Military Educational Parity Act of 2005

Mr. President, I ask that my remarks be as in morning business.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.

I thank the Chair.

boy scouts of america land transfer act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the Boy Scouts of America Land Transfer Act of 2005. This important legislation will allow the exchange of two small parcels of land between the Utah National Parks Council of the Boy Scouts of America and Brian Head Ski Resort.

In a 1983 land patent, the Bureau of Land Management granted roughly 1,300 acres to the Utah National Parks Council of the Boy Scouts of America to be used as a Boy Scout camp. The Scout camp, known as Camp Thunder Ridge, is situated in the mountains adjacent to Brian Head Ski Resort and near Cedar Breaks National Monument.

At the time the land patent was granted, a local rancher owned a parcel of land adjacent to the camp and another parcel right in the middle of the camp. Several years ago, the rancher gave those lands to Brian Head Ski Resort. The Scouts need to obtain the land, totaling 120 acres, from Brian Head. However, under the patent, land cannot be sold or exchanged without an act of Congress.

While Camp Thunder Ridge is located in a steep, rough, mountainous area, much of the land the Boy Scouts seek is flat, making it particularly important for the camp. Obtaining the land would make it possible for the Scouts to make the camp's shooting area and archery range safer and would allow them to improve and expand their camping facilities. It also would allow for the installation of much-needed septic tanks.

I am a strong supporter of the Boy Scouts of America. The Boy Scouts have a long tradition of instilling strong values in young men.

Scout camps such as Camp Thunder Ridge give young men the opportunity to learn vital skills, fulfil merit badge requirements, and otherwise improve themselves. This small land exchange will allow Camp Thunder Ridge to more fully help these young men learn and grow.

For their part, Brian Head Ski Resort is seeking to expand their operations and have received preliminary approval from local officials. The local planning commission, however, has required them to build an emergency exit from their property. The only place to build such a road is through land owned by the Boy Scouts. The exchange will allow Brian Head to construct the access road and comply with county fire safety regulations.

The Boy Scouts have been working for more than 20 years to secure the lands in question, and Brian Head needs to build a road on lands currently owned by the Scouts. This exchange is desperately needed by both parties, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The purpose of this bill is to make our bankruptcy system more fair and efficient. Every citizen has a stake in this bill. It is obvious that bankruptcy filers have a lot at stake in this legislation.

In recent years, the number of bankruptcies has been on the rise, and I understand that today more bankruptcies are filed every year than during the entire decade of the Great Depression, and this chart shows that. It begins in the year 1900. It is basically a flat line until we get to about 1984--actually, 1995--and then it heads straight up. These are bankruptcy filings per 100,000 population, and they have gone up dramatically over the years. Annual bankruptcy filings have now reached about 1.6 million Americans, and this is up significantly since the time we started working on the overhaul of the bankruptcy system now 8 years ago.

One of the key goals of legislation we have before us today is to make sure the system is not abused by the unscrupulous who leave their creditors high and dry. At the same time, the concept of allowing those citizens who have become saddled by debt to use bankruptcy to get a fresh start is firmly entrenched in the American legal system. Gone are the days of debtor prisons.

We want to treat debtors fairly and give those who become overwhelmed by debt a second chance. We do not want

to send a signal to those who for whatever reason get into a financial hole that it is okay to go deeper in that hole prior to filing for and become absolved by bankruptcy. We want to give those in debt a fair second chance to bring their fiscal houses in order.

We also want to treat creditors fairly. At the end of the day, it is law-abiding, bill-paying citizens who pay for the bankruptcy of others, regardless of whether the debts involved were taken on by con men or those whose situations simply got out of hand.

As this debate goes forward, it is important for all to understand that according to some experts, a conservative estimate is that every American family pays about $400 a year in a hidden tax associated with bankruptcies, taxes they should not have to pay. I am told that others place the fair estimate of this hidden bankruptcy tax in the range of $550 per person per year. There are numerous examples of people who take advantage of loopholes today at the expense of everyone else tomorrow.

We recently heard from a Wisconsin credit union president who testified before the Judiciary Committee about a young couple who wanted a clean financial slate before they got married. What did they do? They ran up their credit card purchases. One of them prepaid a car loan with the credit union to have the other cosigner released. Then, although they were both employed full-time, they filed for bankruptcy to wipe out their debt. Their credit union and its members had to absorb the $3,000 in credit card debt and then another couple of hundred dollars on the car itself. Bankruptcy relief was never meant to allow this kind of abuse. Hard-working Americans, including the members of credit unions nationwide, have been victimized by abusers of the current bankruptcy system long enough.

Bankruptcy abuse also hurts our Nation's small businesses. Without reforms from this bill, losses from bankruptcy abuse will continue to break the backs of the Nation's small businesses and retailers, which work with slim profit margins and have even smaller margins for error.

Throughout this debate, I want those who pay their bills in full and on time to understand that our attempt to rebalance some of the aspects of the bankruptcy system will have a positive impact on their pocketbooks each time they go to the store. In effect, we all pay for the bankruptcies of others through this ``hidden tax.'' In some respects, I suppose one could view this bill as a tax cut for the responsible people.

While one large impact of bankruptcy is felt in the wallet, perhaps the most important principle involved in this is when one borrows money, they need to take personal responsibility to pay it back. Personal responsibility is a core American value. This legislation, which has been crafted over years of debate and compromise, reflects that basic value.

We are mindful of the old adage there is no such thing as a free lunch. When some people do not pay their credit card bills, the rest of us pay for them in the form of increased prices. We do not get off. We have to pay for it. Great strain is placed on businesses, particularly small businesses, when customers do not pay for their purchases.

While we want to be fair to those who are in serious debt, we must also be mindful that sometimes it is employees and their families who have to pay through lost salary increases or even pay cuts or job loss when some do not pay their bills. No firm can expand or even maintain its operations or stay in business for long if a substantial portion of goods and services it sells is not paid for by its customers. We all simply have a stake in bankruptcy policy and, therefore, we all have a stake in this bill.

Unfortunately, our current system allows certain people with the ability to repay at least some of their debt load to take advantage of the system at the expense of everyone else. Today, individuals with relatively high incomes can run up substantial debts and then too easily use bankruptcy to get out of honoring them. In the end, all of us pay for those who abuse the system.

As I will describe, one of the key improvements made by this bill is to devise a new and equitable system to see that those who declare bankruptcy will be called upon to repay a fair portion of their past debts with future earnings if they are able to do so. This is the so- called means test that I will describe in a few minutes.

First, I will take a few minutes to highlight some of the key proconsumer provisions of this bill. S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, includes a debtor's bill of rights with new consumer protections to prevent the bankruptcy mills from preying upon those who are uninformed of their legal rights and needlessly pushing them into bankruptcy. This is an important improvement over current law and helps rectify the current practice whereby some, both debtors and creditors alike, lose out in the long run to some shady legal advisers who take their fees and run.

The bill also includes new consumer protections under the Truth in Lending Act, such as new required disclosures regarding minimum monthly payments and introductory rates for credit cards. It protects consumers from unscrupulous creditors with new penalties on creditors who refuse to negotiate reasonable payment schedules outside of bankruptcy.

Our bill provides penalties on creditors who fail to properly credit planned payments in bankruptcy. It includes credit counseling programs to help people avoid the cycle of indebtedness. This is an important provision for consumers.

Except for those with evil motivations and a willingness to take advantage of the system, no one likes to be in debt. This bill helps consumers learn how to better protect their financial resources. S. 256 provides for a protection of educational savings accounts, and it gives equal protection for retirement accounts or retirement savings in bankruptcy. These provisions will help our children and our parents have adequate resources.

The bankruptcy legislation also contains important changes in current law that will benefit women and children. We have heard some people complain that our bankruptcy laws do not adequately take care of women and children. Through our years of work on this bill, we have tried to make the law more protective in these areas, and this bill accomplishes that goal.

Current law provides that child support obligations are seventh in overall priority among unsecured claims. This bill dramatically changes the world with respect to child support. This bill contains a large set of provisions addressing the treatment of child support, including making domestic support obligations first in priority after certain required expenditures.

I will repeat that for emphasis. Child support goes from seventh to first in priority within its category for repayment under this bill. From seventh in line to top priority, this is a big change. Unfortunately, those who have slow walked this bill for the last 8 years have prevented this important change from taking effect.

The legislation also includes a provision that makes staying current on child support a condition of getting a discharge in bankruptcy. It makes debt discharge in bankruptcy conditional upon full payment of past due child support and alimony. S. 256 makes domestic support obligations automatically nondischargeable without the costs of litigation. It prevents bankruptcy from holding up child custody, visitation, and domestic violation cases. It helps eliminate administrative roadblocks in the current system so children can get the support they need. All of these measures are valuable additions and changes in the bankruptcy laws.

