of this House to ignore what is going on in the real world just because this House has adopted this bill in the past. In the case of these business provisions, it could mean the loss of thousands of jobs, the unnecessary liquidation of valuable and still-potentially viable businesses, and the loss of business and value for trade creditors and communities.

Let us take an example from the financial pages. Recently, The New York Times reported that United Airlines was seeking extension on its April 8 deadline for filing a plan of reorganization. They are seeking extension until October 6.

Why are they seeking this extension? According to the report, ``The extra time would give United the chance to gauge the consequences of any war with Iraq on the airline industry.''

Is there anyone here, other than one of United's competitors, who does not think that that makes sense? Do we want to insist that United file a claim without getting a handle on what is about to happen? Would the Members of this House prefer to just liquidate the whole thing?

According to The Times again, ``The Air Transport Association said in a report that a long conflict could prompt the industry to cut 70,000 more jobs on top of the 100,000 lost since the September 11 attacks in 2001. It said several carriers could be forced into bankruptcy along with United and US Airways which have filed for Chapter XI protection last summer.''

In fact, an ATA spokesperson was quoted in the London Financial Times just this morning as stating that the war could add another $4 billion to airline losses on top of the $5.7 billion forecast and cut a further 2,200 flights daily. The same spokesperson warned that further deterioration in the industry could make the prospect of ``forced nationalization of the industry not unrealistic.''

In court papers, United requested an extension of time until October ``to avoid premature formulation of a Chapter 11 plan, and to ensure that the formulated plan takes into account the interests of the company, its employees, and its creditors.''

Should not the law allow courts to review the facts and decide whether or not such flexibility is, as the Bankruptcy Code has long required, ``in the best interests of the creditors and the estate''?

This problem is not confined to United. This morning the Financial Times reported that Standard and Poors has placed 11 other airlines on the credit watch. As a result of the 1991 Gulf War, three major airlines were forced into bankruptcy. Our job is to make the system work better, not to wreck it.

Chapter 11 is a model that other countries, most recently Estonia, are trying to emulate. They look to our system of rehabilitating going concern value where possible as preferable to the emphasis on liquidation and other systems.

Just as the rest of the world is realizing that our system encourages risk-taking, entrepreneurship, and promotes the rehabilitation of distressed businesses, this bill takes our system back in the other direction to force liquidation instead of permitting the flexibility that encourages reorganization and the survival of these businesses.

The substitute that I am offering solves that problem and keeps the current system for these businesses. Perhaps this House could pause long enough to listen to the sound of the market forces before acting to force thousands more companies into liquidation and destroy tens of thousands of jobs. Keep the flexibility in the current system by passing this substitute.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, the alleged reason for this bill, that lots of debtors are taking advantage of the credit card companies and are costing an average consumer $400 a year in higher interest, is sheer nonsense. The reason there are more bankruptcies, studies have shown, is because there is so much credit and too easy credit being given to people who are already head over heels in debt, and people are having too much debt in relation to their income.

If we want to cut down the number of bankruptcies, we should do something about irresponsible extension of credit to people already head over heels in debt. The bill does not do that.

The evidence is that people are more reluctant now to file bankruptcy than they were years ago. The bill ignores that. The bill would force many people into Chapter 13 when they are better served in Chapter 7.

Recently, Professor Staten, whose work for the credit industry provided much of the empirical fodder for this legislation, observed that this legislation would move only about 5 percent of Chapter 7 cases into Chapter 13, and that the legislation would have no effect on the number of bankruptcies. Similarly, according to James Blaine, CEO of the North Carolina State Credit Union, ``Charge-offs are well under control at 46/100 of a percent of total loans,'' less than a half of 1 percent. In other words, 99.5 percent of credit union loans are repaid as promised, and 41.1 percent of charge-offs are related to bankruptcy. Or said another way, just .19 percent, less than 2/10ths of 1 percent, of total credit union loans result in a bankruptcy loss. So taking the high estimate of a 15 percent rate of abuse, the calculation reveals that total losses on loan portfolios are less than 3/100ths of 1 percent.

That should not lead to a draconian bill such as this, a bill that, in addition, cracks down on small businesses and will force many of them into liquidation as opposed to being reorganized.

The substitute keeps some flexibility in the system, enables human judgment to see, on the part of bankruptcy judges, to determine when there is an abuse of the system and a bankruptcy filing must be disallowed and when it should go forward.

Perhaps the worst thing about this bill is the adoption of the IRS rigid guidelines, the adoption of the rigid guidelines that allow no room for any discretion. That is not the way we should write legislation.

