Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the so-called Assault Weapons ban passed in 1994 has now been expired for seven months and our nation has yet to feel the ill effects proponents of the '94 legislation predicted. The following article by Deborah Sontag of the New York Times, provides a great description of how little has changed since the ban was lifted. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert this article into the Congressional Record.

[From the New York Times, Apr. 24, 2005]

Many Say End of Firearm Ban Changed Little

(By Deborah Sontag)

Despite dire predictions that the streets would be awash in

military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long

assault weapons ban last September has not set off a

sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers

say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun

crime in the past seven months, according to several

metropolitan police departments.

The uneventful expiration of the assault weapons ban did

not surprise gun owners, nor did it surprise some advocates

of gun control. Rather, it underscored what many of them had

said all along: that the ban was porous--so porous that

assault weapons remained widely available throughout their

prohibition.

``The whole time that the American public thought there was

an assault weapons ban, there never really was one,'' said

Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy

Center, a gun control group.

What's more, law enforcement officials say that military-

style weapons, which were never used in many gun crimes but

did enjoy some vogue in the years before the ban took effect,

seem to have gone out of style in criminal circles.

``Back in the early 90's, criminals wanted those Rambo-type

weapons they could brandish,'' said Jim Pasco, executive

director of the Fraternal Order of Police. ``Today they are

much happier with a 9-millimeter handgun they can stick in

their belt.''

When the ban took effect in 1994, it exempted more than 1.5

million assault weapons already in private hands. Over the

next 10 years, at least 1.17 million more assault weapons

were produced--legitimately--by manufacturers that availed

themselves of loopholes in the law, according to an analysis

of firearms production data by the Violence Policy Center.

Throughout the decade-long ban, for instance, the gun

manufacturer DPMS/Panther Arms of Minnesota continued selling

assault rifles to civilians by the tens of thousands. In

compliance with the ban, the firearms manufacturer

``sporterized'' the military-style weapons, sawing off

bayonet lugs, securing stocks so they were not collapsible

and adding muzzle brakes. But the changes did not alter the

guns' essence; they were still semiautomatic rifles with

pistol grips.

After the ban expired in September, DPMS reintroduced its

full-featured weapons to the civilian market and enjoyed a

slight spike in sales. That increase was short-lived,

however, and predictably so, said Randy E. Luth, the

company's owner.

``I never thought the sunset of the ban would be that big a

deal,'' Mr. Luth said.

No gun production data are yet available for the seven

months since the ban expired. And some gun-control advocates

say they don't trust the self-reporting of gun industry

representatives, who may want to play down the volume of

their sales to ward off a revival of the ban.

Indeed, a replica of the ban is again before the Senate.

``In my view, the assault weapons legislation was

working,'' said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of

California, a chief sponsor of the new bill. ``It was drying

up supply and driving up prices. The number of those guns

used in crimes dropped because they were less available.''

Assault weapons account for a small fraction of gun crimes:

about 2 percent, according to most studies, and no more than

8 percent. But they have been used in many high-profile

shooting sprees. The snipers in the 2002 Washington-area

shootings, for instance, used semiautomatic assault rifles

that were copycat versions of banned carbines.

Gun crime has plummeted since the early 1990's. But a study

for the National Institute of Justice said that it could not

``clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent

drops in gun violence.'' Research for the

study in several cities did show a significant decline in the

criminal use of assault weapons during the ban. According to

the study, however, that decline was offset by the ``steady

or rising use'' of other guns equipped with high-capacity

magazines--ammunition-feeding devices that hold more than 10

rounds.

While the 1994 ban prohibited the manufacture and sale of

such magazines, it did not outlaw an estimated 25 million of

them already in circulation, nor did it stop the importation

of millions more into the country.

Senator Feinstein said she wished she could outlaw the

``flood of big clips'' from abroad, calling that the ``one

big loophole'' in the ban. But that would require amending

the bill, and Republicans like Senator John W. Warner of

Virginia and Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio are willing to back

it only without amendments, she said.

Some gun-control advocates say it is pointless to

reintroduce the 1994 ban without amending it to include large

magazines and a wider range of guns. They see more promise in

enacting or strengthening state or local bans. Seven states--

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New

Jersey and New York--already have bans, most based on the

federal one. The model ban, gun-control advocates say, is a

comprehensive one in California (referred to as

``Commiefornia'' on some gun enthusiast Web sites).

The Fraternal Order of Police has not made a new federal

ban a legislative priority, either. Mr. Pasco, the

organization's director, said he could not recall a single

``inquiry from the field about the reauthorization of the

ban--and we have 330,000 members who are very vocal.''

``In 1994, I was the principal administration lobbyist on

this ban,'' said Mr. Pasco, who then worked for the federal

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. ``But here we are 10

years later, and these weapons do not appear to pose any more

significant threat to law enforcement officers than other

weapons of similar caliber and capability.''