It is in the best interests of women and children to pass this bill. It is a tremendous improvement for children and families over current law. That is why there is such overwhelming support for this legislation from the child support professionals across the country-- the very people who go after deadbeats to help get children the financial support they need.

That is not all. Let me cite a few more improvements over current law for women and children.

The bill makes the payment of child support arrears a condition of plan confirmation. It provides stronger and more comprehensive notice requirements and more information for easier child support collection. It provides help in tracking down deadbeats.

It allows for claims against a deadbeat parent's property. It allows for

payment of child support with interest by those with means. It facilitates wage withholding to collect child support from deadbeat parents.

As I have just described, there are many important provisions in this bill for children, women, and the aged. I hope that we can finally get this bill to the President's desk for signature. This is a bill that is way overdue.

This legislation, S. 256, also requires extensive new disclosure requirements by creditors in the area of reaffirmations and more judicial oversight of reaffirmations to protect people from being pressured into agreements against their interests.

These are important provisions. Let me explain why.

Reaffirmation agreements commonly occur in conjunction with bankruptcy proceedings when debtors agree to repay a debt they would not otherwise have to pay. These reaffirmation agreements can be very helpful to debtors as they seek to reestablish their good financial status with their creditors as they emerge from bankruptcy.

By increasing disclosure requirements and judicial oversight, the reaffirmation process can operate to the advantage of debtor and creditor alike.

Next, I would like to briefly describe one of the key features of the bill, the means test, and how it relates to, and will improve, the overall operation of our bankruptcy system.

The premise behind the means test is that those who are able to pay all, or some, of their past debts should do so. The means test helps the courts determine who can and who can not repay their debts and, perhaps most importantly, how much they can afford to pay.

The challenge is to set this figure at the right level, neither too high nor too low.

If the figure is set too high, the debtor may be placed in a vicious cycle from which he or she can never escape and get a fair chance to start over. Of course, if the repayment schedule is set too low, the debtors will escape responsibility at the expense of those who they owe.

Through this new means test, in certain circumstances, the bill requires those filing for bankruptcy to pay a fair but not overly burdensome portion of their future earnings.

The means test allows for a straight deduction of actual expenses for the care and support of an elderly, chronically ill, or disabled household member, or member of the debtor's immediate family.

This test allows for a straight deduction for food and clothing expenses.

This test allows for up to $1,500 to be deducted per child for educational purposes.

This test includes an allowance for housing and utilities costs.

This test includes all the categories enumerated under the National Standards, Local Standards and Other National Expenses issued by the Internal Revenue Service.

This test allows for the straight deduction of expenses incurred in maintaining the safety of the debtor and the family of the debtor from family violence.

This test includes a special circumstances safety valve that allows debtors to adjust their income or expenditures based on unforeseen circumstances such as military activation and deployment or unexpected and catastrophic medical conditions.

Finally, this test includes a safe harbor provision which exempts debtors below their respective State median incomes.

After all of these exemptions are applied, including the safe harbor, it is estimated that 90 percent of debtors will not be affected by the changes in the repayment provisions of this bill.

Who constitutes the remaining 10 percent? They are the people who can afford to pay at least some of their debts. And that is what the means test is all about.

All of these changes that I have described are important. Many of us have worked for many years on this bill. Frankly, some of us think this bill has already taken way too many years to complete.

I want to take a few minutes describing the extensive legislative history of the bill. This is important for many reasons. One of those reasons is that this history will reveal that this measure has already been fully debated and this bill reflects literally dozens and dozens of compromises along its 8-year journey.

I will describe the nadir of this bill when President Clinton pocket vetoed the legislation after Congress adjourned in the fall of 2000.

This bill has had broad bipartisan support from the very beginning.

In the Senate, Senators Grassley and Biden have been at this for a long time, as have many others on both sides of the aisle.

When we debate amendments over the next few days, I want my colleagues to pay close attention to those who are offering amendments.

If what occurred at the Judiciary Committee mark-up of the bill repeats itself on the floor, it might be the case that many amendments will be offered by that relatively small group of Senators who have steadfastly opposed this bill each step of the way during the last 8 years. If that is the case, we must examine their amendments with both exacting scrutiny and heavy skepticism.

It is one thing to attempt to improve a bill and bring it more to your liking, it is another matter altogether to try to scuttle a bill. This can be a fine line on any bill. But with a bill with the extensive history as this, it is easier to assess who is trying to get this bill over the goal line finally and who is trying to push us out of bounds and into yet another period of legislative overtime.

The House and Senate have been engaged in the process of deliberating on this issue since 1997, back during the 105th Congress. Turning back the clock to 1997, we see that the comprehensive bankruptcy reform bill was developed and passed in both bodies by overwhelming votes. The actual substance of bankruptcy reform legislation has been a bipartisan, bicameral effort.

The successful work by each chamber of Congress in 1997 was followed by the appointment of conferees, negotiations with the House, and, in October of 1998, an overwhelming vote by House Members in favor of the conference report. Unfortunately, the Senate did not complete its vote on final passage before the end of the Congress.

Next, in February of 1999, Congressman Gekas and Senator Grassley reintroduced the same bankruptcy bill agreed to by both bodies during the previous conference committee. That bill passed the House in May by an overwhelming margin. Later that same month, the Senate Judiciary Committee marked up our bill and we reported it from committee.

Finally, in February of 2000, after months of procedural delays and debate on the Senate floor, the reform legislation passed by another impressive margin of 83 to 14.

I suspect this body will approve this bill by a similar lopsided margin when a vote on final passage is taken in this Congress if we can get to a vote on final passage. There are some who have indicated they are going to filibuster this bill. We will have to see. But there have been far too many people, on both sides of the aisle, who promised they would work to get this bill through, and they should fight against any filibuster.

Turning back to the year 2000 after the bipartisan 83-14 vote, the Senate then requested a conference. This should be a routine matter, but the objection of a single Senator blocked the appointment of conferees. As a result, the House and Senate had to turn to an informal conference process.

With a great deal of effort by Members on both sides of the aisle, we reached a compromise agreement on over 400 pages of legislation.

Ultimately, both the House and Senate were able to pass that conference report in another series of decisive votes in the fall of 2000.

However, President Clinton chose to pocket-veto the legislation and (refused to sign it into law, despite the overwhelming support. Once again, the stone pushed by Sisyphus was at the bottom of the mountain.

Representative Gekas introduced the bill, yet again, in January of 2001. The conference report for that bill, H.R. 333, became the backbone of the legislation pending before us today. It too, had overwhelming support, except for what is now understood to be a poison- pill amendment.

I will not take the time today to discuss just how this important comprehensive change in the bankruptcy bill got waylaid in the eleventh hour

by this problematical and, many believe, perhaps mostly hypothetical and politically motivated, provision.

We all know that this bill has repeatedly won the overwhelming approval of our colleagues in both Houses of Congress.

Before we began a conference meeting on an earlier version a few years ago I referred to that meeting as being the last leg of a legislative marathon. I was wrong then--but I hope, and I have every confidence, that this floor debate represents the final beginning of that last leg.

We succeeded in finally enacting the class action reform bill 2 weeks ago and I am hopeful that we can duplicate this success with the bankruptcy bill over the next several days.

As many have said, this is a compromise bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support among Democrats and Republicans, and conservatives and liberals.

Even after having worked for 8 years already, we agreed to make some additional compromises in the Judiciary Committee during mark-up 2 weeks ago to satisfy some concerns of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Those compromises were difficult to make, but we have made them.

I should add that there are some on our side of the aisle, such as Senator Cornyn, who would like to make additional changes in this bill. He has a very substantial proposal addressing the issue of venue reform. It is an area in which he has special expertise from his experiences with some important bankruptcies that affected many citizens of Texas but were litigated out of State.

There are things I would like to see changed in the bill.

But I also recognize that many have cooperated and compromised in order to reach the state where this legislation is today. Given the extensive and lengthy history of this bill, I think it best for my colleagues to refrain from offering controversial amendments on this vehicle at this time--and I will do so because I know that any further amendments might scuttle this bill.

This bill provides new consumer protections, helps children in need of child support, and makes other necessary reforms to a system that is open to abuse.

I want to stress the fact that this legislation does not make it more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy, but it does eliminate some of the opportunities for abuse that exist under the current system.

This is a good bill. We should pass it promptly and send it to the House.

It is possible that during this debate that some may falsely suggest that this bill unfairly treats low-income persons. Let me tell you at the outset that the poor are not affected by the means test. The legislation provides a safe harbor for those who fall below the median income, so they are not subjected to the means test at all. What the means test is designed to do, and what it will do, is to prevent abuse by those who can and should pay a portion of their debts wit future earnings. It will stop the fraud. It will stop the abuse of a system that has been going on through some of these unscrupulous lawyers and bankruptcy helpers.

