To amend title 11 of the United States Code to exempt for a limited period, from the application of the means-test presumption of abuse under Chapter 7, qualifying members of reserve components of the Armed Forces and members of the National Guard who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days.

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

I'm happy that the House is able to complete today the Congress' consideration of this bipartisan legislation. As we have stated at every turn, Republicans strongly support the mission and appreciate the sacrifice of our dedicated Reservists and Guardsmen. We continue to agree that Reservists and Guardsmen who are plunged into bankruptcy by the demands of their service should be given a helping hand under the Bankruptcy Code.

Earlier this session, Judiciary Committee Republicans labored long and hard to achieve a workable compromise that would help these willing warriors. The merger issue for us was simple--that the bill respond to bankruptcies attributable to a Reservist's or Guardsman's service. The Senate has returned a bill to us that preserves the balance that we struck. The Senate has added one amendment, but it is technical in nature and was sought by the Administrative Office of the United States courts.

I urge all Members to support the passage of this legislation, and I look forward to the bill's implementation as law. I also look forward to the results 2 years from now of the GAO study contained in the bill. This study will tell us for sure whether Reservists and Guardsmen are using the relief granted by the bill when it is their service that leads to bankruptcy--not other factors. With this study in hand, when the bill reaches its 3-year sunset, we will know for sure whether it's being abused in cases lacking the necessary link to service. If it is being abused, we will be able to address that abuse at the time that reauthorization is considered.

In light of these considerations, I'm pleased to support passage of the bill.

I would also like to thank others who have worked on this bill, in particular Congressman Rohrabacher from California. I made, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law that has oversight of the Bankruptcy Act, a promise that we would reconsider this bill that was done some years ago. Mr. Rohrabacher has done an amazing job, given leadership and determination to bring this bill to where it is today and, by doing so, has redeemed my promise and his and that of many other people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady.

The American people are enraged by this bailout, or rescue as we're now calling it, and I think justifiably so. And they ought to be enraged that the real cause here--or the real cause of what I think should be the rage is that this has been done in a way that has been mandated, directed, expected that we would respond without much involvement. The rage of the American people reminds me of a bull often goes after the cape rather than goring the toreador. And what we need to do here, I think--I hope the American people recognize the opportunity to demand a transparent government.

There was no reason why the administration couldn't have made its three-page proposal available not as a legislative demand but as an outline of what the discussions should have been. There is no reason why we here in Congress have not done an open rule and had a debate on this. We could easily have taken this measure, debated it openly, amended it, adjusted it, and done things that make some sense.

Now the problem as I see the bailout--and the gentlelady and I have talked about this at some length--is that it pumps liquidity into banks and takes paper. That paper we hope is good. We hope it will be more valuable than what we have spent on it.

I thank the gentlelady. We have plenty of time on my side. If the gentlelady would like to yield back temporarily, I would be happy to use my time to talk about that point.

I thank the gentlelady, and if she wishes to remain, perhaps we can have a colloquy at some point.

Let me make a couple of points. We have had a long and intense discussion about what we can do to help solve, not the problem of the banks with their toxic loans which we hope we will buy at a reasonable price in a reverse auction, but what we do on the other side of this problem, which is homeowners who can't afford the loans that they got on property that was often misappraised or appraised fraudulently and therefore left in a box without being able to pay, with mortgages that are resetting at higher interest rates, sometimes with higher balances because of the way the mortgages were arranged.

So how do we help Americans stay in their homes in a reasonable fashion? And we've talked about bankruptcy as one way to do that.

Now in the bill that we did not pass here in the House recently, the Secretary had wide authority. I'm expecting that authority to be continued; and what I would hope is that the Secretary will not just put $700 billion into paper which may or may not be useful, but also something like $50 billion or $100 billion into funds that are intended to help people stay in their homes by creating the opportunity to buy mortgages at a discount, then renegotiate those mortgages with the people who are in those homes or others, and thereby avoid the downward spiral of housing costs.

I don't know that we're going to be able to do much with bankruptcy if this bill that passed the Senate passes the House today, I don't know that we're going to be able to deal with it. But I think that we ought to demand as the House that the Secretary recognize that this is not just a matter of buying paper and saving banks, but it's rather a matter of keeping a downward spiral on housing prices from continuing so that Americans can maintain the value on their homes, can keep their homes, and we can get this economic crisis behind us and perhaps even save some money.