Finally, let me simply say that notwithstanding the claims by the consumer credit industry to the contrary, consumer lending is the most profitable enterprise. According to Bloomberg News, CitiGroup, Inc., said ``Fourth quarter profit fell 37 percent because of higher loan costs, and the costs of settling claims at the world's biggest financial services company misled customers with biased stock research.'' But the biggest profit center was the credit cards.

Finally, anyone who thinks that credit card companies, by being able to take more money, to squeeze more money from middle- and low-income people who, because of a job loss or a medical emergency, are in extreme situation and bankruptcy, anyone who thinks they are going to lower the interest rates and save consumers $400 ignores the history of the last 20 years, and ought to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge from people who do not own it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, today is a victory for those Americans who work hard, pay their bills, but are forced to shoulder the debts of those who abuse our bankruptcy system. H.R. 975 restores personal responsibility and integrity to our bankruptcy system by offering a fresh start to those who deserve one, while cracking down on those who do not.

All Americans suffer when people who have the ability to pay their bills do not do so. Just yesterday the Spiegel Group, an entity that owns the famous Spiegel Catalogue and the Eddie Bauer stores, filed for bankruptcy. Why? This company, founded in 1871, began offering credit to its customers under the slogan ``We trust the people.''

According to one news report, however, the company trusted too many people, and some did not pay their credit card bills. Analysts estimate that the default rate with respect to Spiegel's credit card receivables ranged from 17 to 20 percent.

When businesses hurt, their employees and investors hurt, and our economy suffers. America's bankruptcy system was established to help provide a fresh start for individuals with demonstrated financial need. H.R. 975 maintains this goal by providing relief to those who truly require financial protection as a result of unexpected medical bills, unemployment, or other legitimate needs.

Our bankruptcy system was also established to encourage the reliable collection of debt owed to creditors. The measure we consider today advances both of these objectives and provides a comprehensive framework to promote the integrity of our bankruptcy system.

Take, for example, homestead exemptions. We have all heard about the former corporate executives acquiring or building multibillion-dollar mansions in the very face of those shareholders who are defrauded by such individuals.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation places reasonable monetary limitations on unlimited homestead exemptions which have often been misused by debtors to unfairly evade their financial obligations. This legislation will keep crooked corporate executives from using bankruptcy to shield their mansions and penthouses from the claims of creditors, defrauded shareholders, and employees.

In addition, H.R. 975 includes numerous proconsumer provisions. The bill includes special protection for individuals with spousal and child support claims. In addition to giving these claims the highest priority in regard to payment, it expands the definition of these claims to include obligations that are accruable before or after a bankruptcy case is filed, and requires deadbeat parents to pay those debts even after filing bankruptcy relief.

H.R. 975 exempts from the claims of creditors certain retirement pension funds and educational IRAs for the debtor's children. It mandates that credit lenders give consumer borrowers more disclosure about the adverse consequences of just paying the minimum monthly payment.

The bill requires debtors to receive credit counseling before they can be eligible for bankruptcy relief, so that they will make an informed choice about bankruptcy, its alternatives, and its consequences.

In several significant respects, H.R. 975 helps our Nation's family farmers in financial distress. It makes Chapter 12, a specialized form of bankruptcy relief, a permanent component of the bankruptcy codes. It ensures that more family farmers will be eligible for Chapter 12 by easing some of the income and debt limitations that currently restrict access to this type of bankruptcy relief; and for the first time family fishermen will be eligible to file for relief under Chapter 12.

H.R. 975 authorizes the increases of 28 additional bankruptcy judgeships. According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the workload of bankruptcy judges has increased 52 percent since 1992, which was the last time additional bankruptcy judges were authorized.

Another major reform of H.R. 975 deals with the economic stability of our Nation's financial marketplace. The bill includes provisions intended to reduce systemic risk with respect to the setoff or netting of various financial transactions. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has described the enactment of these provisions as being extremely important. Finally, H.R. 975 addresses problems presented by the inconsistent and unpredictable current state of bankruptcy laws concerning the treatment of bankrupt multinational corporations. It largely codifies the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency to ensure greater legal certainties for trade and investment, as well as provide for the fair and efficient administration of these cases.

The time for these reforms is long overdue. This body has on six previous occasions passed similar bankruptcy reform bills. It is my hope that today we will again do the right thing and pass this needed bipartisan bankruptcy reform legislation. Perhaps the seventh attempt will prove to be a charm and finally lead to the enactment of these critically important reforms.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, if this bill is voted down, we also will have opened up our hearts to corporate crooks who build multimillion dollar mansions on the water in nice places in Florida because the unlimited homestead exemption that is in the current law will be maintained. I do not want to open up my heart to those folks, and that is why this bill ought to pass.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself.

Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the gentleman from California should not go unanswered. The gentleman gives

the impression that the law that is proposed in this bill is a strait jacket that will prevent the shifting of cases around where there is a justification for it. I draw the attention of Members to title 28 of United States Code 1412 relative to change of venue. It says that a district court may transfer a case or proceeding under title 11, which is the bankrupt title, to a district court for another district in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties.

So if there is a need to transfer a case out of the court in Delaware, for example, to a court in Houston, the present bankruptcy code allows for that. There have been some courts that are very plugged up and are not able to process bankruptcies quickly. Business is steered away from those courts simply because they have been so plugged up. I believe there is enough flexibility, and there should not be a poison pill that will destroy the delicate balance; and hopefully we will get this bill passed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to clear the confusion that has just arisen. There are several provisions of H.R. 975 which are crucial to the collection of child support during bankruptcy which will fail if this bill goes down.

First, it prioritizes the collection and payment of spousal and child support. The legislation gives spousal and child support the highest priority under bankruptcy law. Current law give these claimants only a seventh-level payment priority. Spousal and child support will remain at seventh level if this bill goes down.

H.R. 975 requires important guidance and information be supplied to child support payments and a notification to State child support agency of a deadbeat parent's bankruptcy filing. That will not happen if this bill goes down.

H.R. 975 protects the name of the debtor's minor child from public disclosure in a bankruptcy case. That is public record if this bill goes down.

H.R. 975 permits enforcement actions to continue or to be commenced notwithstanding the deadbeat's bankruptcy filing. With the automatic stay under the current law, there cannot be an enforcement action for back child support, and any pending enforcement action is stayed. If this bill goes down, that means enforcement actions will come to a screeching halt.

Finally, H.R. 975 permits child custody and domestic violence proceedings to continue notwithstanding the debtor's filing for bankruptcy protection. Those actions will be stayed if this bill goes down.

This bill does protect women and children and should be passed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill is about personal responsibility. It is about plugging loopholes in the Bankruptcy Code that result in the shifting of millions and billions of dollars to people who pay their bills on time. It is going to put more vibrancy in our economy because of the fact that debt that is written off is something that has to be absorbed by corporations and people who hire other people who cannot afford that. I would urge the Members to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am happy to support the gentleman's amendment. I think it makes a useful addition to this legislation. Basically it extends the types of protections that are contained in the bill to credit unions. I think that this plugs a loophole. I hope that his amendment is approved.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I believe this is also a constructive amendment and would hope that the committee would approve it. It increases a wage priority. It strengthens the law to make voidable fraudulent transfers and excessive compensation and also provides better protection for employee health care benefits. All three of these I believe are very good ideas, and I would urge that the amendment be approved.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment undoes a carefully crafted compromise that was done during conference with the other body. I want to see a bill passed. Most of the people in this House who voted on this issue want to see a bill passed. I will say very practically that the adoption of the Sherman amendment will make it more difficult for a bill to be passed and signed into law by the President of the United States.

On the merits, there are two reasons why we do not have need to have a change in the venue laws. First of all, title XXVIII, which I referred to during the general debate, gives the district court the opportunity to approve a change of venue to another jurisdiction for the convenience of the parties and the people who have business before the court. This is not a bankruptcy judge that is interested in fees. This is a Federal district judge who is able to order a change in venue. So it is out of the bankruptcy court, and it is into the district court.

The second reason why this amendment is not good policy on the merits

is the fact that there are certain jurisdictions where the bankruptcy courts are overloaded. One of the things that people who file for Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 want to see happen is they want to see their reorganizations to be approved quickly so that they could get out of bankruptcy and thus continue on with their business; and if there is a huge backlog in the court, that is going to be delayed and perhaps delayed an inordinate amount of time before the court can get to approving reorganization plans to get the corporation out of bankruptcy. So I think from a practical standpoint, corporations that want to get to Chapter 11 quickly will not go to the overloaded courts. The current venue statute gives them the flexibility of choosing where they are going to file. It ought to be maintained.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am going to quit while I am ahead. The gentleman from New York agrees with me that this amendment is a bad one. There is no more that I can say but to urge the membership once again to vote against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, two amendments rejected by the Committee on Rules which I had hoped to offer illustrate the double standards represented by this bill because wealthy debtors with their lawyers and financial advisors can continue to game the system, and corporate insiders who have managed healthy businesses into bankruptcy can still be awarded with golden parachutes. Meanwhile, people of modest means will be denied a genuine fresh start, and retirees whose pensions and life savings have been wiped out by corporate bankruptcies will get little relief.