Another misconception that I have heard again and again from opponents of the bill is that this legislation will not let people file for bankruptcy relief when they need it. The fact is that this legislation does not deny anyone access to bankruptcy relief, it just requires those who have the means to repay their debts based on their income and ability to pay.

It is that simple. It is fair. It is a long overdue change for the better.

Some opponents of this legislation have also claimed that it somehow hurts women and children. This falsehood is particularly disturbing for me to hear, because I have had a long history of advocating for children and families in Congress, and I have worked tirelessly, provision by provision, to make this legislation dramatically improve the position of children and ex-spouses who are entitled to domestic support. I have already told you in some detail why these allegations are baseless and how this bill works to help women and children.

I look forward to participating in this debate.

This is a very good bill.

It represents years of bipartisan, bicameral work. It is time we pass this bill. This President will sign this bill.

I hope that we will not get sidetracked by nonrelevant or counterproductive, controversial amendments on a consensus bill that has been so long in the making.

I hope there will not be any frivolous amendments or amendments designed to kill the bill or message amendments trying to make political points rather than solve the problems we have regarding bankruptcy.

Let us pass this bill for the fourth and final time and get on to other business.

I urge all of my colleagues to support S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, for his opening statement. I know he has worked hard on this matter.

The Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from Vermont, and the distinguished President pro tempore have noted that it is spitting snow outside. Unfortunately, some think this is a time for panic. They should go to Alaska. They should go to Vermont. They should go over to the mountains of Pennsylvania.

I say to the President pro tempore, you heard me mention not so long ago that I was back home in Vermont. I was listening to the news, and almost as an afterthought they said: By the way, we should have a dusting of snow tonight; No more than 3 to 5 inches. Down here, of course, everything comes to a screeching halt.

Why I bring this up I have no idea, except that when watching TV crews going out begging to get one shot of a snowflake, I say: Go to Alaska. Go to Vermont. We will show them what real weather is.

Today, we are beginning debate on the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005--a big title for S. 256. But it is an important debate. It is the first time in 4 years the Senate has debated bankruptcy reform legislation. I hope it is going to be a fair and informed and beneficial debate that will improve this bipartisan bill and help us enact bankruptcy reform into law.

Both the chairman and I have worked very hard with Senators on our sides of the aisle. We have tried to move this legislation forward. But we know that bankruptcy is a complex area of law. It has many competing public policy interests between debtors and creditors and even among competing creditors.

The very complex and competing interests involved in achieving fair reforms of our bankruptcy system demand that we work in a bipartisan manner throughout the legislative process.

I mentioned that 4 years ago we debated this issue. I mentioned that because today our Nation has an entirely different face than it did then. We have endured the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We have immersed ourselves in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have witnessed a parade of financial misdeeds--more than misdeeds, financial thefts and skulduggery by major U.S. corporations. We have even watched as pension programs, and the promises of the pension programs, were shortchanged by nearly $100 billion. All these factors have only deepened the financial woes of an already struggling economy. So when we debate this issue today we are discussing real life today, not what it was in 2001.

I think for this legislation to be appropriate and fair, the key provisions have to be carefully examined. If necessary, they have to be modernized, they have to be amended.

Earlier this month, our committee held a bipartisan hearing on bankruptcy reform legislation. As I said, that was our first hearing in 4 years. It was an informed discussion. A week later, the Judiciary Committee held its first markup on bankruptcy legislation in 4 years. During that meeting, we considered 11 amendments, 5 of which were accepted.

They improved the bill. In fact, they were accepted unanimously. I am particularly pleased the committee accepted the Leahy-Grassley amendment that clarifies that any judgment, order, or settlement agreement for violation of securities fraud law after the filing of a bankruptcy case is nondischargeable. In other words, if you want to defraud somebody in securities, if you want to pull some of these big fraud actions we have seen in the past few years, you are not going to escape the consequences by bankruptcy.

During consideration of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Senator Grassley and I worked together to amend the Bankruptcy Code to make judgments and settlements based on security law violations nondischargeable. We wanted to protect the victims' ability to recoup their losses and hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions. This change in the law was based on a Judiciary Committee amendment that Senator Grassley and I introduced to my corporate fraud legislation, S. 2010, the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act that was unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee. It was later adopted as a floor amendment by a vote of 99 to nothing in 2002.

Recently a bankruptcy court wrongly interpreted the new law by finding that a securities fraud judgment, order, or settlement must be in existence at the time the bankruptcy petition is filed to be nondischargeable. That was never intended. This court precedent could result in future courts discharging securities frauds judgments, orders, or settlements that are entered into after a debtor files for bankruptcy.

To give you an idea of what a get-out-of-jail-free card this is, an Enron executive could avoid paying his securities fraud judgment by filing for bankruptcy where the securities fraud litigation is pending. That would be wrong. Neither Republicans nor Democrats who supported that amendment want that to happen. So the Leahy-Grassley amendment, which was accepted by all Members, Republicans and Democrats, in the committee during committee consideration, would remedy that injustice and makes it clear that Congress intended for all securities fraud judgments, orders, or settlements to be nondischargeable.

Another area we have to consider is the economic hardships faced by service members' families. When you get a call to serve your country in Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere--and now it is a disproportionate number of guardsmen and reservists who are called up; I watch this as the cochair of the National Guard caucus of the Senate--it can cause loss of family income, the close of a family business, a whole lot of other unexpected expenses. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for service members and their families to be forced into filing for bankruptcy relief. We have to protect those who are fighting for us. I know Senators Durbin and Nelson have taken an interest in this issue. I look forward to hearing their thoughts on how we can help the situations faced by service members serving our Nation and their families.

I spoke of the financial misdeeds of U.S. corporations. When you talk about Enron and WorldCom, others, it leaves a very bitter taste in the mouths of average Americans. If an average American were to steal $500 or $1,000, they might go to jail. Apparently, if you steel $100 million, $200 million, or $500 million, you are a hero. When it is done, there are no heroes, not to any of us. They have damaged investor confidence. They have shaken our capital markets. Senators Sarbanes, Kennedy, Durbin, Harkin, and Cantwell have prepared amendments to address the ongoing problems caused by corporate abuse.

We must strengthen the financial safety net for hard-working American families who confront illness or injury. Medical problems contribute to about half of all bankruptcies, even though most of those who file had health insurance when they became sick. Many lose their jobs and their insurance because they got sick. Others face thousands of dollars in copayments and deductibles for services not covered by their insurance. Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Clinton, and Corzine will be leading the debate on this issue.

Since we last considered bankruptcy reform legislation, financially troubled companies have shortchanged their pension promises by nearly $100 billion, putting workers approaching retirement age or responsible companies and actually taxpayers at risk. We will hear from Senators Harkin, Rockefeller, and Dayton during debate over this issue.

I know that Senators Grassley, Durbin, Dodd, Feinstein, and others share a commitment to include credit industry reform in a balanced bankruptcy bill. The millions of credit card solicitations made to American consumers in the past year have contributed to the rise in consumer debt and bankruptcy. It is relatively easy to obtain credit. We have heard the stories of a neighbor's dog getting a $3,000 preapproved credit card. Kids go to college and are inundated with preapproved credit cards. So it is relatively easy to obtain them. Not nearly enough is done to ensure that credit is properly managed. Currently, credit card statements fail to include all of the information necessary to allow individuals to make fully informed financial decisions. Additional disclosure is needed to ensure that individuals completely understand the implications of their credit card use.

Senator Akaka intends to offer the credit card minimum payment warning act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor with him. It will provide a wake-up call for consumers by making it very clear what costs they are going to incur if they make only the minimum payments on their credit cards. The personalized information they will receive for each of their accounts will help consumers make informed choices about their debts. In an era of computers, this is not a real burden on the companies.

Senator Feingold, a longtime protector of working middle and lower income families who rely on the ability to resolve overwhelming financial burdens through bankruptcy, is going to offer several amendments to improve this bill. Senator Feingold and I have worked together on bankruptcy reform issues for a long time. I know his expertise and the measures he means to propose will enhance this legislation.

We have to be careful that our efforts to ensure accountability in the bankruptcy process do not inadvertently create problems for privacy and security. We are in an age where personal information--far too much personal information--can be easily digitized and shared. If it falls into the wrong hands, it is abused. Identity theft is one danger, as is tracking and harassing a battered spouse. We can look for accountability, but we have to find ways to minimize the possibilities of abuse.

Four years ago, the committee adopted the Leahy-Hatch amendment to protect the personal privacy of consumers whose information is held by firms in bankruptcy as part of bankruptcy reform legislation. I am pleased this bill retains this proprivacy provision.

