Floor Statements

The Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement presents an important crossroads for trade policy. It involves issues broader than those, for example, relating to sugar or textiles; and indeed, as President Bush said recently, it involves issues beyond trade, including ramifications for the future path of democracy.

It is an important test for globalization. What has been unfolding in Latin America, including Central America, is that substantial portions of the citizenry are not benefiting from globalization. They have increasingly responded with votes at the ballot box or in the street. Doing so they have raised sharply an underlying issue and that is whether the terms of expanded trade need to be shaped to spread the benefits or simply to assume the trade expansion by itself will adequately work that out.

It is for these reasons, not more narrow interests, why the issue of core labor standards in CAFTA is important for Central America and for the United States of America. The way it is handled in CAFTA undermines the chance that the benefits of expanded trade will be broadly shared. The goal of globalization must be to expand markets and raise living standards, not promote a race to the bottom.

An essential part of this leveling up is the ability of workers in developing nations to have the freedom to join together, to have a real voice at work, so they can move up the economic ladder. This is not true in Central America where recent State Department and International Labor Organization reports confirm that the basic legal

framework is not in place to protect the rights of workers and enforcement of these defective laws is woefully inadequate. Regretfully, CAFTA as negotiated preserves the status quo or worse, because it says to these countries ``enforce your own laws'' when it comes to internationally recognized labor standards.

The Latin American region possesses the worst income inequality in the world. And four of the Central American nations rank among the top 10 in Latin America with the most serious imbalances. Poverty is rampant in these countries. The middle class is dramatically weak, as has been true in the persons of other nations including our own. This will not change unless workers can climb up the ladder and help develop a vibrant middle class.

A huge percentage of workers in this region are not actively benefiting from globalization because the current laws in these nations do not adequately allow them to participate fully in the workplace. The suppression of workers in the workplace also inhibits the steps necessary to promote democracy in society at large. The core labor and environmental provision in CAFTA that each country must merely enforce its own law is a double standard. This standard is not used anywhere else in CAFTA, whether as to intellectual property, tariff levels, or subsidies.

``Enforce your own laws'' is a ticket to a race to the bottom. Such an approach is harmful all around for the inability of workers to earn enough, for we in the middle class so badly lacking in and needed by Central American countries, for American workers who resist competition based on suppression of workers in other countries and for our companies and our workers who need middle classes in other countries to purchase the goods and services that we produce.

CAFTA is a step backwards also from present trade agreements. The Caribbean Basin Initiative Standard states in determining whether to designate any country a benefit country under CPI, the President shall take into account ``whether or not such country has taken or is taking steps to afford workers in that country, including any designated zone in that country, internationally recognized rights.''

The GSP, Generalized System of Preference, standard is this: the President shall designate a country, a GSP beneficiary country if ``such country has not taken or is not taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers in that country including any designated zone in that country.''

So CAFTA is a step backward from these standards. The provisions in CAFTA on worker rights as currently negotiated are substantially weaker than current U.S. law and would replace that current law. I will give you an example. In Guatemala over 900 Del Monte banana workers were fired in 1990 for protesting labor conditions. A GSP petition led USTR for the first time ever to self-initiate a worker rights review for Guatemala in October 2000. Guatemala subsequently passed labor reforms in April 2001 which included granting farm workers new rights to strike.

In preparation for CAFTA, however, Guatemala's constitutional courts struck down key parts of the 2001 labor reforms. In August of 2004, the court rescinded the authority of the ministry of labor of that country to impose fines for labor rights violation, a key element of the 2001 agreement. Under CAFTA, the U.S. would have no recourse to challenge that development.

Now, let me go on, if I might, to a next point and that relates to the examples of Morocco and Chile and Singapore because those agreements are often used as examples as to why we should vote for CAFTA. I supported the agreements with Chile, with Morocco, and with Singapore. The situations in each of those countries was very different from Central American countries.

Chile has the international labor standards incorporated in their laws and they enforce them. There is a vibrant labor movement and an active middle class. The same is essentially true in Singapore, anti- labor movements, workers have their right to associate if they want to organize, to form unions; and they have a tradition of a labor movement in Singapore.