My first amendment would have placed reasonable limits on exorbitant retention bonuses, obscene severance

packages, and other outlandish payments to corporate insiders whose companies are bankrupt or insolvent; and the amendment would have reserved those assets for the benefit of employees, retirees, and other creditors.

In the State of Massachusetts, Polaroid executives canceled their retirees' health coverage days before filing for bankruptcy and then terminated workers on long-term disability when the company reorganized. At the same time they awarded themselves more than $5 million in various bonuses and incentive payments shortly before filing for bankruptcy and then another $6 million in so-called retention bonuses afterwards.

Of course, this pales in comparison to Enron, where their CEO, Kenneth Lay, received gross profits of $247 million, or Global Crossing where Gary Winnick, their CEO, grossed $512 million, all the while eliminating thousands of jobs and driving their companies into bankruptcy.

My second amendment would have helped eliminate the most notorious abuse of all, the financial planning strategy whereby debtors purchase expensive homes in States with unlimited homestead exemptions, declare bankruptcy, and continue to enjoy a life of luxury while their creditors get little or nothing, like the convicted Wall Street investment banker who filed bankruptcy while owing some $15 million in debt and fines, but still kept his $5 million mansion complete with 11 bedrooms and 21 bathrooms. Yet while the so-called bankruptcy abuse prevention bill obsesses about whether small debtors can manage to pay $100 a month in Chapter 13, it continues to tolerate this outrageous abuse.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the only exemption that allows the wealthy to shelter their assets. In addition to the million dollar mansion, they can receive a substantial pension, have an IRA up to a million dollars, and own annuities worth additional millions and not worry about it because depending on where they live, these assets are exempt and creditors cannot touch them. This bill does nothing about that.

What message does it send when Congress subjects middle-class debtors to a means test while permitting the wealthy to continue to place their millions out of reach of their creditors? We are creating different classes of debtors, and every fair-minded person should find this unconscionable. This rule should have provided an opportunity to deal with these issues, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and vote down this unfair and one-sided bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.

The rule fails to allow the House to consider two amendments I had intended to offer to illustrate the double standard represented by this bill: A bill that denies a fresh start to people of modest means while allowing wealthy debtors and corporate insiders to continue to abuse the bankruptcy system.

It was one thing to consider this kind of legislation when our nation was enjoying the prosperity of the 1990s. But this debate takes on a certain surreal quality when we consider the depths of the economic difficulties our country is facing at the moment. With unemployment rising. Growing numbers of working Americans who can't buy health insurance at reasonable rates. Retirees whose pensions and life savings have been wiped out by corporate bankruptcies.

And what are we doing about it? We're helping the credit card companies squeeze a few more pennies out of these same working families. And we're ignoring the massive abuses that have turned the Bankruptcy Code into a bonanza for a handful of unscrupulous executives.

Some months ago, the Financial Times published an analysis of the profits amassed by top officers and directors of the 25 largest companies to declare bankruptcy during the previous 18 months. According to the report, ``in just three years, they grossed about $3.3 billion before their companies went bust, having wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars of shareholder value and nearly 100,000 jobs.''

And so, as Global Crossing was losing $9.2 billion and eliminating over 5,000 jobs, its chairman, Gary Winnick, grossed $512 million. While Enron lost $18.8 billion and eliminated 5,500 jobs, its CEO, Kenneth Lay, and the chairman of its energy services subsidiary, Lou Pai, made gross profits of $247 million and $270 million, respectively.

The sources of these windfalls included such now-familiar devices as retention bonuses. Severance payments. Forgiven loans. And dividends on holdings of company stock.

In my corner of the world, Polaroid executives cancelled their retirees' health and life insurance coverage and terminated workers on long-term disability--all while awarding themselves more than $5 million in various bonuses and ``incentive'' payments before filing for bankruptcy and another $6 million in retention bonuses afterwards. Officers and directors received severance packages while employee severance was terminated. Officers and directors were able to redeem their company stock while employees, forced to put 8 percent of their salaries into the stock option plan, were prohibited from withdrawing the funds and watched their holdings evaporate. No sooner was the sale of the company completed than the new CEO terminated the retiree pension plan.

What happens to people who lose their livelihood, their savings, and their health coverage? Lots of them wind up unable to pay their debts and forced into bankruptcy. So in fact, we have corporate bankruptcies causing personal bankruptcies. And the only response from Congress has been to push an industry-sponsored bill that would make it harder for these people to get a fresh start. A bill that penalizes the very working families that have been victimized by corporate misconduct, while preserving the loopholes and exemptions that allow corporate insiders to shelter their ill-gotten gains when they declare bankruptcy.