I recognize the gentlelady is standing there. I would be happy to yield to her.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady. The nice thing about being clear in your principles is that it's possible to negotiate and come up with compromises that work. It's been a pleasure to work with the gentlelady and also the chairman of the full committee who is also here with us, Mr. Conyers. It's not possible to be farther apart on the political spectrum than I think Mr. Conyers and I are, but we have had a very pleasant, and I think profitable, working relationship on many issues where because of his clear principles, and I hope my clear principles, we've been able to reach compromise.

Going back to what the gentlelady was saying, I fervently hope that I will not be part of any further negotiations on bankruptcy. I hope that we solve this problem today or tomorrow, I suppose, and then make the American people more safe by us being out of town and then letting the next year's crop of people come back and deal with the issue.

Let me just reiterate a couple of things the gentlelady has said. $2.1 trillion of subprime and Alt-A loans are in trouble. If we don't do something about that, those loans, as they fail--to the degree that they fail, and many are likely to fail--are likely to draw down to create a suction that will pull down the prices of all the other houses in America, creating chaos in our market.

It's imperative that the Secretary recognize his authority under, I think, the current language, and make it clear that he intends to do something not just about the paper because, as the gentlelady has pointed out, we don't own all of the fractions of the interests in these mortgages, and therefore we don't have the ability, by pumping money into paper, to solve the underlying problem. You have to do that in another way. And certainly where you have a second or a third, there is no ability by the Treasury, under the current program, to deal with that suction on prices.

So I am hoping that the Secretary of the Treasury will today make it clear that he intends to use part of this bailout money for which he has I think the discretion. I think it is important that he be clear that he has that discretion, that he intends to use the money that way so we can create a floor not just under the banks but also under the prices of our homes.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I noted earlier that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) had worked diligently on this bill, and I talked about his intelligence and determination and the fact that he has redeemed his promise and mine by bringing this bill to the floor today. I would like to yield as much time to him as he may consume.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you.

We're now at a point where we're going to be voting very quickly on this bill. I think you heard the colloquy between the gentlelady from California and myself. I'm wondering if the gentleman can be satisfied if the Secretary takes a position publicly that he is going to use some of this bailout money under the discretion that he's given in the bill to do what I suggested earlier, which is, to put money into funds that would buy mortgages and keep people in their homes. Is that the kind of thing that we can do--

Recognizing the gentleman's limited time, we have I think more time on our side, and I would be happy to yield some to Mr. Conyers if he would like more.

Would the gentleman yield for a colloquy on this issue?

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman at this point.

The problem we're facing, or course, is the urgency of what's going on. And the gentleman has heard my concern with the failure of the administration to have this aired transparently; but that said, we do have some urgency. If the Secretary is very clear in what he says, can we move forward, as opposed to, say, amending the Senate's bill--which will come over to us--and then sending it back to the Senate for further votes. Personally, I don't think that that is likely to happen; it's your leadership that will control the Rules Committee. But I suspect that we're not going to get the perfect here with the good, that is, a commitment by the Secretary that is clear and open and patent.

Would that serve to resolve the gentleman's concerns?

Mr. Kucinich, if you would like to continue, we don't disagree, and I think by having a further colloquy, I think we actually can come to an understanding.

As I understand your concern, the Secretary does not have the ability--or it would be difficult for him to buy up all the fractionated interests in any given mortgage, and therefore, he is incapable, in his current position--unless he does something remarkable and spends more money than we intend him to spend, he can't provide relief on individual mortgages.

What I'm suggesting the Secretary has the authority to do is to put money into private funds that can then go to the servicing agent of a nonperforming loan, where the person is in an anti-deficiency State, or otherwise can walk away from that loan without recourse to the bank. At that point, the servicing agent has the ability to sell a mortgage, or a package of mortgages. In that event, what I suggest is that if the Secretary will pump some significant resources into the private sector to buy mortgages from servicing agents, and from banks and others, in a market where we are having deterioration of prices, that would tend, dramatically, to solve the problem. It goes a long way toward, I think, the gentleman's concerns.

Reclaiming my time, let me just say the gentlelady is absolutely accurate in her portrayal of the problem. Let me just clarify one thing, because a lot of people listening to us today don't understand what a reset is.

You have mortgages that are at a fixed rate which will then pop up to a market rate in the future. It is that pop up that is a problem. If you have a mortgagee who is behind in his payments, he may be able to stay in the mortgage when it goes up, but he may not be able to afford it. If he's behind, he can't refinance. He's stuck in a world where he can't get out of that mortgage, and the market will drive him. And the bank that wants him to renegotiate can't do it because of the fractionated ownership of that mortgage.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady because she has made exactly the point. What we're trying to do here is avoid the collapsing values of houses.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4044, the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008. I am happy that the House is considering today this bipartisan legislation.