The ban made it illegal to possess or sell a semiautomatic

weapon manufactured after September 1994 if the weapon

accepted a detachable magazine and contained at least two

features from a list that included protruding pistol grips

and threaded muzzles. The ban outlawed 19 weapons by name,

among them some foreign semiautomatics already banned under

the 1989 firearms importation law, which still stands.

But gun manufacturers increased production of assault

weapons while the ban was being debated. Then, by making

minor changes in design, they were able to produce, as they

called them, ``post-ban'' assault weapons that were the

functional equivalent of the originals.

Colt came out with a ``sporterized'' version of its popular

AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, leaving off some military features

that were ``meaningless as far as its lethality,'' said

Carlton S. Chen, vice president and general counsel for Colt.

``People might think it looks less evil,'' Mr. Chen said,

``but it's the same weapon. It was a hoax, a Congressional

hoax, to ban all these different features.''

Mr. Pasco of the police organization disagreed. ``We knew

exactly what we were doing by trying to ban guns with certain

features,'' he said. ``While it didn't affect their function

or capability, those features, at that point in time, seemed

to make those weapons more attractive to those who wanted to

commit crimes.''

Gun-control advocates say military-style semiautomatics do

not belong in civilian hands. ``They are weapons of war,''

Senator Feinstein said, ``and you don't need these assault

weapons to hunt.''

Gun makers, however, say the weapons do have sporting uses,

in hunting and in target shooting. ``People buy these rifles

because they're fun to shoot and they perform well,'' Mr.

Luth of DPMS said. ``They also like them because you can jazz

them up like you can your car. You can custom-paint them, put

on a multitude of handguards or buttstocks.''

Some collectors simply admire certain guns. Charles

Cuzalina, a gun dealer in Oklahoma who specializes in banned

weapons, is taken with the Colt AR-15.

``I just like the look of the weapon,'' Mr. Cuzalina said.

``When I bought my first, I went out on the farm shooting at

a pie plate, and I realized how accurate it makes you. You

think you're the world's best shot.''

Mark Westrom, owner of ArmaLite Inc., a gun maker in

Illinois, said prey hunters and target shooters did not miss

bayonet lugs and other features that disappeared with the

post-ban rifles. Collectors looking for an exact civilian

replica of a military rifle, however, consider the removal of

a bayonet lug ``a matter of design defacement,'' Mr. Westrom

said.

Several manufacturers are offering factory conversions or

selling kits so gun owners can retrofit their post-ban

weapons. They are also increasing their production of pre-ban

weapons and decreasing production of post-ban weapons.

Many gun store owners say that sales of assault weapons

spiked briefly in September and October. Gun dealers sought

to capitalize on the ban's sunset and, during the

presidential campaign, to raise the specter of a tougher ban

if John Kerry won.

``We view this time as a `pause' and urge you to take

advantage of the opportunity to exercise your Second

Amendment rights,'' Tapco, a shooting and military gear

company, said on its Web site last fall. ``Anti-gun

politicians learned much over the past 10 years. They will

surely not leave as many loopholes in future legislation.''

After President Bush was re-elected and the novelty of the

ban's expiration waned, sales leveled off at many gun shops.

But Mike Mathews, the owner of Gunworld in Del City, Okla.,

said sales had been holding steady at a higher level.

Norm Giguere of Norm's Gun & Ammo in Biddeford, Me., on the

other hand, said that he had not sold any military-style

semiautomatic rifles since right after the Sept. 11 terrorist

attacks, and that the gun business in general was ``going

down the tubes.''

Mr. Luth of DPMS, however, said that his sales had been

increasing for years, to the law enforcement community, the

civilian market and an unexpected new clientele. ``We've

picked up new customers with the troops returning from

Iraq,'' he said, ``who had never shot an AR-15 before and now

want one.''

The war in Iraq has had another unintended consequence for

the marketplace. Colt, one of the biggest manufacturers, has

decided against putting its AR-15 back on the civilian market

because the company is backlogged with military orders.

Unlike assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, which are

used with many guns, have been selling briskly since the ban

ended because prices have dropped considerably.

``The only thing Clinton ever did for us was drive up the

price of magazines,'' said a weapons specialist named Stuart

at TargetMaster, a shooting range and gun shop in Garland,

Tex. (He declined to give his last name.) ``A 17-round Glock

magazine crept up to $150 during the ban. It's $75 now.''

Since September, the Web site of Taurus International

Manufacturing Inc., a major maker of small arms, has

celebrated the demise of the prohibition on magazines,

flashing in red letters, ``10 years of 10 rounds are over!''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 236 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment.