Our bipartisan provision permits bankruptcy courts to honor the privacy policies of business debtors. It creates a consumer privacy ombudsman to protect personal privacy in bankruptcy proceedings. I appreciate Senator Hatch's efforts to add important consumer privacy protections to the code.

Unfortunately, the Leahy-Hatch amendment is needed because the customer lists and databases of failed firms now can be put up for sale in bankruptcy without any privacy considerations, even in violation of the failed firm's own public privacy policy against sale of personal customer information to third parties.

Let me just tell you what happened in this case, and it is not untypical. We had an online toy store called Toysmart.com. Toysmart.com wanted to encourage parents to allow their children to go online and, in doing so, they promised on their Web site that personal information voluntarily submitted by visitors to the site--such as name, address, billing information, childhood preferences--would never be shared with a third party. If you are a parent, you would look at that and say: I feel a little bit better about this. I don't want my son or daughter's names out there.

Guess what happened. They filed for bankruptcy in 2000. Even though they had made this promise to parents and children, the personal customer information was put on the auction block. In a way, the bankruptcy court had a catch-22. I suspect the judge realized that this was violating everything every parent thought of, but under the law at that time, there was only one real asset. It was this mailing list. It wasn't the old desks or loading docks or the warehouse. Those were empty. It wasn't the computers. Those would be out of date every few months. The one item of any value was the mailing list. The mailing list that parents had been promised would never go out, the children's names would never be sold, that had to go into bankruptcy. That is why we have the Leahy-Hatch amendment.

The Leahy-Hatch provision included in this legislation adds privacy protections and a consumer privacy ombudsman to the bankruptcy code. We wanted to prevent future cases like Toysmart.com. Once somebody tells you we are going to keep your kids, information confidential, it will be.

We have seen in the news recently the ChoicePoint Inc. breach. It is just the latest example of why we need to take special care with databases containing America's personal information. It is astounding that a company in the business of providing data for background checks and law enforcement purposes failed to assess the legitimacy of its own customers. It sold

personal data on 145,000 individuals to scam artists. Many of the victims had no idea that ChoicePoint existed, let alone that the company compiled data. How irresponsible, how wrong. How can the people who run ChoicePoint sleep at night? This is one of the most outrageous things we have heard. How can they possibly hold themselves up as a company? We now find that as this was going on, some of them were making millions of dollars in stock options. This is outrageous. I would hope that the Department of Justice and others are looking at this. How can anybody be this negligent? How can anybody be this criminal? They make millions of dollars, the people running it. Somebody who has a mom and pop somewhere can find, because they were so negligent, because they opened the doors and let the scam artists come in, they may lose their business. Somebody who has a child in college may not be able to pay the tuition. Somebody who is trying to make the rent or the mortgage, living paycheck to paycheck, may not be able to.

Apparently, according to the press this past week, their executives will make millions of dollars on stock while their customers are being clobbered. What shame. And we haven't heard a single one of them step forward and say how ashamed they are by this outrageous action.

It has become all too familiar. In recent years, headlines have recounted how personal information has been compromised and database breaches of government contractors, at banks, at universities, even a blood bank. One hospital on the west coast sends things to be translated in Pakistan. All these secret medical records that you think are so private, they sent it over to Pakistan, and the person in Pakistan said: I want more money.

If you don't give me more money--because I am in Pakistan, and you cannot touch me here--I am going to put all of these people's medical records online. What were they thinking, the people who run this thing? They make a whole lot of money, but, boy, they are clobbering the people who go there. This puts America's most private information at risk not only for financial crimes but for stalking. You can find out who lives alone, who is vulnerable, who could be blackmailed, and find out who may be a victim for scam artists. The administration talks about fighting terrorism. This creates a potential avenue for a terrorist to masquerade as an innocent person.

I have called for a series of hearings on how we ensure data security, privacy and proper use in the information age. I am pleased that Chairman Specter has agreed to my request for hearings, and I look forward to these opportunities to consider these issues closely.

We need to take reasonable measures in the bankruptcy process to guide what information will be available publicly and to whom. Debtors are often required to submit documents containing highly personal information. Declaring bankruptcy is challenging enough for those who find themselves in that circumstance, we shouldn't make it worse by creating the possibility that they will be victimized later on. I am submitting an amendment to provide protections in handling personal data in those submissions. These changes reflect current Judicial Conference policy and were included in last term's Hatch-Leahy Federal Courts Improvement Act.

First, my amendment expands the court's discretion to protect information such as social security numbers and passport numbers. The bankruptcy courts are in a unique position to properly balance the need to share information with the need to protect privacy, and we should rely on their good judgment and discretion as much as possible. The amendment draws from the current civil procedure discovery rules to set a standard against which the court can apply its discretion. The amendment also allows individuals to request that the court protect sensitive information before it is placed in the public record. This protection is particularly important given our increasing reliance on electronic filing, where information is immediately available to the public.

Second, my amendment provides important protection for social security numbers. Originally promised to be narrow in purpose and use, social security numbers are now the universal identifier with the key to unlock access to bank accounts and other highly sensitive areas. We must treat these numbers commensurate with their power, and ensure that they are only accessed in appropriate situations by authorized users. My amendment would allow debtors to limit disclosure to only the last four digits of his or her social security number in the notices that are filed with the court. The amendment still protects creditors where necessary, and specifies that creditors who are on the schedule of assets and liabilities should receive the full tax payer identification number in the notices sent specifically to the creditor.

This idea of truncation isn't new. Just last year, we passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, and that Act required truncation of credit card and debit card numbers on receipts given to cardholders.

As I stand here on the Senate floor, I look at the Presiding Officer, my neighbor from New Hampshire, and I see waiting to speak the other distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. We come from an area where we believe in privacy. We live in a country where we are giving up more and more of our privacy all the time. We have to be careful. We are giving it up not just in corporate areas but in government. Both conservatives and liberals ought to join hands on how much information we are willing to give up on ourselves and allow to go into databanks. An example is what happened with Bank of America, which is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. All of their records were lost. Good Lord, they send something off or ship it off by plane--not private, but they mail it to a location with backup files of all of their customers. I don't know. I suspect maybe their top executives fly by private jets. Maybe they don't understand that the three Senators on the floor right now fly commercially, and we know how often you get your bags lost or a suitcase lost. They just lost thousands upon thousands upon thousands of files on their customers. How would you like to be a Bank of America customer and wake up and find out they were so stupid and negligent that they lost all your information? They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

But I digress. I mentioned privacy. I have kept an article. It is the only thing I have ever framed that was written about me in one of our newspapers. To put this into context, you have to understand that we live on a dirt road in an old farmhouse. We have an adjoining farm family who kind of watches over the place when we are not there. The reporter in this article drives up on a Saturday with out-of-State license plates and asks the farmer sitting on the porch, ``Does Senator Leahy live up this road?''

The farmer said, ``Are you a relative of his?''

He said, ``No.''

``Are you a friend of his?''

He answered, ``Not really.''

``Is he expecting you?''

``No.''

``Never heard of him.''

That is the kind of privacy we like. These people in a cavalier way-- like Bank of America and all--are giving information away. We are finding more and more that our own Government is being lax with the information they have. Of course, the information can often be wrong. The third most senior Member of the Senate has been stopped half a dozen times getting on an airplane when going home--something he has been doing for decades--because he is on a terrorist list. He is one of the most recognizable people in America, and he cannot get off this list. You have to kind of ask, how much are we willing to give up and what does it do for us? Bank of America didn't do much of anything. These are some of the reforms included in the bill. I hope we will all look at this carefully and work together closely.

Requiring truncation of social security numbers is similarly reasonable. It provides protection against abuse, but still allows for important information sharing to take place.

These are just some of the reforms that should be included in this bill. I hope that all Senators will give fair and thoughtful consideration to amendments proposed on either side of the aisle. When the Senate works productively and constructively, we can

improve legislation on a bipartisan basis. I have worked with Senator Grassley and others to make bipartisan improvements in the past and I hope that we can do that again on this bankruptcy reform legislation.

In particular, I urge my colleagues to give full consideration to an amendment Senator Schumer will offer to make sure debts incurred through violence and other illegal acts at health clinics may not be discharged in bankruptcy. Senator Schumer has been the leader on ending this bankruptcy abuse and I have always been proud to support his efforts. Any fair bankruptcy reform measure should end abusive bankruptcy filings used to avoid the legal consequences of violence, vandalism and obstruction to deny access to legal health services.

As we move forward with reforms that are appropriate to eliminate abuses in the system, we need to remember the people who use the system, both the debtor and the creditor. We need to balance the interests of creditors with those of the poor and middle class who need the opportunity to resolve overwhelming financial burdens.

These are important subjects that have a real impact on the lives of many people who have already suffered from illnesses or divorce or job loss. We should utilize the expertise of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the Senate passes balanced legislation.