As the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the committee mentioned, several years ago we passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. The purpose was to ensure that bankruptcy procedures were still allowed for those who needed them, and yet the abuses that we had seen in the years leading up to the bill would be reduced if not eliminated. It received bipartisan support.

Today's bill deals with a part of that scene that needs to be addressed and addressed immediately. Republicans strongly support the mission and appreciate the sacrifice of our dedicated reservists and guardsmen. As many people know, we rely far more on our National Guard and Reservists in the conflict that we have ongoing in the Middle East today than we have in previous conflicts. That was a conscious decision by the Congress of the United States over the last couple of decades.

As a result, many, many more dedicated reservists and guardsmen are assuming responsibility in areas of conflict. We agree that reservists and guardsmen who are plunged into bankruptcy by the demands of their service should be given a helping hand under the bankruptcy code.

In committee, Republicans labored long and hard to achieve a workable compromise that would help these serving men and women. The major issue for committee Republicans was simple--that the bill respond to bankruptcies attributable to a reservist's or guardsman's service.

This bill does not perfectly meet that concern. However, it is part of the art of compromise and it meets it sufficiently for committee Republicans to support passage.

It does this first by requiring an important study by the GAO. The study will examine the degree to which bankruptcies benefiting from the bill are indeed attributable to service, as we hope they will be.

The study thus will help us to be sure of whether reservists and guardsmen are using the relief granted by the bill when it is their service that leads to

bankruptcy. And the study must be completed promptly within 2 years of enactment.

Secondly, the bill includes a 3-year sunset. When we are asked to reauthorize the bill, we will have the GAO study and report. And we will know for sure how the bill is working, and if it needs to be modified, how it should be modified. It is not my expectation that it would be abused, but if it is, we would be able to address that at the time the reauthorization is considered.

With these requirements added, I am pleased to support passage of the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, one of the major sponsors of this bill, active sponsor of this bill, Mr. Dana Rohrabacher.

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

Once again I would just repeat this is a bipartisan bill brought to this floor with strong bipartisan support. Hopefully we will get a unanimous vote in favor of it. This is something that recognizes the unique situation our reservists and guardsmen and women are placed in when they leave the jobs that they have, go back to the theater of war, serve us well and run into difficulties as a result of that service from a financial standpoint.

We all agree that they should receive relief. I would hope that we can get people on the other side of the aisle to also agree that they ought to get relief from these extraordinary, out-of-character, unprecedented high gas prices that we have. What a shock it must be for our reservists and guardsmen to leave this country and do service for this country in a foreign land and then

return and find out that in the period of time they have been gone, all of a sudden gas prices have risen $1.50, $1.70, before they were even able to return.

So hopefully as we grant relief in this small particular area of bankruptcy law, we might also think about the relief not only for reservists and guardsmen but all Americans from the extraordinary costs that they are now being called upon to pay in the area of energy.

It is not just at the gas tank, it is rippling through the economy because transportation costs are built into the cost of just about everything that we have, and our friends on the other side of the aisle say, well, we will bring a lawsuit, maybe that will do something. Wind, solar, I support those, but I have yet to find a wind-powered car in my district, or a solar-powered car in my district.

And creeping up on us, although we are now involved in the middle of summer, the beginning of summer, but it feels like the middle of summer with the heat that is out there, creeping up on us is the extraordinary increase that we are seeing in the cost of natural gas. Natural gas supplies a good bit of the heating for the winter that we will find come November and December.

I have been informed that in California electricity is produced at least 60 percent by natural gas. We don't have to wait for our heating fuel. We can worry about the concerns that we have with air- conditioning supplied by electricity.

So all I'm saying, Madam Speaker, is that as we work on worthy legislation like this, there is other worthy legislation out there. And all we ask is what the American people ask: Give us a vote. Give us a chance to prove that the reserves that are available in the United States, American reserves, American oil, American natural gas, be utilized for Americans. If our enemy was doing this to us, we would be in a fighting mood, but unfortunately through our Congress, we're doing it to ourselves.

So at some point in time, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we might be able to prevail on the other side to understand that supply makes a difference and help us bring those costs down as a result of increasing the product that is available to Americans from American sources.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 4044, the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008.

I yield to my good friend from Michigan, the chairman.