It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution; it provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report; may be offered only by a Member designated in the report; shall be considered as read; shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; it shall not be subject to an amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for the division of the question in the House or in the committee of the whole. It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her dedication and leadership, not only on this bill, but also on all matters concerning the well-being and defense of our children. She truly has made this fight her own and I would like to applaud her for her hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I fear that the opponents of this bill will demagogue it as an assault on a woman's right to choose, but this bill has absolutely nothing, let me repeat, nothing to do with a woman's right to choose. Rather, this bill ensures that no minor is deprived of any protection according to not only her but also her parents under the laws of her State.

H.R. 748 is a commonsense bill that will prohibit the transportation of a minor across the State line to obtain an abortion when the child's home State requires parental consent. This bill makes an exception in those extremely rare cases in which the abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the minor. Also, this bill makes another exception allowing for judicial bypass.

This bill also affirms the responsibility of a physician prior to performing an abortion on a minor from another State to make sure that they are acting in accordance with the laws of her State.

Having practiced as an OB-GYN for nearly 30 years, I am uniquely qualified to discuss the medical and legal obligations of a physician to his or her patient. And this law not only ensures the protection of minors but it also clarifies the responsibility of the physician to make sure that he or she is not inappropriately performing an abortion on a minor without the legally mandated consent of her parents.

This bill also affirms the principles of federalism and it prevents the circumvention and violation of laws passed by State legislatures. Over 30 States have passed parental notification laws, Mr. Speaker. In fact, in my home State of Georgia, the legislature just recently passed a new abortion notification law in an overwhelming and bipartisan fashion, and this Congress has the responsibility to defend that federalism and the integrity of State laws in interstate matters.

Mr. Speaker, while I can address this issue both as a Member of Congress and as a medical physician who has delivered a lot of precious infants, I can also talk about this issue as a father. My wife and I had four children. Three of them are now grown women and two of them have children of their own. However, I knew that when they were still young children, minors, I not only had a moral obligation that I proudly still bear to this day, but also a legal obligation to defend them and their well-being against any and every potential and imminent danger.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation recognizes this fundamental bond between parents and child and it recognizes the obligation of a parent to be involved and to assist in making important decisions affecting both the life and the health of a minor. Children cannot even be given aspirin at school without their parents' permission, so I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly justify that administering an abortion is less traumatic or potentially dangerous than taking an aspirin. Yet, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the opponents of this bill are saying through their opposition to H.R. 748.

During this debate, I encourage my colleagues to remain focused on the matter at hand and remember that this legislation seeks to uphold the legislatively guaranteed rights of parents and their minor children. Let us not allow this debate to be bogged down with the same tired rhetoric about a woman's right to choose.

I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill for final passage.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to address some of the concerns articulated by my colleague on the Committee on Rules. The other side of the aisle has been concerned about how some of the amendments they offered during the Committee on the Judiciary markup have been characterized in the committee report.

Mr. Speaker, this is a question of intent versus effect. During the Committee on the Judiciary markup, there were several amendments offered that would have exempted certain individuals from prosecution under this bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that they did not intend for sexual predators to be exempt from prosecution. I believe them. I would hope it will never be the intent of anyone in this body to in any way inadvertently or otherwise assist in doing harm to a child to offer protection to those who would.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is where the effect of the amendments come to bear. The effect of the amendments would have been to exempt individual classes of people from prosecution. If a case arose where the sexual predator qualified under one of these classes of individuals, that person could not be prosecuted under this bill. This effect is simply unacceptable.

The minority side argues that their intent, not the effect, should be the language used in the report submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary. However, it is the responsibility, in fact it is the charged duty, of the Committee on the Judiciary chairman to write and file the report. It is the prerogative of the chairman to write the report as he sees fit.

On the other side, the minority has ample opportunity to take up any issue they choose in the dissenting views of the report. In this instance, the dissenting views of the minority are found on pages 121 to 133 of House Report 109-51.

If the minority wants their interpretation of the intent or even effect of an amendment to be in the report, it is wholly appropriate for them to articulate those views in their dissenting views. In fact, this is just exactly what they did.

So on the one hand, we have the chairman stating his understanding of the effect of these amendments; and on the other hand, we have the minority stating their intent. Both the minority and majority positions are stated clearly in the committee report.

It seems to me that both the majority and minority used the committee

report to fairly and appropriately state their views. No one was shut out from the opportunity to voice an opinion in this committee report.

Mr. Speaker, I believe both sides of the aisle used the committee report to discuss their efforts on this legislation, and we should not cloud the merit of this legislation because the other side does not like how the effect of their amendments was characterized.

Mr. Speaker, for further clarification, I would like to yield for as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from New York had said that the issue of sexual abuse never came up in the committee hearing. If you look at page 84.

Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected in regard to his amendments, but in regard to a number of these other amendments, let me quote from the committee report on page 84. This is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) speaking. ``This amendment would allow abusers potentially to get off scot-free and doom the victims of sexual abuse to even more abuse. If the girl is afraid to tell her parents of the abortion for fear of past or future sexual abuse, she may utilize the judicial bypass process which is available in her State.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

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

I would again emphasize the importance of this bill as a safeguard of parental rights and protection for minors.

As I listened to the opposition on the other side, I cannot help but notice how they remain unwilling to honestly address and debate this bill. H.R. 748 is a clear example of consensus legislation upon which most Americans agree. According to a recent poll by the New York Times, almost 80 percent of Americans favor parental notification law, and yet these laws are currently circumvented and violated through the interstate transportation of minors. Allowing our children to be carted across State lines by nonguardians to get an abortion is absolutely immoral and fundamentally wrong.

With over 30 States requiring some type of parental notification, Congress cannot turn a blind eye to those who would violate the law and endanger our children.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has an obligation and absolute moral duty to parents and their children alike to make sure that these State laws are upheld so that nonguardians do not make medical decisions for our children. Parents and children deserve better, Mr. Speaker, and this bill will ensure that they get the care and consideration that they need.

Again I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen), the sponsor of the bill, and all my colleagues who support this bill. I encourage each and every Member to think long and hard about this matter, to put rhetoric aside and to listen to their conscience.

Mr. Speaker, I further ask and encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 240, a bill providing for changes to the rules of the House of Representatives related to the procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the ethics committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly unfortunate the House of Representatives must take up this legislation that rescinds progressive reforms made to the practice of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. Speaker, new rules were agreed upon that would have allowed a bipartisan majority to resolve ethics disputes in an expeditious and judicious fashion. These rules would have ensured that the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct could never be used by either party, Republican or Democrat, as a weapon to malign and tarnish the reputation of any Member in this body for political purposes.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, the House Democrats have refused to accept these changes and, thus, have brought the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to a screeching halt. Not only have the House Democrats essentially shut down the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct but they have also used its demise for political gain.

Over the past few months, House Democrats have abandoned any substantial discussion of policy like Social Security modernization and resorted to an incessant stream of personal and political attacks upon Members of this body, especially upon one Member in particular.

The Democrats do not have a plan to strengthen Social Security for our seniors, but they will spend months upon months stonewalling and refusing to allow the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to function. Mr. Speaker, if the House Democrats actually allowed the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to meet and conduct investigations, then they would lose their ability to exploit tabloid sensationalism and would have to return to doing the work of the American people.

So, Mr. Speaker, the House must now consider a return to the old rules. Despite the flaws in the old rules, we in the majority cannot and will not accept a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct held hostage for purposes of political gain.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Kentucky, and as well my good friend from Indiana; and it is a pleasure to be with my colleagues tonight to discuss something of such tremendous import to the country.

I have done about, Mr. Speaker, 10 listening sessions, town hall meetings on this subject; and it is very, very instructive. If you do them during the daytime, it is typically going to be senior-dominated; and many of those individuals, of course, are among the 43 million who are current Social Security beneficiaries.

One thing that we try to make sure that they understand is in any of the plans that are out there, and of course, every plan is a work in progress and nothing is set in stone, but that the concept, first of all, of holding harmless anyone 55 years or older, that their Social Security benefits will not change. Their checks will only change when they get their annual COLA, and they would not, in fact, have the opportunity to invest in an individual personal account, if that is part of the final solution.

I do not know, maybe my colleagues have heard this, too. Some of them, in particular at age 55, they are a little disappointed: Why did you cut me out? I do not get full retirement until I am 67 years old because of those changes that occurred under the Reagan administration in 1983, the last time we were in crisis. They are kind of disappointed, particularly if they are planning on working and deferring their benefits until age 70. They would have 15 years of an opportunity to get the miracle of compound interest.

But these seniors, and I am sure again that my colleagues are hearing the same thing, they are very concerned. Even when we tell them that they are secure and we promise them this is our pledge, they are concerned about their children and grandchildren; and they are there not so much for themselves, even if their Social Security was at risk, they are very concerned about their children and grandchildren. That kind of renews my sense of faith and spirit in our seniors and in the American way. It is really great to hear that from them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman because it is such a good point.

The gentleman from Indiana said in his earlier remarks that we have a $10 trillion unfunded liability. That is a big number, but the cost of doing nothing is estimated at $600 billion a year for every year we do nothing and continue to try to avoid the problem, pretend that it does not exist, hope that some other Congress, the 110th, the 112th, whatever, will address that, and we will not have to put our political careers at risk.