Morocco, the question is asked, well, I voted for Morocco, why not CAFTA? And the answer is there are vast differences between the situations. Morocco took steps in the last years before the free trade agreement with them to truly, truly reorganize their labor laws. Also, Morocco has a tradition of a vibrant labor movement in the private sector as well as the public sector. So Central America is very different.

We voted, many of us on the Democratic side, for Morocco, Chile and Singapore; we believe in expanded trade as long as the terms of those of that trade agreement and of those trade agreements are shaped to spread the benefits across the population.

Let me say a word about Central American countries and the deficiencies in their laws, because much has been said of this and much was said today by our new USTR, a former colleague, Rob Portman. Look, USTR has tried to gloss over what the ILO says. They have tried to gloss over what is in the State Department reports themselves. But any objective look confirms that those reports say that the laws of those countries in terms of the basic international standards are defective. And this was spelled out in a letter that was sent by us on April 4 by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), and myself to the acting trade representative, Peter Allgeier.

Mr. Speaker, this letter will be placed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

What the reports show is exemplified in a fairly recent case, and I will refer to it briefly. It relates to port workers in El Salvador. In that case they tried to organize, they tried to be representative, they tried to bring about democratic rights within the workplace. Thirty- four of the workers were fired last December when they were trying to form a union. And not only did the law not require their reinstatement, but only severance pay, which is a cheap bargain for an employer who wants to violate rights.

But a month later, the labor ministry denied the labor union's registration petition since now there were only seven workers left. Others had been fired. El Salvador law requires at least 35 members to form a labor organization, a provision that itself has been criticized by the International Labor Organization.

I just ask everybody to read the letter that we sent to Mr. Allgeier and the attached analysis of laws from the ILO reports and State Department reports. President Bush has correctly talked about freedom and democracy. He has said that everywhere. But what this CAFTA does is to sanction the status quo where there is no democracy in the workplace.

President Bush last month urged a vote for CAFTA because it would bring ``stability and security'' to the region.

I think the opposite is true. If workers are suppressed, it is a step towards insecurity and towards instability. Labor market freedom is a source of security, undercutting insecurity. What is a threat, what is a real threat to undemocratic forces, those who do not believe in them, is democracy in the workplace.

The President likes to quote the writings of Natan Sharansky, who has been minister in Israel until recently. Natan Sharansky says that a test of democracy is whether somebody can arise in the town square and speak his or her mind without punishment. If you use that test to the workplace, most places in Central America, the answer is there is no democracy. If somebody raises their voice too often, they are fired.

Now, let me just say a word about another argument that is used and that is, well, the problem is enforcement and the United States is going to help the nations of Central America with their enforcement. We are going to provide monies so that there is a stronger department of labor, et cetera, et cetera.

Well, today, Rob Portman, our ambassador, outlined a number of proposals for more funding to help CAFTA countries in technical assistance to strengthen enforcement of labor laws. He said the problem is not labor laws; it is enforcement. The correct analysis is there is a deep problem in their laws and a severe problem with the enforcement of flawed laws. But when you

look at what was urged today by Mr. Portman, and I do not question his good faith about it, but I do question the credibility of it because it is the record, not the rhetoric, that really matters. And the record of this administration in providing technical assistance for the strengthening of labor unions in other countries is miserable.

This year, I just give a few examples, this year President Bush proposed crippling cuts to the budget for the International Labor Affairs Bureau known as ILAB. He proposed cutting funding by 87 percent from $94 million to $12 million.

According to the President, the 2006 budget, he quotes, ``returns the agency to its original mission of research, analysis and advocacy.'' Well, what that means is there is not any emphasis on technical assistance.

Also, the President's five budget requests in previous years proposed funding cuts for ILAB of more than 50 percent.

So I do not believe that the answer is simply more money going to agencies in other countries. I think the laws have to be in order. The regulations must not strangle efforts of people to assert their freedom in the labor market, but I do think better enforcement would be useful of good laws. The record of the administration in terms of technical assistance is terribly weak, in fact.

Now, let me discuss another issue that has come up when we discuss CAFTA. Increasingly, this administration has used our trade challenges from China as a reason to vote for CAFTA. This is happening more and more. It is not credible. It is at best boot strap. Look, we have to shape trade policy so that there can be effective competition with China, that is for sure. That relates to currency, and we just a short time ago had, I think, a rather ineffective meeting with the administration on the currency issue.