Madam Speaker, of course I cannot address the gentleman directly under the rules. So through the Chair, I would just say that yes, shale oil and tar sands are important. We happen to be the Saudi Arabia of those certain resources of God, placed here for us to use, and yet for one reason or another, we're almost afraid to use the world ``drill.'' So I appreciate the chairman using the word ``drill'' three different times. That doesn't mean going to the dentist. That means drill for oil, drill for natural gas. That will be something which will help the American people.

So I would just say that I don't need my leadership to tell me about it. All I need to do is go home and see the prices of gasoline. All I need to do is listen to people. Seventy-some percent of the American people now, by the latest Fox poll, say they want more drilling, they want more production in America. The only group that doesn't have a 70- some percent support of it is this group, the House of Representatives. Either we're behind the times or we're ahead of the times. And I suspect we're behind the times.

And all I'm doing is asking my good friend, the chairman from Michigan, to understand that the people of Michigan suffer as much as the people of California when we fail to understand that we have resources that we could use. We ought to use American technology to develop American energy rather than having it developed all around the world.

Oh, and by the way, oil spills. They come from tankers. They come from tankers, not from offshore rigs. We ought to understand the more we're dependent upon foreign oil, the more tankers that supply the oceans and a greater possibility of a problem which would cause difficulty on our beaches and those beautiful waves that my friend from California enjoys surfing on in California.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It is obviously important that we make sure that any of our armed servicemembers who have suffered a financial loss because of their service have access to relief through the bankruptcy courts. That's the least we can do to assist these fine men and women.

But I rise also to say that there are other things that are not yet before us in the bankruptcy arena that we, I believe, are gaining some bipartisan support for.

Many of us have expressed concern that lacking in the recovery package that we will be voting on tomorrow is any provision that deals with the primary mortgage, mortgage on a primary residence, that might be one of many tools to deal with the underlying crisis that has created this worldwide economic instability.

I would have preferred that such a measure be in the recovery package, but it is not essential that the measure be part of the package. It is possible to move such a measure separately.

We were here earlier in the week. I complimented my colleague from Utah saying that it was unlikely we would be on the floor together again because he is not returning, but here we are. And I would just like to compliment him for the hard work and discussions that he has put in behind the scenes over the last several weeks to see if disagreements can be resolved and if parties can come together in the interest of the country. I can't say that we have accomplished that yet, but I think that we have an opportunity, and I actually am quite optimistic that we will be successful in that effort that would be very important for our country.

I see the gentleman standing there. I wonder if I could yield to him, if he wishes to make a comment.

I wonder, I did yield, but we have other speakers. So I wonder if--and we can have this further discussion--but whether on the mortgage, primary residence mortgage issue, you think there is further opportunity to make progress between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives, and nonconservatives?

I will do so because I don't want to take advantage of the chairman's yielding me unlimited time when there are other speakers.

But I would just say in the discussions that we have had that have been

very honest and very practical--and I think totally bipartisan, I would even say nonpartisan--trying to find common ground in the interest of the American people in this. I have a sense of optimism that we can do something important on the mortgage bankruptcy issue aside from this recovery package that is coming.

Having said that, I will yield back to the chairman of the committee, and perhaps Mr. Cannon will use some of his time to further explore this.

Thank you for yielding.

I would just note that in fact in the rescue package there is a provision requiring the Secretary to renegotiate loans and that will actually, I think, be of tremendous value in dealing with the foreclosure crisis that we face when the government owns the whole mortgage, all of the mortgage. But because securities are being purchased because the credit markets are frozen, we won't necessarily own all of the mortgages in every case. And half of the subprimes have second and third mortgages that will be able to defeat any effort to renegotiate.

So I think that moving a narrowly crafted, for-subprime-only primary residence mortgage measure either later in this Congress or early next might be something that could avoid the $2.1 trillion in mortgages that are set to reset and certainly are at risk of default in the next 18 months.

I am just stating here today, I think we have an opportunity to accomplish that working across the aisle and working across ideological barriers because really we're all in the same place. We want Americans to be safe and secure in their homes. If they are able to meet their obligations, we should go the extra mile to allow them to do that.

I just want to say once again how much I have appreciated working with you, Congressman Cannon, over these years. And I said this earlier this week, but if you look at your voting record, you've got one of the most conservative voting records in this Congress, and as I mentioned, I do not. But that has never prevented us from working together to find solutions for the American people.

I really think you're a remarkable legislator, someone whom I respect a great deal, and I thank you for your service to our country.