I have heard others say, and I have said many times in my discussions across my district, that I am more concerned about the next generation than the next election. We do an interesting thing in our listening sessions. We have a video clip. Of course, it is a black and

white movie reel going back to 1935 showing a little clip of President Roosevelt signing that initial law, and he said very clearly this is not going to be enough to take care of the average senior's full retirement. I encourage them because of, and he used a term I hardly knew what it meant, I had to look it up in the dictionary, the vicissitudes of life. Things happen, good and bad; and people should prepare by buying an annuity to cover the vicissitudes of life, but unfortunately, people, fully a third of our seniors, cannot afford to invest in an IRA. Maybe they never had an opportunity to participate in one of these employer-sponsored 401(k) benefit plans for retirement, where the employer matches the employee, and they certainly did not have enough money in the paycheck they were earning to buy an annuity.

So where the problem is, and we all know it, nobody is disputing this, a third of our seniors get to age 62 or 65, they do not have a job, they do not have any other savings. They only have the Social Security check.

So this idea of an individual personal account is not a brand-new idea, and I know my colleagues agree with me on this point. It is not privatization. We are not turning the Social Security trust fund over to Merrill Lynch or Smith Barney and saying, here, go ahead and invest the money and you do this on behalf of the government and its retirees, and if you want to invest in Enron or Global Crossing or WorldCom or something not at all.

I think it is just so disingenuous, but we have to spend so much time undoing some of the negative publicity that has been sent out to our seniors to literally scare them, just like the same scare tactics that were used when we were passing the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act. Tear up your AARP card because they supported that; resign from that organization. Even if you are eligible to get $600 a year benefit on your prescription drugs, $1,200 over 2 years, do not accept that Medicare-approved drug discount card.

So we are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to overcome that negative publicity, those scare tactics in regard, yes, now with Social Security.

It is important and I really commend the gentlewoman from Kentucky for sponsoring this hour, for leading this hour so that we can make sure our colleagues understand that clearly it is time to do something about Social Security, and we cannot afford to put it off to the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). I think the Ryan-Sununu plan is one that excites me. There are several others out there, but one thing that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) said that we need to emphasize, he is explaining that if we totally, completely say that an individual personal account, not privatization but as he has explained it, an opportunity to invest a portion, just a portion of that payroll tax in something like a thrift savings plan, if we completely rule that out as our friends on the other side of the aisle have done in both Chambers, drawn a deep line in the sand and said no, not only no, but heck no.

But when we say show us your plan, what do they do, they hold up a blank sheet of paper because they do not want to admit what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) just pointed out, alternatives are to raise the payroll tax or to decrease benefits or raise the age at which a person can receive full benefits. Let us say because people are living longer and are healthier, let us say full retirement is 75 and early retirement is age 70, so it is important that people understand.

We are not ruling out anything on our side of the aisle. We do not have a plan set in stone, but clearly this option of an individual personal account enjoys, like no other fix, the miracle of compound interest. Einstein, when asked what the greatest power on Earth was, everyone expected him to say atomic energy, but he said the miracle of compound interest. I think the gentleman is on the right track.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak in the place of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise President Bush's ongoing efforts to carry democracy and freedom to the farthest corners of the Middle East.

Like some of my colleagues, I have had the opportunity recently to travel to this part of the world, to Iraq, to Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Cypress and Israel. These experiences left me extremely encouraged about the prospect of freedom in the Middle East. I believe we are witnessing a crucial moment in world history as democracy is planting roots in countries previously overrun by terrorists and tyrants.

The most visible instance of this is in Iraq. Four short months ago, Iraqi citizens braved terrorist threats and bodily harm to turn out at the polls in amazing numbers. Today, the fruits of their labor are evident, and the Iraqi people can finally look forward to a future in a free and a democratic society. They have a government that serves as a voice for all Iraqis, be they Kurdish, Sunni, Shiite, Christian, or any of the many other ethnic and religious groups represented in the new government.

Like the Iraqi people, citizens of Afghanistan are also enjoying new- found freedoms. Our United States Armed Forces have liberated millions of Afghans, paving the way for a democratic Afghani government, one that is committed to fighting terrorism on its own.

But Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only nations where freedom is marching, Mr. Speaker. The roots of democracy grow wide, and they have begun their spread into Iran, Syria, Palestine, Libya, and perhaps even Saudi Arabia. The list of democratic accomplishments in the region is growing, suggesting that a true change in outlook and culture is occurring in the Middle East.

Syria has begun pulling its troops out of Lebanon. Israel is working with the Palestinian people to pull troops and settlers out of Gaza, and the post-Arafat PLO is increasingly willing to put this kind of diplomacy over terrorism. Libya has begun the voluntary dismantling of its nuclear program, and Egypt has agreed to allow multi-candidate elections.

Any one of these accomplishments alone would be reason to rejoice; but taken together, they signal an ever-growing, irrevocable force for change across the globe. What we are accomplishing in the Middle East is far more than winning the war on terror. We are winning the war of ideas. People around the globe are crying out for freedom.