I had sought to offer an amendment that would begin to redress the balance. It would have placed reasonable limits on exorbitant ``retention bonuses,'' severance packages, and other payments to corporate insiders of companies that are bankrupt or insolvent. The amendment would not have prohibited such payments to the extent that they are truly necessary to keep key employees in place. But it would have permitted them only when the court finds that, first, the employee has a bona fide job offer from another business at the same or greater rate of compensation; second, the services provided by the person are essential to the survival of the business; and third, the amount of the payment is not excessive when measured against the amounts paid to nonmanagement employees in the ordinary course of business.

The amendment would have empowered the court to return excessive payments to the bankrupt company, so that these funds can be available to help the company reorganize, or, in the alternative, can be distributed to employees, retirees, and other creditors. It would have restored some semblance of fairness to this unbalanced bill.

The second amendment I had hoped to offer would have helped eliminate the biggest loophole in the Bankruptcy Code, by placing a meaningful national cap on the homestead exemption.

I say ``meaningful,'' Mr. Speaker, because the $125,000 cap that is currently in the bill is qualified by a series of exemptions that assure that those who engage in flagrant abuse of the bankruptcy system by sheltering homestead assets can continue to do so.

My amendment would have left the cap at $125,000 while eliminating the exemptions for transactions conducted more than 1,215 days preceding the bankruptcy filing and for interests transferred from a debtor's previous principal residence acquired within the same state prior to that time.

The rationale we have been given for the so-called ``needs-based'' reforms proposed in H.R. 975 is to eliminate abuses of the bankruptcy laws--abuses which proponents of the legislation have characterized as the use of the Bankruptcy Code as a ``financial planning tool.''

Yet while the bill obsesses about whether small debtors can manage to pay $100 a month in chapter 13, it continues to permit--indeed, it endorses--the most notorious abuse of the consumer bankruptcy system of all: The ``financial planning'' strategy whereby debtors purchase expensive homes in states with unlimited homestead exemptions, declare bankruptcy, and continue to enjoy a life of luxury while their creditors get little or nothing.

If we are truly serious about curtailing abuses, it seems to me that this is the place to start. With the owner of the failed Ohio S&L who paid off only a fraction of $300 million in bankruptcy claims while keeping his multi-million-dollar horse ranch in Florida.

Or the convicted Wall Street financier who filed bankruptcy while owing some $50 million in debts and fines, but still kept his $5 million Florida mansion--complete with 11 bedrooms and 21 baths.

Or the Miami physician with no malpractice insurance, who was named in four separate malpractice actions, filed for bankruptcy protection, and kept a $500,000 home--complete with a 100-foot swimming pool.

Or the movie actor, Burt Reynolds, who declared bankruptcy in 1996, claiming more than $10 million in debt. Reynolds kept a $2.5 million home--appropriately named ``Valhalla''--while his creditors received 20 cents on the dollar.

The situation in Florida has become so notorious that one Miami bankruptcy judge told the New York Times, ``You could shelter the Taj Mahal in this state and no one could do anything about it.''

The sponsors of the bill will claim that they have closed the loophole by putting a cap on the exemption. But the provision is riddled with loopholes that ensure that wealthy debtors who are sophisticated enough to plan ahead will still be able to shelter their assets without ever being subject to the cap. Under the bill, they can purchase a homestead to shelter their non-exempt assets and simply wait the 1,215 days before filing their petition. And the bill expressly permits them to transfer their assets from a previous principal residence into a new one at any time prior to their bankruptcy filing without being subject to the cap, provided that the former residence is located in the same state.

What message does it send, Mr. Speaker, when Congress subjects middle-class debtors to a means test while permitting the wealthy to continue to place their millions out of reach of their creditors? What message does it send when we impose tough repayment plans on working families that are barely making ends meet, while allowing corporate insiders to drive their companies into bankruptcy and pocket millions of dollars in bonuses, severance packages, and other ill-gotten gains?

I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and vote down this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

In response to my colleague and dear friend from Texas, it is not the cap. It is not the cap that disturbs us. The question is, is it a genuine cap, or is it a sham? I suggest that this cap is a sham. There are more loopholes in this particular provision than one can even comprehend. This is not about the individual, the average, middle-class American who earns 25-, 30- or $35,000, but it is about the sophisticated investor, it is about the sophisticated individual who has access to the very best in terms of legal talent and financial advice, who knows how to game the system. We are talking about not $125,000, but about the millions, the millions, that are being prevented from going to legitimate creditors because of this particular exception.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the American people should not be deceived as to who really benefits from this so-called reform because it is not the American consumer. It is not the American taxpayer or the worker who loses his job or someone facing catastrophic medical expenses or the small business entrepreneur who is also hurt by provisions in this bill. No, the big winner here is the credit card industry because passage is going to mean billions of dollars to their bottom line.