I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Grassley, Senator Specter and the rest of my colleagues to make more bipartisan improvements on the Senate floor to enact balanced bankruptcy reform legislation into law.

Mr. President, we are on the bill, I take it.

Mr. President, first, it was a pleasure to hear the presentation by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member relative to the bankruptcy bill, which is an extraordinarily important piece of legislation, which has been to the floor before--in fact, too many times. Hopefully, this year we will pass it and send it to the President to be signed. I congratulate the Judiciary Committee for bringing it out. Certainly, it is a piece of legislation that is very important to the commerce of our country and needs to be passed.

The Budget

I wanted to speak about another subject--specifically, the budget of the United States and the fiscal policy, as we are presently dealing with the funding of the Federal Government. Within the next 3 weeks, hopefully, we will take up a budget in committee and here on the floor of the Senate. The budget is a blueprint of where we are going as a country relative to our spending policies and fiscal policies. What is important to remember is that the budget is just an outline. It doesn't get into too much specific detail of how we function as a Government but, rather, it sets goals that we as a Government wish to pursue in the area of policy relative to spending and relative to taxes.

What we need to focus on, I believe, this year--and I believe Congress did focus on it, and certainly the President did in his budget, which is a very laudable document, and it does focus specifically on these issues--there are two things: the deficit, as we confront as a Nation the short-term liabilities, and what we confront in the long-term.

The deficit in the short term is having an unfortunate impact on our country. It arises for a lot of reasons. I argue that it arises for two primary reasons. First is that in the mid and late 1990s, we started to run very significant surpluses in this Nation as a result of an economic boom known as the Internet bubble--a bubble that is an aberration on the economic landscape. There have been other major bubbles in our history. It is basically when people have created artificial money. The Internet bubble was probably the largest bubble in the history of the world. In many instances, it was an artificial expansion of the economy relative to real productivity and growth. That bubble collapsed, as they do. As a result of that collapse, the economy slowed dramatically, and the revenues to the Federal Government dropped significantly.

The second major cause, obviously, of the deficits we confront today, in my opinion, was the fact that we were attacked on 9/11. We are at war, and as a nation we must fight that war with every tool we have available, and that means fully arming and manning our soldiers. Also, it means regearing ourselves as a nation, retooling as a nation. We have had to make what I would call significant investments in our national security, both in the homeland area, bringing first responders up to speed, in the area of protecting ourselves from biological, chemical, or potentially nuclear attacks, and in the area, obviously, of rearming and retooling our military and our intelligence community across the country and the globe. It has been extremely expensive for us as a nation, but it is money we must spend because we have been attacked, we are at war.

There are people who wish to do us harm in the most heinous way. They want to kill Americans simply because they are Americans. They wish to destroy our culture and Nation because they don't like our freedoms, they don't like the fact that we are prosperous. Those people are still out there, and they must be found and brought to justice, and, most importantly, kept from attacking us here in America. That is a commitment we have made as a nation, and this President has pursued that with a focus.

So we went through a period of significant surpluses in the late 1990s to a period of deficit. That deficit has been rather large. We are now as a nation trying to address that fact. The deficit in the short term is having deleterious effect on our Nation. It is obviously causing us to pass on to our children the debts for the operation of today's Government. You are basically borrowing from the future, and the people who are going to have to pay that are your children, not you, because that note becomes due not in your lifetime--well, maybe in your lifetime--but 10, 15 years from now. Who has to pay it? The people who work 10, 15 years from now, in their taxes. They have less money to keep because they have to pay more taxes. So we are borrowing from our children's future to pay for this deficit.

Second, it is having an impact on our economy internationally. The dollar is weakened in large part because the international community looks at our deficit and says we are not doing a heck of a lot about it.

So we need to address the short-term deficit, and I will get to the specifics of that, how we have done that. But the President's budget has attempted to do that. That is an important public policy issue.

The second largest public policy issue we have is the question of how we deal with the long-term liabilities of our country, liabilities that already exist. What does that mean?

We have basically put in place today a large number of Federal programs that we have to pay for today because these programs survive for as far as the eye can see--infinity. We know they are going to cost money. Most of these programs--the most expensive ones, called entitlements--deal with making sure that people who are retired have a decent lifestyle. This has been a great benefit to our Nation--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. These programs have truly improved the quality of life of the American population, especially those who are retired. But as we look into the future, we see huge and very complicated and difficult problems for us as a country as we try to maintain those programs and make sure that people who are retired have a decent lifestyle.

What is driving this major concern, this huge cost which we are going to face as a nation, is a fact which has never existed before in our history. It is called demographics. After World War II, the largest expansion ever in our population occurred. More children were born during a period from about 1946 to about 1955 than at any other period in American history. It is called the baby boom generation.

That generation was so large--and I happen to be a member of it--that it totally restructured every lifestyle event it impacted. As children, that generation caused a massive expansion in schools. As college students, that generation created the huge social concern of the sixties, in the area of rights

of African Americans and minorities and the rights of women and, of course, with regard to the issue of how Vietnam was fought. In the seventies and eighties, as that generation went into the workplace, it became the most productive engine of economic wealth this country had ever seen and continues to be a producer of economic wealth.

Now that generation is headed toward retirement, and we know, because everyone is alive today, that generation will be the largest retired generation in the history of our country. We know the benefits structure which we have put in place to help senior citizens through retirement so they can live a decent lifestyle is also in place. When those two merge--this huge generation and that benefits structure called Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--it is going to put dramatic demands on our society in the area of costs to pay for the benefits which are in place.

Think of it this way: Almost all the retirement programs we have-- Social Security and Medicare especially--were designed with the genius of Franklin Roosevelt. His policy essentially said there will always be many more people working than those retired. So the working Americans can always support the retired Americans.

It was always perceived there would be a pyramid. In fact, in 1950, there were about 16 Americans working for every 1 American retired. That meant programs such as Social Security and Medicare not only generated money to support those who were retired, they actually generated more money than needed to support the people who retired. That is happening today even. But the number of people retiring compared to the number of people working has been changing. It has gone from 16 in 1950 down to about 3\1/2\ today. And further into this century, as the baby boom generation retires, it will drop to 2 people working for every 1 person retired.

There is where the problem is. We go from a pyramid to essentially a rectangle. It becomes pretty obvious, if you only have two people working to pay for one person retired, those two people are going to have to pay a lot more in taxes to support that one person retired than if we have 10 people working or 3\1/2\ people working, as we have today.

So this creates a huge what is called unfunded liability, contingent liability. We do not know how we are going to pay for this in the outyears. We do know the problem is going to exist, but we do not know how we are going to pay for it.

I want to give you some context of this problem because it is so massive, and we should be so concerned about it.

Entitlements--which basically is what I am talking about, which is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--represent this orange bar on this chart as a percentage of Federal spending. One will see today that orange bar is approximately 56 percent of the Federal Government, with defense spending being about 18 percent of the Federal Government, nondefense spending about 18 percent of the Federal Government, and interest on the Federal debt being about 7 percent.

When the baby boom generation is headed to full retirement, beginning about the year 2015--actually, it starts in the year 2008--there is an explosion in the entitlement spending as a percentage of Federal spending. Defense spending does not change much, discretionary spending does not change much, but retirement spending jumps to 64 percent of the Federal Government. In fact, if it continues on its present track, spending to support Social Security will create this massive problem for us as a nation, which I have alluded to, which is we will have so many programmatic demands placed on the younger working Americans that their taxes will have to go up radically in order to pay for this.

This chart shows it pretty clearly. The historic spending levels of the Federal Government since the year 1960 have been right around 20 percent. That is historic spending. That is all Federal spending in the post-World War II period. But entitlement spending as a percentage of gross national product has always been--or up until now--fairly flat-- not flat, going up, but still staying within the 5 to 10-percent range.

However, beginning in the year 2008, it starts to climb precipitously. By the year 2030, Medicare and Social Security spending will be 20 percent of the gross national product. By the year 2040, it will exceed that and be 25 percent of the gross national product. We will essentially be spending more on those two programs alone within a few years, about a decade and a half to two decades, than we spend today on the entire Federal Government.

What does that mean? It means either at that point you do not have any part of the Federal Government--you do not have national defense, you do not have any education programs, you do not have any environmental programs--or you have to jump the tax rates dramatically to pay for Social Security and Medicare expenditures.

What is the implication of this other than we are headed toward clear fiscal disaster? One of the implications is if this graph were carried out to its logical conclusion, the tax rate on working Americans--my children, your children, and our grandchildren--will have to be doubled to support the system.