Democracy, representation, the opportunity to disagree, these are all essential developments that foster freedom; and we are seeing them spread

across the Middle East. People are choosing democracy over dictators and demagogues, and I am extremely encouraged by these developments.

Mr. Speaker, the naysayers among us, those who said fair democratic elections in Iraq would never occur, who said this region would never accept democracy, they have been proven wrong. Freedom is a universal ideal, one that knows no boundaries or borders. As President Bush so often reminds us, freedom truly is on the march.

If the gentleman will yield, I do. And the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), the good judge, is kind to yield to me. I actually came to the well for another purpose, but since you asked me my opinion on this, I will be glad to opine.

By the way, that piercing of the abdomen to get the fluid, that is called amniocentesis.

Now, do not ask me to spell that for you.

But, Mr. Speaker, absolutely. What the gentleman from Texas, both the gentlemen from Texas, I should say, are absolutely right. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) earlier was talking about the number of physicians, that before this good legislation was passed by the great State of Texas, it was 600 or so. And it is really, as I have said this many times, it is not just that the physician loses his or her livelihood that they have worked most of their adult life to establish. But it is a jobs situation, because every time a medical office closes because of the burdensome expense of malpractice insurance, you are talking about putting maybe 15, 25, possibly as many as 50 employees of that medical practice, Mr. Speaker. That is how many were employed in my practice as an OB-GYN in Georgia.

And I really commend Texas in regard to their legislation. I think it was a model, Mr. Speaker, for my State of Georgia in the general assembly, and the State of Georgia this year did pass reform legislation very similar to the Texas bill. And I think that they have now got a couple of years' experience, so hopefully that same thing will occur in the State of Georgia.

So I really appreciate the gentleman yielding and giving me an opportunity to weigh in on this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of strengthening Social Security through ownership and saving.

Right now, we have an opportunity to let Americans own a piece of their retirement savings by strengthening Social Security through voluntary personal accounts.

Most Americans might be surprised to know that their Social Security isn't very secure at all. As the system stands today, your Social Security check is controlled by Congress. And when you die, your benefits are taken away, regardless of how long or how much you've paid into the system.

That's a bum deal for Americans.

If instead, we let younger workers create voluntary personal retirement accounts with a small portion of their Social Security money, more Americans could build a nest egg that the government could never ever take away. These savings could be passed on to future generations.

Mr. Speaker, voluntary personal accounts will help low- and middle- income Americans accumulate wealth and save for their future. I ask for your support.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman chairman for yielding to me.

As he mentioned at the outset of his remarks, I was one of a group of six Members primarily from the Committee on Rules, we affectionately called it CODEL Dreier, and we had an opportunity really to visit these 8 countries and the Palestinian West Bank as well. But I think more than anything else what we did in visiting those countries is to let the people in the Middle East, and this was almost exclusively a Middle Eastern trip, to let them know that we are their friends, to let them know that we are willing to reach out and to help solve the myriad problems in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there are plenty of them.

We are of course continuing to try to help the Iraqi people as they build their own government and stand up their military so they can defend themselves. They want democracy. They have had a taste of it. So at these many places that we stopped you could see it just sort of blossoming, blooming. And they seemed very, very appreciative that we would meet and listen.

We did a whole lot of listening, Mr. Speaker; we did a little bit of talking.

We had some formal sessions, but mainly I think it was a great experience for us, but it was a great experience for them as well, as I say, to see Members of Congress.

It is not the easiest place in the world to get to. It is certainly not what you would call a vacation paradise, like some folks would go on spring break down to Panama City or some of the beautiful beaches in our country. It was not anything at all like that, of course.

But on one of the last days of our trip, Mr. Speaker, we were actually on the island of Cyprus and had an opportunity there to visit what they call the Green Zone. It is a separation, demarcation, almost like the DMZ, frozen in time since the uprisings between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots in 1974, I think.

But we discussed that separation, that division, the fact that they had recently had a referendum where one side, the north, the Turks were very much in favor of unification per the Kofi Annan plan from the United Nations. And the Greek Cypriots were, I think, 70 percent voted in opposition to that. But we had an opportunity to visit, to sit down, and just right across the table from the President of Cyprus, President Papadopoulos.

And as the chairman said, we also had an opportunity to meet with the Turkish Cypriot leader and let them know that we are concerned and we care about what is going on with that, I guess you could call it the ``Gateway to the Middle East.''

So there were so many things like that, almost like each day was another opportunity, and certainly, not the least of which as the Chairman has just pointed out, the time we spent in Lebanon and visiting that grave site of former Prime Minister Hariri and the poignant, very sad, but most important, opportunity to meet and talk with his widow. I thought that was a unique opportunity for the group and I appreciate the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) for arranging that.