The American consumers should understand that the interest rate on their credit card will not decline because of this bill. Over a 12-year period when the Federal fund rate fell from 13.5 percent to 3.5 percent, a line of some 10 percentage points, the average credit card rate actually rose to nearly 18 percent. Furthermore, it is going to cost the American taxpayer $500 million over 5 years to transform the Federal bankruptcy system into a collection agency for the benefit of the credit card industry.

We are going to hear a lot and we have heard during the course of our hearings about personal responsibility. Well, no one disagrees with that particular principle, but it ought to be a two-way street. Whatever happened to creditor responsibility? The former Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, Henry Hyde, identified some 75 creditor enhancements in this bill. Passage of this legislation will undoubtedly exacerbate the imbalance between creditor and debtor.

A respected consultant for the credit card industry stated that the principle

factor in increase in bankruptcies has been the dramatic lowering of loan standards, of underwriting. And every single time we attempted to introduce some reasonable measures to ensure appropriate lending practices, we were defeated by the credit card lobby. And meanwhile, they induced consumers to take on an ever-increasing amounts of debt by inundating the American people with some $5 billion of solicitations yearly. They have increased rates and fees on current accounts often with inadequate or misleading disclosure, and they engage in relentless marketing efforts that target children, the deceased, and in one particular case, even a dog.

Some of the major players such as Providian and MBNA have paid healthy penalties to settle claims regarding late fees and other practices. What has happened, Mr. Chairman, is that the credit card industry has created a culture of debt that is overwhelming millions of Americans, and that is particularly frightening in this extremely precarious economy. So let us be responsible and accountable. Let us defeat this bill because it is not bankruptcy reform. It is a bill that simply bankrupts.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the committee, the former ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, indicated that this was a bill that would benefit the consumer. I would point out to him that this particular proposal, as drafted, has the support of the American Bankers Association, the United States Chamber of Commerce and American Financial Services Association.

I would suggest they are not protecting the interests of the consumer. That is not their role. They have a responsibility to advocate for their memberships, and I would acknowledge that they have been extremely effective, but those that are opposed to this particular proposal do represent the American consumer. Let me just enumerate some of them: The Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, the National Consumer Law Center.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ 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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it is important to point out that there was an American Bankruptcy Institute study that showed that while the credit industry estimates it may recover some $4 billion under the rigid standards of the means test, the study indicated that the creditors would only receive $450 million in actual collections. The Executive Office of the United States Trustee within the Justice Department conducted a similar study that reached similar results, estimating that the passage of the bill incorporated within the conference report last year, which is almost identical to the bill that is before us now, would have netted creditors no more than 3 percent of the $400 per household they claim to be losing.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have received no evidence, no empirical data whatsoever, that the credit card industry would likely pass on any of the potential savings, albeit minimal, from bankruptcy law changes to the consumer. It would go to the bottom line.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Administrative Law.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time.

I want to commend him and congratulate him for his leadership on this issue. I believe this is a very sound amendment. It is a good initial step, and I would seek the time for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with my friend, the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. Chairman, by increasing the monetary cap on wage and employee benefit claims and lengthening the reach-back period for wage claims, the amendment increases the likelihood that lower-wage workers would get back some of the money they are owed. That is an excellent start. But at some later point, I hope in time for the House-Senate conference on this bill, I would like us to focus on the treatment of severance payments under current bankruptcy law. Some Courts have held that these payments should be prorated over the entire course of the individual's employment. As a result, only the small fraction of the severance payment that is attributed to the reach-back period may be treated as a priority claim, which unfortunately means that the employees receive much less than the monetary cap. This is a concern I hope we can address.

Would the gentleman be prepared to continue to work together so that this problem might be addressed when the bill goes to conference?

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I authored legislation in the last Congress that would address in a more thorough and comprehensive way the effects of corporate bankruptcies on workers and retirees. At our markup on H.R. 975, the gentleman indicated a willingness to explore these questions, and I would ask the gentleman whether he would be willing to schedule hearings beginning in the spring in which we could begin to talk about this overall issue.

