Electing members to the Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.

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).

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

I rise in support of the rule for consideration of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. This bill consists of a comprehensive package of reform measures that will improve bankruptcy law and practice by restoring personal responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy system. It will also ensure that the system is fair for both debtors and creditors.

As we now consider this rule, and the legislation later today, I believe it is particularly important to keep in mind bankruptcy reform's extensive deliberative history before the Committee on Rules, the Committee on the Judiciary, and both bodies of Congress, which I would like to briefly summarize.

First, the bill represents the culmination of nearly 8 years of intense and detailed congressional consideration. The House, for example, has passed prior iterations of this legislation on eight separate occasions. Likewise, the other body has repeatedly registered its strong support for bankruptcy reform. Just last month, the bill passed there 74 to 25, marking the fifth time that body has overwhelmingly adopted bankruptcy reform legislation since 1998.

Second, S. 256 has benefited immensely from an extensive hearing and amendment process, as well as meaningful bipartisan and bicameral negotiations. Over the past four Congresses, the Committee on the Judiciary has held 18 hearings on the need for bankruptcy reform, 11 of which focused on S. 256's predecessors. The Senate Judiciary Committee likewise has held 11 hearings on bankruptcy reform, including a hearing held earlier this year.

In the 105th Congress, 4 days were devoted to the Committee on the Judiciary's markup of bankruptcy reform legislation.

In the 106th Congress alone, the Committee on the Judiciary entertained 59 amendments over the course of a 5-day markup on bankruptcy reform legislation, which included 29 recorded votes. On the floor, 11 more amendments were considered.

In the 107th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary considered 18 amendments during the course of its markup of bankruptcy reform legislation, and the House, thereafter, considered five amendments.

In the last Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary entertained nine amendments to the bill, and five amendments were considered on the House floor. Also in the last Congress, the Committee on Rules made two amendments in order in connection with a similar bill, addressing bankruptcy reform, which was considered on the floor.

Last month, the Committee on the Judiciary entertained 23 more amendments, each of which has been soundly defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I have over here the paper record of the House consideration of bankruptcy reform legislation over the last four Congresses. Here's the committee report on this bill, over 500 pages long. We have a copy of the House version of the bill, which is over 500 pages long. We have the committee report from 2003. We have a conference report from the 107th Congress. We have a committee report from the 107th Congress. We have a committee report from the 106th Congress. We have a committee report earlier in the 106th Congress, one from the 105th Congress, and then we have a committee report from the 105th Congress on the House side. All of these are debates in the Congressional Record when this bill has come up, and we have had conference reports filed, amendments filed, original bills filed.

There has been plenty of process on this legislation. The time to pass it is now, and that is why this rule is coming up in the way it is structured the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding again for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule for consideration of S. 256, the ``Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.'' S. 256 consists of a comprehensive package of reform measures that will improve bankruptcy law and practice by restoring personal responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy system. It will also ensure that the system is fair for both debtors and creditors.

As we now consider this rule, and the legislation later today, I believe it is particularly important to keep in mind bankruptcy reform's extensive deliberative history before the Rules Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and both bodies of Congress, which I would like to briefly summarize for you.

First, S. 256 represents the culmination of nearly 8 years of intense and detailed congressional consideration. The House, for example, has passed prior iterations of this legislation on eight separate occasions. Likewise, the other body has repeatedly registered its strong support for bankruptcy reform. Just last month, they passed S. 256 by a vote of 74 to 25, making the fifth time that body has overwhelmingly adopted bankruptcy reform legislation since 1998.

Second, S. 256 has benefitted immensely from an exhaustive hearing and amendment process as well as meaningful bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. Over the past four Congresses, the Judiciary Committee held 18 hearings on the need for bankruptcy reform, 11 of which focused on S. 256's predecessors. The Senate Judiciary Committee, likewise, has held 11 hearings on bankruptcy reform, including a hearing held earlier this year.

In the 105th Congress, 4 days were devoted to the Judiciary Committee's mark up of bankruptcy reform legislation. In the 106th Congress alone, the Judiciary Committee entertained 59 amendments over the course of a 5-day markup of bankruptcy reform legislation, which included 29 recorded votes. On the floor, 11 more amendments were considered.