Mr. Speaker, if the chairman would yield for a minute, there was certainly an opportunity to meet with those students in Beirut. Actually, they were in a tent city and had been there protesting the Syrian involvement in Lebanon, and they came up to us. It was fairly early in the day. They probably just came out of the tents where their living conditions were not so great. They were unshaven, but as the Chairman pointed out, just to look in their eyes, just to look in that deep feeling that we could see, it just came through, loud and clear. They care so much to have democracy and freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of the opportunity to vote, and freedom from outside interference with their country. The Lebanese are very proud, proud people, as the chairman pointed out, and that was a very important moment for me.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman will recall, as the chairman led this delegation, as he just mentioned, in Brussels, that opportunity to meet with the European commission and the EU, as well as visit NATO, which was a very good experience, but we took an opportunity to let the European Union know, as the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) pointed out, how strongly we do feel about being in opposition to them lifting that arms embargo, particularly in light of the fact that in just a very recent session of their people's Congress, they voted unanimously an anti-secession law which basically says that it is

illegal for the Republic of China, Taiwan as we know it, to leave their country and they are still part of the mainland, according to this law.

So we wanted to make sure, and I think the chairman did an excellent job in his one-on-one discussion with several leading members of the European commission, of how important it was to us for stability in that region, for stability in the Middle East. I mean, I think that was, of all of the diplomatic things that we were able to accomplish, and there were many on this 10-day trip, but I thought that was real significant.

Mr. Speaker, if the chairman would yield, this is such an important point that the chairman is making, and I hope my colleagues are listening because that reaching out, as I have said earlier, that is so important. I do not think anybody could do it any better than the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), and this delegation showed them that we are very much willing to open our arms and our hearts and our support of the people in the Middle East in realizing, as the chairman pointed out, that they want to grasp hold to a little measure of that peace and liberty that, quite honestly, people in our country, Members of Congress as well, sort of fall into the trap of taking that for granted. It is not something to be for granted when we go to these countries, and we realize that they only have a very small measure of it. So I thought that was extremely beneficial.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the F/A-22 Raptor, one of the most important weapons the Air Force has in its fight to protect our country.

On Friday the Pentagon approved the F/A-22 for full-rate production. I am glad the Pentagon is recognizing what we have known all along: the Raptor is a superior and essential weapon for our Air Force.

It is our duty in Congress to ensure the safety of every American, and fully funding the F/A-22 goes a long way toward that end. Our bloated and bureaucratic government offers many opportunities to reduce spending and balance the budget. But our Nation's defense is not the place to cut funds. The F/A-22 will let the United States military continue dominating our adversaries.

To prepare for tomorrow's threats, we need to fund these planes today. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to join me in supporting the F/A- 22 program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the urgent need to strengthen Social Security.

It is often said the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Well, we have a problem. We have a serious problems.

Analysts predict that Social Security will be bankrupt by 2042. That may seem a far way off but, in reality, it means Social Security will not be around when today's 20-year-olds retire.

Since the 1930s, we have seen medical advances, technological advances, transportation advances, but we have not seen Social Security advances. We have to make this program sustainable for current and future demographics. We cannot do that if we are stuck using a 1935 model.

Let me be clear. When we talk about reforming the system, we are talking about strengthening Social Security for future generations, not weakening today's retirees or near retirees, who will get every single benefit they have been promised. While Social Security will not change for today's seniors, we have to fix the system for tomorrow's seniors.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may be content to make Social Security a political issue, but I am not. Our children's future is too important for political posturing. My concern is more about the next generation than the next election.

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 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.

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, in the interest of comity, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida be yielded an additional 1 minute.

Not from my time, no, Mr. Speaker. That he be allowed an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I request that we grant by unanimous consent 30 seconds of my time to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to modify that request to extend time by one minute on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close, and I wanted to reserve the balance of my time for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. As we come to the end of the debate on the rule for S. 256, I urge my colleagues to support its passage and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass bankruptcy reform. Today we must fix our bankruptcy laws to prevent irresponsible and unnecessary bankruptcies. Bankruptcy affects all American families. It is estimated that the annual cost is $400 to every family in America, and it is time to reform an outdated and broken system.

Despite the objections of a few Members, I know we have followed a fair process to get to this point. The Rules Committee offered to provide the minority with the ability to submit a substitute amendment. Their substitute amendment could have included any provisions they felt necessary. The Democrats rejected this offer, and they have failed to provide any alternative plan.

It is important to note many of the individual amendments they have discussed here today were considered over the past few years. Regardless of the rhetoric, this legislation has been under consideration and amended a number of times. We are now on the final product.

This year alone, S. 256 passed the House Judiciary Committee where 18

amendments were considered. To the substance of the bill, contrary to the claims of some, this legislation is not lining the pockets of wealthy creditors with the savings of the financially challenged.