Mr. Chairman, again I thank the gentleman for his answers and for his genuine commitment to providing relief for workers and retirees, and possibly we could have a field hearing on this particular initiative on Cape Cod either in May or June sometime.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) in offering this amendment. It would restore a modicum of balance to this unfair, unbalanced bill.

The sponsors of the bill say they advocate personal responsibility. Yet the bill does nothing to curb the corporate abuses that have turned the Bankruptcy Code into a bonanza for a handful of unscrupulous executives.

It does nothing to stop corporate insiders from stripping their companies of their assets,

paying themselves exorbitant salaries and bonuses and leaving little or nothing for their workers.

It does nothing to compensate workers whose jobs, pensions, health insurance and life savings have been wiped out by corporate bankruptcies.

The amendment represents a first, modest, effort to restore some balance. To recognize the obligations that an enterprise owes to the working people who have labored to build and sustain it.

The amendment will increase the chances that employees and retirees whose companies collapse into bankruptcy are able to retrieve some portion of what they are owed for back wages and benefits. And it will provide the courts with additional tools to recapture excessive compensation paid to corporate insiders. And I commend the gentleman from Utah for his willingness to offer it.

As the gentleman has explained, this amendment consists of three components. The first increases the monetary cap on wage and employee benefit claims entitled to priority under the Bankruptcy Code from $4,650 to $10,000, and lengthens the reachback period for wage claims from 90 to 180 days. This change increases the likelihood that workers--particularly those at the lower end of the wage scale--would actually see some of the money they are owed.

The second component lengthens the reachback period during which fraudulent transfers can be rescinded, from one year to two years, and provides that certain bonuses and other payments to corporate insiders can be rescinded during this period if they meet certain criteria. This provision gives the bankruptcy courts an additional tool for recapturing excessive compensation paid to officers and directors so that these can be available to help the company reorganize, or, in the alternative, can be distributed to employees, retirees, and other creditors.

The third component requires the court to reinstate retiree benefits--including health and pension plans--which the company modified within the 180-day period preceding the bankruptcy filing, unless the court finds that the balance of the equities justifies the modification. This provision prevents corporate debtors from evading the requirements of current law by terminating retiree benefit plans on the eve of bankruptcy.

These are good, sensible changes that will help people who lose their livelihood, their savings, and their health coverage. I sincerely appreciate the willingness of the gentleman from Utah to join in this effort. But as I'm sure he would agree, these changes are only a modest step--a baby step--and I hope we can continue to work together to address this issue in a more serious and comprehensive way.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Talking about the practical impact of the gentleman's amendment, it would end the practice of forum shopping; but even more meaningful, it would provide in very real terms an opportunity for small creditors, for retirees, for shareholders and others to participate in the process itself. Why should a court, with all due respect, in Delaware adjudicate a corporate bankruptcy that wipes out thousands of jobs in Ohio? Why should a judge in New York decide how to divide the spoils of an insolvent corporation in Massachusetts? The bankruptcy business, and it truly is a business, has been a windfall for certain jurisdictions; and they understandably resist any effort to reform the venue rules, but the rest of us ought to protect our constituents from this particular abuse, and I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill purports to improve the Bankruptcy Code by ensuring fairness for debtors and creditors. Unfortunately, this bill envisions fairness as choosing credit card companies over people in dire financial situations. This bill attempts to solve a complex problem with an oversimplified, one-size-fits-all solution when the problem really requires a sophisticated solution.

The rhetoric around H.R. 975 paints a vivid picture of scheming people running up huge debts, buying extravagant houses and expensive cars just before they run to a local bankruptcy court to avoid paying their bills, but the reality is that only 3 percent of the people who file for bankruptcy are these kinds of cheaters.

In order to stop the 3 percent who abuse the system, the bill takes the dramatic sweeping step of harming the 97 percent of people who are forced to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Code because of illnesses, unemployment or divorce. In fact, nearly half the people who file for bankruptcy protection do so because of medical bills and the financial consequences of illness or injury.

Middle-class families are only one serious illness away from financial collapse, and the impact of medical cost is highest on women, families headed by women and older people.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most forceful and persistent proponents of changing the Federal Bankruptcy Code is the credit card industry. We all know that credit card companies send us solicitations by the boatload. They mailed 5 billion of them in 2001. Each of us get three or four a day. They flood the mailboxes with credit card offers and encourage debt, and it is very hard to sympathize with these companies. They are actively, actively creating the problems that they now want this body to fix for them.

Why does this legislation do nothing to address the culpability of credit card companies in the growing numbers of bankruptcies? Nothing in this legislation requires credit card companies to provide adequate information to consumers about the costs of credit. Nothing in the bill addresses the industry's aggressive marketing of credit to students and to young teenagers. Nothing in this bill deals with predatory mortgage loans or the high costs of so-called payday loans.