In the 107th Congress, the Judiciary Committee considered 18 amendments during the course of its markup of bankruptcy reform legislation, and the House, thereafter, considered five amendments. In the last Congress, the Judiciary Committee entertained nine amendments to the bankruptcy legislation and 5 amendments were considered on the House floor. Also in the last Congress, the Rules Committee made two amendments in order in connection with a similar bill, addressing bankruptcy reform, which was considered on the floor. Last month, the Judiciary Committee entertained 23 more amendments, each of which was soundly defeated.

Third, it must be remembered that S. 256 is a result of extensive bipartisan and bicameral negotiation and compromise. For example, conferees during the 106th Congress spent nearly 7 months engaged in an informal conference to reconcile differences between the House and Senate passed versions of bankruptcy reform legislation. In the 107th Congress, conferees formally met on three occasions and ultimately agreed--after an 11-month period of negotiations--to a bipartisan conference report. The legislation before us today represents a delicate balance and various compromises that have been struck over the past 7 years.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the need for bankruptcy reform is long-overdue and should not be further delayed. Every day that passes by without these reforms, more abuse and fraud goes undetected.

Mr. Speaker, there simply is no reason to further amend this legislation given its uniquely extensive deliberative record. Those who come to the floor today and complain about lack of

process or the need to further refine this legislation--simply oppose bankruptcy reform. Accordingly, I believe this rule is appropriate, and urge Members to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay to rest the fact that we have not had a full and complete debate on this.

This year, on March 16, the Committee on the Judiciary had a full markup on this bill. Anybody who wished to offer amendments was allowed to do so. Our committee publishes the complete transcript of markups as a part of the committee report. This transcript goes on for 160 pages in the committee report, which shows that everybody had an opportunity to speak their peace. There were 23 amendments that were offered, and all of them were voted down by overwhelming margins.

Now, amending this bill is what the people who wish no bankruptcy reform have in mind because they know the other body has had difficulty in finding time to debate this bill and vote cloture. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), whom I greatly respect, has voted against this bill every time it has come up when she has cast a vote in a rollcall. Much of the complaints we are going to be hearing are coming from Members who wish to sink this bill through amendments. They have never supported it in the past. They are against it even if it were amended, and that is why the rule is the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I recall yesterday when the death tax repeal was on the floor. It was a similar rule, and the minority was offered a chance to offer a substitute. They offered a substitute which was voted on and debated in the House of Representatives. But that rule passed by voice vote. So the rule under which we considered the death tax repeal yesterday is the same type of rule that we are considering today, except that the minority on this bill decided not to offer a constructive alternative substitute.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is the material asked to be inserted covered under the General Leave that was requested at the beginning of the debate by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey)?

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw for now the motion to table.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great day. Not only are we going to be able to see the Nationals play the first home game in 34 years, but we are going to finally pass bankruptcy reform legislation that can get to the President's desk and be signed.

Also, tomorrow many of us are going to be paying our taxes. We have constituents who are complaining justifiably about the high cost of gasoline.

On average, passage of this legislation will save a family of four $400 a year, and $400 a year is a very important amount of money for an awful lot of people in this country, and that is the price that they are paying because of the abuse that we have seen of our bankruptcy law that has been going on for years and years and years.

I happen to believe that it is essential that we provide that $400 in relief to the American people just as quickly as we can. We know, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has said, and I congratulate the gentleman for all of the effort that he has put into this, that we for years and years and years have been going through the amendment process. We have had a wide range of concerns brought to the forefront, and we have been able to address them. I believe that we are doing the right thing by moving ahead with this measure.

Mr. Speaker, any Member who votes no on this rule is voting against bankruptcy reform. They are voting against bankruptcy reform. Why? Because it is true 35 amendments were submitted to us in the Committee on Rules. We made it very clear that one of the things that we offered when we came to majority status was the chance to give the minority an opportunity to offer a substitute. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) came before the Committee on Rules and made it very clear to us. He requested a closed or a modified closed rule.

Let me say, a modified closed rule means that the minority is offered a chance at providing a substitute, cobbling together a package that in fact is an alternative to the measure that we have brought forward.

The minority had an opportunity to do that. What did they choose to do? Members of the minority did not come forward with a substitute. They chose to offer what I describe as cut-and-bite amendments, going through these issues and amending and amending and amending.