Mr. Speaker, when casting their vote, I ask my colleagues to consider those constituents the current law harms. This bill gives support to small businesses and financially responsible families. I ask my colleagues to pass this rule and finally end the 8-year debate on bankruptcy reform.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 211, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and

Consumer Protection Act of 2005

In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the

following:

``(2) the amendment printed in Sec. 2 of this resolution if

offered by Representative Schiff of California or a designee,

which shall be in order without intervention of any point of

order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately

debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by

the proponent and an opponent; and (3)''

Sec. 2.

Amendment to S. 256, as Reported

Offered by Mr. Schiff of California

Page 19, after line 21, insert the following (and make such

technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

``(8)(A) No judge, United States trustee (or bankruptcy

administrator, if any), trustee, or other party in interest

may file a motion under paragraph (2) if the debtor is an

identity theft victim.

``(B) For purposes of this paragraph--

``(i) the term `identity theft' means a fraud committed or

attempted using the personally identifiable information of

another individual; and

``(ii) the term `identity theft victim' means a debtor with

respect to whom not less than 51 percent of the aggregate

value of allowed claims is a result of identity theft using

the personally identifiable information of the debtor.''.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005.

First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) for his leadership on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that there has ever been a more reprehensible tax on the face of the earth than the death tax. The death tax represents not only a tax on the deceased but also on their families. Husbands, wives and children and other relatives bear the burden of this tax while they are still struggling to cope with the loss of their loved one.

Mr. Speaker, it is intolerable and absolutely unacceptable for the Federal Government to exact a tax on death and on the surviving families, causing them to lose their homes, their business, their farms and the lives they have struggled to build.

After all, they have created and established these businesses with after-tax dollars. Taxes have already been paid, and every bit of profit that they might make in a year is taxed as well.

Currently, the repeal of the death tax is set to expire in 2010; and, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how anyone would allow the Federal Government to hand a grieving family in 2011 a bill for the death of their loved one. Death's inevitability should not be a taxable event.

Mr. Speaker, let us get the Federal Government off the backs of grieving families and pass this rule and this bill for the sake of fairness and decency.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay homage to the life of Pope John Paul II. Although I am deeply saddened by his passing on Saturday, April 2, I join my colleagues in honoring the extraordinary life that he led.

Born in Poland in 1920, Karol Wojtyla secretly studied theology during the Nazi occupation, and then became a leader in the opposition to communism as a young priest and bishop. His elevation to the papacy in September of 1978 was full of symbolism and significance. Pope John Paul II was the first Slavic Pope and the first non-Italian Pope in 455 years. During his 26-year papacy, he led the Catholic Church and its members with dignity and conviction. He traveled more miles, gave more speeches and published more material than any of his predecessors, and ushered the papacy into the modern era.

In the insightful words of his biographer, George Weigel, his life was a witness to hope. He was a large influence in the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the dismantling of the Berlin Wall. His trip to his native Poland in 1979, just a year after his investiture as Pope, set the country spiritually afire against the communists and inspired the Solidarity movement on every level.

His unique relationship with President Ronald Reagan, what Time Magazine called ``the Holy Alliance,'' enabled a bloodless end to the Cold War. President Reagan sent his top envoy, General Dick Walters, to the Vatican many times to take intelligence on the Communists to the Pope. In December of 1980, the Pope, the Reagan White House, the Solidarity movement and many other players were able to stop a planned Soviet invasion of Poland.

Pope John Paul II also made friends of the progressive Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s who would later tell an Italian newspaper that what happened in Eastern Europe over these last few years would have been impossible without the Pope's presence.

Pope John Paul II held a deep desire for the unity of the Christian churches, in particularly that of the Western Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. He preached understanding between religions, and in his later years in the papacy, he astounded the world by visiting synagogues, mosques and Protestant churches. He sought reconciliation with the Jews, asking God's forgiveness for the sins of the Church against Christianity's ``elder brother'' by placing a memorable prayer on the Western Wall during a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in March 2000.

As a Catholic who served as an altar boy and attended parochial school in my youth, I recall the pride I felt when, after an assassination attempt in 1981, Pope John Paul II sought out his assailant to offer him forgiveness rather than condemnation. He leaves behind a legacy of grace and compassion.

Pope John Paul II spoke directly to the concerns of the family, understanding the family to be the foundation of a society rooted in relationships of love. He spoke frequently about human rights, especially the right to life. As a prolife obstetrician, I was inspired by his strong stance against what he referred to as a disturbing phenomenon of widespread destruction of so many human lives and the blunting of the moral sensitivity of people's consciousness because of it. He stood against this culture of death as a violation against the human person and against God, the Creator and Father. Without his tireless voice, these rights would be even further threatened.

He shows us a great example of how to live, and then how to die. With his death, the world has lost one of the great figures of our lifetime, and his leadership will be sorely missed. My prayers today are of thanksgiving for his life and service to all humankind, and that we will continue on his sacred legacy.