Another implication is that there is, according to the Comptroller General, approximately $44 trillion of potential liability over the natural lifetime of Social Security, which is deemed to be 75 years, or Medicare. Mr. President, $44 trillion--that is trillion, and I do not even know what a trillion is, but that is what it is--$44 trillion of costs which we have no idea how we are going to pay. We have no idea at all. It is called unfunded liabilities, $44 trillion.

To try to put this in perspective: If you take all the taxes paid into the Federal Government since the beginning of America, all the taxes paid into the Federal Government in U.S. history, that represents $38 trillion. We are talking about a liability that exceeds that number. We are talking about a liability that would actually be about the same as the present value net worth. That is the present value number, by the way. It means it is discounted to today's dollar, which actually would be almost the same as the present net worth of every American.

The present net worth of every American is about $47 trillion. The present liability of just the Medicare and Social Security funds--with not even Medicaid included in this--is $44 trillion. So essentially we would have to use every dollar of every American, every asset of every American to pay this.

We can see the problem is astronomical, so large, in fact, that many are burying their heads on the issue and saying it does not exist, which is a very unique approach to the problem. Obviously, we are not going to solve it this year or in the next couple of weeks. But what we can do in the next couple of weeks as we address the budget is try to start addressing these two major issues. One is the short-term deficit; the other is this long-term, looming problem which we confront as a nation. And that brings us back to the budget process and why it is important.

It is important because it is the blueprint off which we can begin this process of addressing these huge public policy issues. If we do not address them now, it is like that old television ad, you can pay me now or you can pay me later. When you pay later, the cost is going to be basically unacceptable because if we wait until 2008 or 2015 to start addressing these issues, we are essentially going to have to do something extraordinarily precipitous. We are either going to have to radically cut the benefits of seniors who are retired or we are going to have to radically increase the taxes on our children and their children's children, meaning their quality of life is going to be reduced significantly.

The President sent up a budget which begins the process of trying to address some of these core issues. On the first issue of the deficit, he has proposed a budget which reduces in half the deficit over the next few years. You can see he takes it from about 4.5 percent of GDP, the deficit. That is what we need to look at because the actual numbers do not relate to what their effect is on the economy.

The deficit was projected to be about 4.5 percent of gross domestic product back in 2004, down to approximately 1.3 percent of gross domestic product in 2009, 1.5 percent in 2009, 1.7 percent in 2008, or he reduces it in half. I would be the first to say that in that estimate,

especially the 2008 number, there is no accounting for the war. The war is a one-time item, hopefully, or two-time item. We do not expect the war to go on forever. In fact, by 2008, we hope the war to be over relative to Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not be built into the base, and we expect it will not be.

These numbers may be inaccurate in that they may be off in not accounting for the war. But the point is, when you go from 4.5 percent to 1.7 percent, that should still be able to be accomplished whether we are at war, with accounting for the war correctly. We can reduce this deficit, and the President has proposed this.

How has he proposed it? He proposed to do it in a series of ways, but there is a consistency within his proposal, which is this: Basically, he said we have to get fiscal discipline in place. We have to be responsible for how much money we spend, and in order to accomplish that, we are going to have to reduce the rate of growth--we never actually cut spending--reduce the rate of growth of Federal spending right across the board.

So he has essentially proposed goring everybody's ox, and maybe that is the way we have to approach something like this. He suggests we freeze nondiscretionary defense spending, which is going to be difficult, but it is something we have to do. He suggests the defense core budget not rise as fast as it is projected to rise. We are already hearing discussions from many of the defense subcontractors and contractors around the city that they cannot live with that number. So I guess it must be stepping on some toes out there.

He is suggesting in the entitlement accounts--and this is the most important--that we begin to reduce the rate of growth; not cut them but reduce their rate of growth. That is a courageous step but a step that has to be taken.

The only accounting he did not address, quite honestly, was Medicare because of his recent enactment of the Medicare reform bill which I guess they would like to play out a little while before they move into that account. Everybody else has been impacted. He has put in place and suggested a series of enforcement mechanisms which will allow us to accomplish this type of a budget, and we intend to put in even more to accomplish this because the numbers mean nothing if they are not enforceable.

As we move forward in this debate--I see the Senator from Utah is here. He wished to speak at 3 o'clock, and I have gone past my time. I will come back to the topic again and talk a little bit about the tax side of this. As we move forward in this debate, it is critical we understand that we are facing these two huge public policy issues: the need to bring under control the short-term deficit but even more importantly the need to address the long-term entitlement reform question.

I should mention on that point that not only did he address the entitlements, such as Medicaid and some others within the budget, but he has set forth a proposal to address Social Security. That is a courageous act, and that, of course, is one of the key components of any sort of major entitlement reform. We must address the issue of Social Security.

The President has stepped up to the plate, so to speak, to move forward with a plan which will put in place fiscal discipline. As the Senate moves forward, it is our responsibility to pursue this course also, to put in place a budget which is fiscally responsible and which addresses not only the discretionary side of the ledger but the entitlement side of the ledger. That is going to be our challenge. It is very doable. All it takes is a willingness to stand up and recognize that if we do not do it, we will be passing on to our children a nation which does not guarantee them as high a quality of life as we have had because of the burden of taxation which we will be placing on them.

It is our responsibility to move forward in this area, and I look forward to the next few weeks as an opportunity to debate and discuss these proposals even further.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 211 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this is a closed rule providing for consideration of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

The rule provides for 1 hour debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration, and it provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 211.

Mr. Speaker, bankruptcy reform is overdue for passage. Despite its critics, S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, does not exclude anyone from filing for bankruptcy. Instead, it implements a simple means test to shield debtors who make below their State's median income and to determine if a higher income debtor has the ability to partially pay back his or her creditors.

To phrase it simply, bankruptcy reform is financial accountability. It protects our system against fraud and abuse. And it asks those who have the means to repay as much of their debts as they can.

For at least four previous Congresses, members have been trying to reform our ``when in doubt, bail out society'' in favor of personal responsibility. Bankruptcy should not be a financial planning tool, and it should be available for legitimate emergency situations only. Our bankruptcy system should fit the needs of the individual, no more, no less. With this rule, and

passage of the underlying legislation, S. 256 we will finally see some movement in the right direction.

Bankruptcy reform is important to help speed up court hearings, because it only takes a few fraudulent or misdirected cases to stall a court for hundreds of other legitimate bankruptcy filings. Federal bankruptcy filings per judgeship have increased by 71 percent from 2,998 in 1992 to 5,130 in 2003; and it represents the largest case load in our Federal court system. This creates a backlog that slows down the process for those really in need of bankruptcy protection.

Bankruptcy reform provisions found in S. 256 include, but are not limited to: abuse prevention so debtors who have committed crimes of violence or engaged in drug trafficking are no longer able to use bankruptcy to hide their finances;

Needs-based credentials, where if a debtor has the ability to partially repay debts, he or she must either be channeled into a form of bankruptcy relief that requires repayment or risk having the bankruptcy case dismissed as an abusive filing;

Spousal and child support protections to help single parents and their children by closing a loophole used by some spouses currently avoiding their child support responsibilities. This would put child support and alimony payments as a first priority, ahead of credit card debt and attorney's fees. Child support and alimony payments are currently seventh in the priority list of payments;

Closing the mansion loophole require a debtor to live in a State for at least 2 years before he or she can claim that State's homestead exemption. The current requirement is 91 days, allowing some debtors to shield themselves from creditors by putting all of their equity into their homes;

Debtor protections requiring potential debtors to receive credit counseling before they can be eligible for bankruptcy relief, allowing them to make an informed choice about bankruptcy considering all alternatives and consequences;

Further, small business protections to defend against needless bankruptcy lawsuits. Under current law, a business can be sued by a bankruptcy trustee and forced to pay back monies previously paid by a firm that later files for bankruptcy protection;

Additionally, family farm relief by doubling debt eligibility for chapter 12 filing, allowing periodic inflation adjustment of this debt, and lowering the required percentage of a farmer's income that must be derived from farming operations.

There are business privacy protections to prohibit the disclosure of names of a debtor's minor children with privileged information kept in a nonpublic record. Current law allows nearly every item of information supplied by a debtor in connection with his or her bankruptcy case to be made available to the public.

S. 256 passed the Senate with a clear 74 to 25 majority. The House judiciary markup on March 16 included rollcall votes on 11 amendments. The reforms included in this legislation will be very beneficial to our society without ignoring the need of those suffering financial uncertainty. This legislation deserves a clean up-or-down vote. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this rule and pass S. 256 bankruptcy reform.

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

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

I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Florida that medical expenses are specifically covered in the bill, and all other extenuating circumstances are covered in section 102 of the bill allowing judicial latitude.

At this point, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for bringing forth those statistics and that stack of documents that he just went over; and I want to add one more statistic to that, and this is that since the 105th Congress, the House and the Senate have passed bankruptcy reform legislation a dozen times, with a vote tally of 2,455 for and 871 against.