If I may, I think the Secretary has the authority to acquire all mortgages. We fear that he may not. I frankly think if the Secretary--or his successor, starting in January-- were to make that a priority, we would solve more of this problem than if it was just done in the natural course of events. I personally believe we need another remedy that I pledge to try and move separately from this package having to do with the bankruptcy primary residence mortgage issue that we have discussed at tremendous length.

If the gentleman would yield, as we both know, because we were on the same conference call with one of the foremost authorities in the United States on this subject, the expectation is, in the natural course of events, that about 20 percent of the acquisition of securities would result in owning all of the rights in order to do a negotiation.

So when you look at the entire package, it's not what we want, but it's not nothing either. I mean, if you could actually renegotiate 20 percent of the reset, it would have a market impact. What you're suggesting, I think, makes sense. And I think, also, that the bill that's coming back would allow the Secretary to actually do what you have suggested because there is that discretion in the measure.

If we did what you've suggested, if the experts are correct that we will have 20 percent of all ownership to renegotiate as provided for in the bill, we're still going to need an additional tool which we're not going to get in this bill, but to do a narrow carve-out for the subprime markets to be able to--for judicial intervention for those areas that we cannot get the rights for.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

If the gentleman would yield.

If I may, I'm glad you did that explanation. And for people listening who don't have a subprime, it's going to affect them as well. Because if you have a prime mortgage but every neighbor in your entire neighborhood has had their property values collapse, your property value is also going to collapse. So this is everybody.

I certainly will.

I thank the gentleman for his generosity with the time, and thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of S. 3197, which will help those who served this country save their home and save what they work a lifetime for.

It is very poignant that we could come to this bill at this moment, when we understand the importance of helping those who have served this country save their homes.

Because, actually, it does lead to that larger question because we are all in tune now with the fact that millions of Americans--including those who serve this country--through no fault of their own are finding their homes at risk, millions of Americans. And unfortunately, despite the best efforts of people on both sides of the aisle, the House will have delivered to it a bill from the Senate that does not directly address that question. Because unless this country takes a controlling interest, unless the Secretary of the Treasury would take a controlling interest in these mortgage-backed securities so they can negotiate on behalf of the homeowners to reduce their exposure to losing their home, this bill will be for naught.

Let's keep in mind that a central premise of the American Dream is owning a home. We understand that for our soldiers, and we should do something here. And we also need to understand that all over this country there are people who are watching these debates and wondering, are we going to do something to help them save their home? Because that's what we ought to be doing. And the way that we can do it, Mr. Chairman, is that instead of taking a strategy that assumes that the trickle is going to get down from the top by giving $700 billion to Wall Street, we instead focus on creating a solution for the homeowners and know that then the money will begin to percolate up to the banks and back to Wall Street instead of assuming the government gives the money to Wall Street, goes to the banks, and it gets to the people. Not under the bill that the Senate is sending over here.

So, while we want to do everything we can for our soldiers--and we should--we need to understand that looming here is one of the biggest challenges we've seen in American history to the concept of homeownership: Home is core, home is central, home relates to everything that we're all about. But home is in jeopardy here in the United States of America. Millions of mortgages are headed towards default. Millions of Americans are in danger of losing their home. And this Wall Street bailout, unfortunately, does not address it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I sent a letter over to our Speaker yesterday pointing this out to her, telling her that we need to create a change that will enable the Secretary of the Treasury to focus in on this and to give him the ability to get a controlling interest in these mortgage-backed securities because, as has been pointed out by my colleagues, we don't have that right now. And unless you address that, all this is going to be for naught. You might see the market go up for a day if the House passes the bill, but you know what's going to happen: You're still going to see millions of Americans losing their homes.

Of course I would yield to my friend.

Taking back my time, the bill has language which might be discretionary, but we in the House understand the difference between something that's discretionary and mandatory. And we also know that the way the bill is structured, unless you have a controlling interest in these mortgage pools, there's no way you can do anything because then you have to talk with 20, 30 other interests in order to be able to come to resolution. That's not going to happen.

So we need to be real about this; and, unfortunately, that isn't always the case in our Congress. And when we get real about it and connect to people's aspirations to save their homes with a real solid legislative structure to deliver on that, then the American people and then our economy can celebrate the wisdom of the Congress. Right now, that jury is still out.

I yield to my friend.

I would.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

To my good friend from Utah, the clarity of the Secretary will not trump the language of the legislation. And the language of the legislation does not permit him to be able to have an effective role in saving people's homes. It talks about encouraging, it talks about ``may do,'' but it is not mandatory. And he doesn't have the additional power because there is no mechanism in there to give us a controlling interest so that we can actually create a fix.