Douglas Lustig, a bankruptcy attorney in my hometown of Rochester, New York, says that people are not abusing credit cards for extravagances. Rather, he says, most people use credit cards out of necessity. People are forced to use their credit cards to buy food or pay for rent until they get through difficult economic times, and what really breaks my heart is that as unemployment rates rise, this Congress has failed to extend the unemployment benefits in so many households. This is the only recourse that they have. Then if something awful happens to them, and the wife is laid off or the husband diagnosed with cancer, the family then is totally unable to meet its financial burdens, and this bill chooses to make sure that the credit card companies get paid instead of protecting the families and helping them dig out of financial collapse.

What do bankruptcy judges think about this legislation? Judge A. Thomas Small, who recently served as president of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges and now is chairing the Federal Bankruptcy Rules Committee, sees problems. He says this measure will fail to block needless bankruptcy cases while making it a lot harder for people who really need bankruptcy relief to get it.

Despite the many years that bankruptcy reform has been discussed by this body, many serious problems persist in this legislation. The rule before this body gags us and limits our right to speak fully about the significant legislation and its real-world effects. Republicans in the House Committee on Rules blocked the consideration of six substantive amendments to this bill. This body has the right to discuss them, to deliberate and to consider the changes they offer.

One amendment would protect the Active Duty members of the Armed Forces, unemployed people who have exhausted their benefits, and victims of terrorism. Another would have prohibited credit card companies from issuing cards to people under the age of 21. A third amendment would place a $125,000 national cap on the homestead exemption without any of the exceptions allowed in the underlying bill. Still another would place reasonable limits on exorbitant retention bonuses, the severance package and other payments to corporate insiders of companies that are bankrupt or facing bankruptcy. A fifth amendment would crack down on the predatory lending practice known as payday lending.

An amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and myself would give bankruptcy courts the discretion to provide extra protection for people entitled to alimony or child support, a piece of legislation that we put in back in the days when Jack Brooks was chair of the Committee on the Judiciary. Many of us worked very hard at that time to make sure that child support was the first thing that a spouse had to or person who was paying the

support had to discharge. That has changed now.

The reform legislation elevates the credit card companies to the same categories of child support. Mothers and fathers who are trying to get money for food and clothes for their children will have to compete with the major credit card companies with their legions of lawyers and sophisticated collection departments for the same few dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I will enter this list of amendments left on the floor of the room of the Committee on Rules into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 975 even fails to hold perpetrators of violence against women's health care clinics accountable for their actions. As part of a coordinated strategy, perpetrators of clinic violence have filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying judgments against them for violation of Federal law. This bill will allow them to discharge these judgments and get away with breaking Federal law and trampling the constitutional rights of women.

This rule and this legislation fail the American people. Years of consideration have not produced bankruptcy reform that the American people deserve, reform that fixes the current problems with a system without causing significantly more harm than this prevents.

Mr. Speaker, we should produce legislation that strikes a balance between risk-taking and responsibility and shelters that 97 percent who deserve the Federal protection. I urge Members to vote against this rule and against H.R. 975.

The previously mentioned list of amendments follows:

Amendments Rejected by the House Rules Committee During Consideration of H. Res. 147, The Rule Governing Debate on H.R. 975, The Bankruptcy

Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2003

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Representative Delahunt--the

amendment places a $125,000 national cap on the homestead

exemption, without any of the exceptions allowed in the

underlying bill.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Representative Delahunt--the

amendment places reasonable limits on exorbitant ``retention

bonuses,'' severance packages, and other payments to

corporate insiders of companies that are bankrupt or facing

bankruptcy.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Representative Jackson-Lee--the

amendment cracks down on the predatory lending practice known

as ``payday lending.''

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Representative Waters--the

amendment prohibits credit card companies from issuing cards

to people under 21 years of age.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Representative Schakowsky--the

amendment excludes unemployed people who have exhausted their

benefits, active duty members of the armed forces, and

victims of terrorism from the bill's means test provisions.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Representatives Conyers,

Slaughter, and Jackson-Lee--the amendment gives courts the

discretion to disapprove an agreement or the discharge of a

debt if it would impair a debtor's ability to pay alimony or

child support.

Open Rule Motion Offered by Representative Frost--on a

party-line vote of 3-9, the Committee rejected Mr. Frost's

motion that the House consider H.R. 975 under an open rule,

which would have allowed the House to debate all of the

amendments Members brought before the Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.