To my distinguished colleague from Florida, in regard to the amendment process in the Committee on Rules, my colleague knows that the other side was offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute. That substitute amendment could have included all 35 Democrats, who my colleagues allege were shut out. Every one of those 35 amendments could have been included in an amendment in the nature of a substitute; but apparently they just could not get their act together, did not have an amendment and passed on that opportunity.

In regard to the gentlewoman from California and the concerns about identity theft, opponents of the means test of the bankruptcy legislation have attempted to claim that a debtor should be except from the means test if the debt is related to identity theft. This is a red herring, Mr. Speaker, because consumers who are victims of identity theft do not owe the debts that result from identity theft; and, therefore, it is not an issue addressed by the bankruptcy court.

We all understand the sentiment of trying to help identity theft victims. Amendments related to identity theft, though, are not necessary. They would inadvertently do serious harm to consumers and create a significant potential for fraud and abuse. A consumer who is victimized when an identity thief establishes credit in the consumer's name is not liable for any of the debts incurred by the identity thief. The maximum amount I think is $50, and that is even waived by the credit card companies if it is proved to be fraudulent. Bankruptcy relief is, therefore, not necessary in regard to identity theft.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

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

In the 105th Congress, H.R. 3150, bankruptcy reform, passed 306-118.

In the 106th Congress, H.R. 8333 passed the House, 313-108.

In the 107th Congress, H.R. 333 passed the House 306-108.

In the 108th Congress, H.R. 975 passed the House 315-113.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) was not one of those voting in the affirmative on any of those occasions, but I want to point out to the gentleman in regard to his concern over medical and health- related expenses for a debtor, spouse, and dependents, on line 23, page 8, continuing through line 10 page 9, this covers the treatment of medical expenses for the debtor, spouse of the debtor, and dependents of the debtor. It expressly includes not just actual medical expenses but expenses for health insurances, disability insurance, and health savings accounts.

Mr. Speaker, put another way, contrary to misrepresentations by opponents, the needs-based test not only takes into account the full range of medical expenses by the debtors, but it also covers the spouse and dependents. This is just one of three provisions for a member of the household or immediate family. The provision includes for the monthly expense of the debtor, expenses incurred for the care and support of an elderly, chronically ill or disabled member of the debtor's immediate family. This includes parents, grandparents, siblings, children and grandchildren of the debtor, among others.

So medical in any situation, Mr. Speaker, medical or otherwise, no debtor is denied access to bankruptcy relief. All S. 256 says is that, in a limited range of cases, a debtor with meaningful capacity to repay may have to file in chapter 13 as opposed to chapter 7. In no case is a debtor denied access to the bankruptcy system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

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

In response to the gentlewoman from Texas, Mr. Speaker, a substitute amendment was offered in every other Congress that bankruptcy reform was considered. Every other Congress in which bankruptcy reform was considered, the minority submitted a substitute amendment. Why not now? I have asked that question several times, and I still have no answer.

In regard to health care expenses, and I am reading from a March 29, 2005, CRS report for Congress titled ``Treatment of Health Care Expenses under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act'':

``Conclusion. Health care expenses will generally be considered in one of two contexts in a bankruptcy filing. Significant expenses incurred prior to the bankruptcy filing may be calculated as unsecured claims; if the debtor cannot afford to pay 25 percent of unsecured claims or $100 a month, the debtor may be eligible to file under chapter 7.

``Ongoing health care expenses and health insurance premiums may be deducted from the debtor's monthly income. Factoring in these expenses may also reduce the debtor's disposable income under the means test.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentlewoman from California brought up the issue about bankruptcy reform harming veterans. In speaking to that, Senate 256 needs-based test includes several safeguards and exceptions for special circumstances, including those of veterans: a specific reference to a debtor who is subject to a call or ordered to active duty in the Armed Forces to the extent that such occurrences substantiate special circumstances.

S. 256 means test has a special exception just for debtors who are disabled veterans if the indebtedness occurred primarily during a period when the debtor was on active duty or performing a homeland security activity. The bill excuses a debtor if he or she is on active military duty in a military combat zone from the mandatory credit counseling and financial management training requirements.

I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker; but we are addressing, as we always have on this side of the aisle, the special needs of our great veterans of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

In response to the gentlewoman, I have got a letter from the National Child Support Enforcement Association, February 8, 2005, that I will insert for printing in the Record.

Let me just read one paragraph, the first and most important:

``The National Child Support Enforcement Association is a membership organization representing the child support community--a workforce of over 63,000 child support professionals. For the past 5 years, it has strongly supported the enactment of bankruptcy reform because the treatment of child support and alimony under present bankruptcy law so desperately needs reform. We applaud your continuing efforts since the mid-1990s to reform the bankruptcy system and welcome your introduction of S. 256. The bankruptcy bill, S. 256, like the reform bills of the last three Congresses and the signed conference report of 2002, includes provisions crucial to the collection of child support during bankruptcy.''

National Child Support

Enforcement Association,

Washington, DC, Feb. 8, 2005.

Re: Child Support Provisions in S. 256

Hon. Chuck Grassley,

Hart Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Grassley: The National Child Support

Enforcement Association is the membership organization

representing the child support community--a workforce of over

63,000 child support professionals. For the past 5 years it

has strongly supported the enactment of bankruptcy reform

because the treatment of child support and alimony under

present bankruptcy law so desperately needs reform. We

applaud your continuing efforts since the mid 1990s to reform

the bankruptcy system and welcome your introduction of S.

256. The Bankruptcy Bill, S. 256, like the reform bills of

the last three Congresses and the signed conference report of

2002, includes provisions crucial to the collection of child

support during bankruptcy.

With each day that passes under current law, countless

numbers of children of bankruptcy debtors are subject to

immediate interruption of their on-going support payments. In

addition, during the lengthy 3 to 5 years duration of

consumer bankruptcies as they happen every day under present

law, debtors often succeed in significantly delaying or even

avoiding repayment of child support and alimony arrearages

altogether. Hardest hit by these effects of current

bankruptcy law are former recipients of welfare who are owed

support arrears but are stuck waiting until the bankruptcy is

completed before such debts can be collected. Families who

are dependent on obtaining their share of marital property

for survival may now find under present bankruptcy law that

such debts are discharged. And, worst of all, under present

law significant collection tools used to require the payment

of current child support needed by the custodial parent to

feed and clothe children may be rendered ineffective after a

bankruptcy petition is filed. Today, a bankruptcy filing may

delay or halt the collection of support debts through the

federally mandated earnings withholding and tax refund

intercept programs, the license and passport revocation

procedures, and the credit reporting mandates.

S. 256 would provide these children with first priority in

the collection of support debts, allow the enforcement of

medical support obligations, prevent any interruption in the

otherwise efficient process of withholding earnings for

payment of child support, and insure that during the course

of a consumer bankruptcy all support owed to the family would

be paid, and paid timely. It will allow state court actions

involving custody and visitation, dissolution of marriage,

and domestic violence to proceed without interference from

bankruptcy court litigation.

We, therefore, urge the members of the Conference Committee

and the leadership of Congress to enact this important piece

of legislation with its long overdue bankruptcy reforms.

Sincerely,

Margot Bean,

President. National Child Support Enforcement Association

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

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

In response to the gentleman from Illinois, the reform bill significantly limits two practices that some wealthy filers use to hide assets from bankrupt creditors. Under the current system, in States with unlimited homestead exemptions, debtors can shield the full value of their residencies from creditors. To discourage debtors from relocating to the State to hide assets prior to a bankruptcy filing, the legislation requires a 3-year residency before a debtor can take advantage of the State's full homestead exemption. Currently, that is 91 days.

In addition, the bill adds a specific provision that prevents filers from shielding funds in an asset protection trust when fraud is involved. In fact, these practices will continue unabated unless this legislation is passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the time.

Before yielding myself such time as I may consume, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for a unanimous consent request.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this closed rule and S. 256. Once again, the majority has squelched debate on a controversial piece of legislation for no legitimate reason.

More than 35 Democratic amendments were offered in the Rules Committee yesterday. Yet none have been made in order. Why? There is no reason for limiting the debate in this manner.

The House came into session on Tuesday and Members will leave town later this afternoon after just 2 days of work. Even more, there was only one other bill of substance before the House this week. The time to debate this bill and its offered amendments is available. The willingness to conduct meaningful business, however, is the missing ingredient. A 1-hour debate on legislation containing such sweeping reforms is not the way to conduct the people's business.

The argument will be made that this has been 9 years in the making. But a lot of this measure has been overcome by time, and that will be discussed by others later.