I yield to the gentlelady from California.

Reclaiming my time, and thanking the gentlelady and the gentleman, I would say that the legislation doesn't fix the problem; that is the central point. It doesn't empower the Secretary to be able to get controlling interest of the mortgage-backed

securities. And that is the central flaw of the policies that we're pursuing. And millions of Americans who are in danger of losing their homes are not going to be helped.

I want to conclude by thanking Mr. Cannon for his service to the United States Congress.

And that's all I need.

When you look at the difference in the debate here, hear these words, ``we may save the world ``or ``we shall save the world''; ``we may save people's homes'' or ``we shall save their homes.'' I want a bill that says ``we shall save their homes.'' And that's not what the bill is that we're being sent by the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, today marks the culmination of work that should have been finished long ago. On April 14, 2005, the House considered S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which was a much needed and responsible reform. Then in the minority, my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky, introduced a motion to recommit so that the bill would allow a targeted exemption from the bankruptcy means test for those National Guard and Reservists who had been called up after 9/11.

At the time of the floor debate, I was told by the Republican floor manager that the Schakowsky motion was redundant, that there was already such protection for our National Guard and Reservists under the Service Member's Civil Relief Act. Because of this, I voted against the motion and it failed on a party line vote, 220 yeas to 229 nays.

I soon found out that I and other Republican Members had been misinformed, apparently to prevent the then-minority from having any legislative success.

Yes, disabled veterans are exempt from the new bankruptcy means test, but not activated reservists and guardsmen, the men and women torn from their jobs and families, sent overseas to protect us were not to be given consideration under the Republican bankruptcy law unless they were disabled. Ms. Schakowsky's motion sought to correct that. In order to prevent even one success by the other party, the leaders of my party threw aside considering the well-being of our returning heroes.

A returning reservist or guardsman, who possibly left a lucrative job to answer the call of duty, gets the same tougher means test as everybody else. If they fail, they are presumed to be abusing the system as specified in chapter 7 of the bankruptcy law. Yes, they can then rebut the presumption of abuse by demonstrating a special circumstance before the court. They can beg. They can jump through hoops, they can hire lawyers, and then it is at the discretion of the court to grant these homecoming heroes special circumstances and allow them a chapter 7 filing. This should have been in the bill in the first place, as well as Ms. Schakowsky's motion should have been accepted by the majority. It is a shame that it wasn't.

The Schakowsky motion would not have killed the bill, as some Members have argued since. In fact, because the motion asked the Judiciary Committee to report the bill forthwith, we could have considered the bill on that very same day. And even if that were not the case, as now we hear from my side so often as we point out a motion requiring a committee to report the bill promptly could still be brought up the next legislative day.

No, this motion failed so long ago because of the worst type of partisanship. It failed because Republicans did not want to admit that the Democrats could better their bill.

When I found that there was no adequate protection for our returning reservists and guardsmen, I pledged to work with my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky, and make it right.

Subsequently, I introduced legislation to amend the bankruptcy law. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership refused to bring my bill up to the floor for a vote and it took a change in the majority for this pro- reservist, pro-National Guard bill to be brought to the House floor today.

This measure isn't costing any new Federal dollars. There is no new massive appropriation. All it is is a consideration for these people who have risked their lives for us and are coming home. But my party couldn't get itself to provide consideration for our homecoming heroes even though there wasn't any major cost involved.

In the meantime, party control of the House changed, and Ms. Schakowsky and I have been working diligently to get this legislation to the floor and get it passed into law. We are now considering this bill under suspension which means it is pretty well recognized that this has widespread support. It should have been voted on by the majority or at least accepted a long time ago.

I encourage my colleagues who voted ``no'' on the motion to recommit 3 years ago because they were misled to vote in favor of this legislation. This bill is not a wedge to reopen the bankruptcy law. Rather, it is a narrow, targeted change modeled after existing exemptions for disabled veterans, America's heroes in neighborhoods throughout our country, who have been called up for deployments.

This bill will ensure that America's heroes throughout our country, who have often been called up for deployments that are for far longer than they were initially thought, will not pay a very high personal cost for their absence and their willingness to step forward.

As my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky, put it, these servicemembers have put their lives and livelihood on the line for us, and we owe them a great debt. This is one way that we can show our deep appreciation for the service of these people, as we should have done originally. Now it is time for us to repay that debt in a very bipartisan way. I thank very much my chairman and ranking member.