Mr. Speaker, we would have made in order a substitute had they given it to us.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is absolutely right. We reported out a modified closed rule that provided the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) an opportunity to not only offer his substitute, but he could have offered a motion to recommit. So two bites at the apple. The exact same opportunity existed on this bill which has gone through Congress after Congress with an excess of 300 votes in the past.

We said a substitute would have been made in order if it had been submitted to us in the Committee on Rules.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely right. If you look at the cost that exists today because of abuse of bankruptcy law, the abusive filings of bankruptcy, there is, on average, for a family of four of $400 per year.

If I could reclaim my time, what I am suggesting is that because of abuse of bankruptcy filings that take place today, that is a cost that is imposed on American consumers to the average family of four of in excess of $400.

That is the reason it is absolutely essential, Mr. Speaker, that we pass this legislation.

I have yielded three times. If I could finish my statement, I would like to. We have other people who would like to participate. I know that my dear friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) will be more than happy to yield further time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for years and years and years to get to the point where we could get a measure to the desk of the President of the United States so that he can sign it, so that we can deal with this issue and finally bring about responsible reform of our bankruptcy law.

We happen to believe very passionately that people should be accountable for their actions. We do not want anyone to be deprived of access to file for bankruptcy, but we know full well that this has been abused for such a long period of time. That is why we are here today and that is why I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that even though we will see opposition to this rule, at the end of the day, we will see very strong bipartisan support to reform our bankruptcy law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strenuous opposition to this unfair bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 256. This bankruptcy bill is touted as reform, but it is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing intended to allow credit card companies and other lenders to gouge consumers when they are most vulnerable.

Republicans are giving this gift to big credit card companies at a time when many Americans are faced with uncertain job stability, retirement security, and health coverage. In fact, 90% of all bankruptcies are filed due to the common financial emergency of a lost job or lack of medical coverage. This bill makes it harder for working families to seek shelter from these devastating and unavoidable expenses.

The Wall Street Journal recently featured the case of a constituent in my district. Crystal Herndon, a single mom in Haywood, California, earns $15 an hour. Ms. Herndon got sick with pneumonia, causing her to miss six weeks of work and rack up over $5,000 in medical bills. These unforeseen expenses caused her to fall behind on other financial obligations, and before she knew it she was simply unable to make ends meet. Bankruptcy protection was the only way out for Ms. Herndon and her family. It's hard to see the abuse in real instances of need such as these, especially when many Americans live paycheck to paycheck.

Sadly Crystal Herndon is not the only worker to be forced into bankruptcy due to unavoidable medical expenses. According to a recent Harvard University research study 2 million Americans, including filers and their dependents, face the double jeopardy of illness and bankruptcy each year. Most of these medically bankrupt are middle-class homeowners with responsible jobs and health insurance coverage. Once illness strikes, high co-payments, deductibles, exclusions from coverage, and other loopholes quickly overwhelm these families' budgets. Loss of income and health insurance often deepen this financial crisis when a breadwinner becomes too sick to work.

To add insult to injury, consumers like Crystal Herndon will potentially face an avalanche of litigation that they can't afford as a result of this bill. The bill requires the debtor in some cases to have to challenge big corporate lenders in court to prove they are eligible to seek relief under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. In addition, this bill also allows creditors to threaten debtors with costly ligitation that will force many families to needlessly give up their legal rights.

In their continuing compassion, the Republicans have crafted this so- called reform so that a parent seeking child support from a bankrupt spouse will have to fight it out with creditors in order to receive payment. Meanwhile, this bill makes it easier for those seeking bankruptcy protection to lose their homes or be evicted by the landlords. Yet, those with million dollar mansions will be able to keep their homes even while seeking the same protection under the law. Nothing like a fair shake for America's working families.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, with all of the perks they've awarded to the big credit card companies, Republicans have done nothing to ensure that they are held accountable for their role in this consumer crisis. There is nothing is this bill that stops the abusive, predatory lending that lands too many Americans in bankruptcy in the first place.

Bankruptcy has always been about giving a fresh start to those who have fallen on hard times. The link between illness, job loss, and health insurance is a harsh reality in our country today. It is morally reprehensible to suggest that we exploit medical tragedies befalling honest, hardworking Americans in order to grant the wishes of the credit card companies.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this merciless legislation. Now is not the time to turn the tables on America's working families. Vote no on S. 256.