I am particularly disappointed that an amendment I offered is not being allowed to come before this body for consideration. My amendment seeks to prevent the very bankruptcies that are

causing this Congress so much consternation and is germane to the discussion. It requires credit card companies to preserve a customer's interest rate prior to incurring medical expenses if the customer is unable to pay off the full medical expenses on time. It also prohibits hospitals from reporting delinquent patients for 5 years, provided that the patient is paying 20 percent of his or her monthly mandated medical expenses.

All the information we have available suggests that medical bills are the second leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States. It is, in my opinion, hypocritical to prevent debate on an amendment that could ameliorate some of the issues facing this bankruptcy reform legislation. Is not the whole point of this bill to make bankruptcy less frequent? If Members of Congress have ideas about how to accomplish that, should they not be heard?

Many other Members sought to introduce amendments, but have also been denied their opportunity to be heard. These amendments could have improved this legislation.

For example, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) offered an amendment to exempt from the means test provision of debtors who have business losses incurred by a spouse who has died or deserted the debtor.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) offered an amendment that would exempt victims of identity theft. And the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), offered an amendment that imposes restrictions on issuing credit cards to college students. But none of those amendments, or the 31 others, will be debated today because the rule on this bill is closed.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I will insert a list of all 35 amendments which the Republican majority has blocked from being considered in the Congressional Record.

Amendments Submitted to the Rules Committee for S. 256 and Denied

Consideration by the Rule (H. Res. 211)

1) Emanuel/Delahunt/Dingell--prevents debtors from

shielding their funds from bankruptcy liquidation through so-

called ``asset protection trusts;''

2) Filner--exempts disabled veterans from the bill's means

test;

3) Filner--exempts from the bill's means test consumers who

are victimized by identity theft;

4) Inslee--exempts from the bill's means test consumers

whose debts are the result of serious medical problems;

5) Delahunt--requires debtor corporations to file for

bankruptcy where their principal place of business is

located;

6) Sanders--establishes a ``usury rate'' for credit card

companies, above which credit card companies cannot charge

consumers;

7) Sanders--caps fees credit card companies can impose on

consumers at $15;

8) Sanders--prohibits credit card companies from changing

interest rates based on changes in consumers' credit

information;

9) Sanders--prohibits credit card companies from raising

interest rates based on consumer credit reports;

10) Ruppersberger--requires credit card solicitations to be

accompanied by a brochure explaining the consequences of the

irresponsible use of credit;

11) Schiff--exempts from the bill's means test consumers

who are victimized by identity theft, if at least 51% of the

creditor claims against them are due to identity theft;

12) Lofgren--exempts from the bill's means test 1) families

facing bankruptcy due to a serious medical hardship that

drains at least 50% of their yearly income, and 2) families

who lose at least one month of needed pay or alimony due to

illness;

13) Lofgren--exempt from the bill's means test a single

parent who failed to receive child or spousal support

totaling more than 50% of her or his household income;

14) Scott (VA)--exempts from the bill's means test

provisions: 1) debtors who have business losses incurred by a

spouse who has died or deserted the debtor 2) debtors who

have had serious illness in their family and 3) debtors who

have been laid off;

15) Scott (VA)--exempts from the bill's means test

provisions debtors who have business losses incurred by a

spouse who has died or deserted the debtor;

16) Scott (VA)--exempts from the bill's means test

provisions debtors who have had serious illness in their

family;

17) Scott (VA)--exempts from the bill's means test

provisions debtors who have been laid off from their jobs

through no fault of their own;

18) Nadler--sunsets the bill after 2 years;

19) Watt--prohibits annual credit card rates higher than

75%;

20) Watt--includes the costs of college in the calculation

of debtor's monthly expense;

21) Ruppersberger--exempts from the bill's means test

debtors who have declared bankruptcy due to high medical

expenses;

22) Hastings (FL)--prevents credit card companies from

increasing rates on consumers who use their credit cards to

pay for extraordinary medical expenses; also prevents

hospitals from generating negative credit information on

consumers who are paying their bills in good faith;

23) Meehan--Exempts from the means test disabled veterans

whose indebtedness occurred primarily as a result of an

injury or disability resulting from active duty or homeland

defense activities; closes a loophole in S. 256, which

exempts only disabled veterans whose indebtedness occurs

primarily while on active duty while failing to exempt

disabled veterans whose indebtedness occurs after they have

left active duty;

24) Jackson Lee--makes debts arising out of state sex

offenses non-dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings;

25) Jackson Lee--clarifies Congress' intent that nuclear

liabilities be covered by the Price-Anderson Act, and not by

bankruptcy laws;

26) Jackson Lee--makes debts arising out of penalties

imposed on businesses for false tobacco claims non-

dischargeable;

27) Jackson Lee--strikes the bill's means test provision;

28) Woolsey--requires credit counseling agencies to provide

free services to recent veterans of the military who served

in combat zones;

29) Slaughter--requires credit card companies to determine,

before they approve a credit card, whether a student

applicant has the financial means to pay off a credit card

balance; it restricts the credit limit to minimum balances if

the student has no independent income; and it requires

parental approval for credit limit increases in the event

that a parent cosigns the account;

30) Slaughter--applies the highest median income of any

county or Metropolitan Statistical Area in the state to all

residents of the state petitioning for bankruptcy protection;

31) Millender-McDonald--provides the bankruptcy courts a

higher percentage of the fees collected when a debtor files

for bankruptcy;

32) Maloney--ensures that debtors emerging from bankruptcy

make child credit payments first, before payments on credit

card debt. The current version of the bill does not ensure

that child support payments will have priority over the other

types of unsecured debts, such as credit card debt;

33) Meehan and Berman--provides a modest homestead

exemption for people who have suffered a major illness or

injury;

34) Jackson Lee--provides additional protections to debtors

who are the victims of identity theft;

35) Jackson Lee--increases the means test limit on

parochial school tuition expenses from $1,500 to $3,000, so

that families Chapter 13 bankruptcy can keep their children

in schools that conform to their deeply held religious

beliefs.

Mr. Speaker, the House has adopted a new modus operandi. We saw it earlier this year with the class action bill, and we are seeing it again today.

It seems that if the Republican leadership deems legislation important, and that is their prerogative, it is willing to push through the other body's version without the opportunity for debate here in the people's House on any amendments. This new method does a great disservice to the people of this Nation. Even more, it stops Members, Democrats and Republican, from serving as thoughtful, effective legislators.

The House of Representatives is the people's House. The Founding Fathers envisioned a forum for lively debate on the issues of the day, not the controlled steering of selected legislation with no opportunity for meaningful change.

What also concerns me is the unworkable means test contained in this legislation. I am greatly disturbed, as I know all the residents of south Florida will be, that this means test includes disaster assistance as a source of revenue.

People forced into dire financial circumstances through natural disasters should find bankruptcy a source of relief. Considering disaster assistance as a source of revenue adds insult to injury and contradicts the government's efforts to help people get back on their feet.

This legislation, masquerading as protection against bankruptcy abuse, is really a protection for credit card companies and their predatory lending practices. This legislation does not protect the American people. This legislation protects the credit industry at the expense of the American people.

Increasingly, credit card companies market their product to riskier consumers, and now they want the Congress to protect them from the losses that are the foreseeable result of this ill-sighted business strategy. Why are we not debating legislation that would address those practices, instead of eviscerating a crucial safety net that Americans rely on when all else fails?

Mr. Speaker, should it pass, this bill will severely curtail the ability of Americans to obtain relief from bankruptcy without solving any of its underlying causes. Medical bills, unemployment, and predatory lending practices are at the root of this problem. In the long run, the net effect of this legislation will drive more Americans deeper into financial crisis and weaken our social structure and the Nation's economy.

I will not, and cannot, support such an attack on American consumers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule and ``no'' on

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

My respect for the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is immense, and he has thrust all of these hearings and all that were in committee where 40 Members of the Committee on the Judiciary had an opportunity to participate.

What we are talking about is today, 35 Members of the House of Representatives, 35 amendments are not being permitted today. So I guess the 40-plus people are the ones who are representing the near 395, 40-plus none for the American people. That would be what I would put on the table from the minority side.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), our newcomer, who is making her first statement as a Committee on Rules member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding to the distinguished ranking member to respond to my colleague from Georgia by indicating, the last time I looked at the rules, it allowed that individual Members have a right to make amendments, and we are not required to offer a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my good friend.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. What was the objection about?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry, what is the ruling of the Chair?

Further parliamentary inquiry, so the gentlewoman from New York's request to put in the Record the material?

Mr. Speaker, there is objection to a Member's placing in the Record, a Member who had made a statement supporting the things that she asked to be submitted, that is being denied?

Mr. Speaker, with the Speaker's permission, I ask unanimous consent that the extraneous material offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) be made a part of the Record following her remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purposes of making a privileged motion to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).