It also includes trade in apparel and textiles. We have seen a major influx of apparel from China with the end of the quotas. In order to have an effective trade policy, vis-a-vis, China, in the apparel and textile areas, we have to do the following.

Number one, we have to actively use remedies that were written into the agreement with China in its succession to the WTO. We worked hard to get those provisions into the WTO China succession agreement, and the administration has hesitated to use them effectively. They did not effectively anticipate this problem, and when the problem really sprouted, their response initially was very weak.

Second point regarding this: We do need to have and take steps to bring about a strong Caribbean apparel and textile structure, Caribbean including the United States. To do that, one of the steps that is necessary is to have compliance with international core labor standards. That would be a source of strength, not of weakness. It would be trying to compete and compete effectively, rather than trying to compete with China as to who can most suppress worker rights.

In that regard, I do think we ought to look at what is sometimes pointed to, and that is, the Clinton legacy because I have read some articles that have said that those of us who have raised this set of issues about globalization, who have raised this set of issues about shaping trade policy and have applied it to this critical step, vis-a- vis, CAFTA, that those of us who are doing that are taking a step backwards from where the Clinton administration was. The contrary is true. The contrary is really what this is all about.

For example, Jordan. Today, Ambassador Portman, and I am glad to call him ambassador now, he was a colleague, said that the Jordan agreement is not as strong as CAFTA when it comes to core labor standards. That simply is an incorrect analysis of Jordan. Jordan has a clear reference to the core standards: child labor, forced labor, anti-discrimination and the right of workers to associate and to bargain collectively. It has references to those five core labor standards in the Jordan agreement, number one.

Number two, Jordan has a provision to make sure that Jordan cannot slip backwards, cannot move away from that standard. That is not true in CAFTA. Enforce your own laws, it can be present laws or revised laws that are even worse.

Thirdly, as to enforcement, it is not at all correct to say that the provisions in CAFTA, that those provisions are nearly as strong as was negotiated with Jordan. Essentially the Jordan FTA, the U.S.-Jordan FTA said that each country could take the necessary steps to enforce the obligations of the other, and it is true the Bush administration later entered a letter, a side letter, that put some brakes on the ability of the Bush administration to implement the Jordan agreement, but that is not what was negotiated.

What President Clinton did increasingly in his later years was to say to the world, I favor expanded trade, I believe in it, it has to be done in ways that shape so that there is a leveling up and not down. That is language that he used in his speeches. He referred to them at the University of Chicago speech, and that was the flavor of his speech at Davos. I was there when he gave the speech. He spent half of his time talking about the benefits of expanded trade. He also spent the second half saying if those benefits were going to be real and move globalization ahead, there needed to be, he said, a leveling up and not a leveling down.

When people say we cannot impose standards on other countries, and that was said I think it was yesterday or maybe earlier today by the chairman of our committee, I do not understand that. Trade agreements, like any other contract, involve imposition. We are going to have to change laws as a result of trade agreements. That was true under the Uruguay Round agreements. It is true of tariffs. We are going to have to change our laws regarding tariffs.

Now we are not talking about imposing American standards in CAFTA. What we are talking about is placing internationally recognized standards in the declaration of the ILO that every country involved here, Dominican Republic, Central American, U.S., has endorsed putting them into the agreement, in the body of the agreement enforceably with reasonable transition. That is important.

So let it be clear, the opposition to CAFTA, as negotiated, is not being led by those the administration likes to dismiss as in ``protectionists'' or ``isolationists.'' Those shoes do not fit. The opposition leadership involves those of us who have favored expanded trade and have helped to shape and pass trade agreements in the last decade.

For us, CAFTA is an important line in the sand, affecting the future effectiveness of globalization. If the U.S. does not seize the opportunity to shape the rule of trade and competition in CAFTA, it will have chosen simply to be on the receiving end of the consequences, both positive and negative of globalization.

I favor a CAFTA but not this agreement as it stands, and we can quickly fix this agreement by renegotiating CAFTA to include internationally recognized labor standards, with enforcement in a reasonable transition. In doing so, we would advance the interests of U.S. businesses and workers and expand the benefits of globalization beyond the status quo and any privileged minority in any of these countries.

We would take also an important step, and I want to emphasize this, an important step towards reestablishing a bipartisan foundation for trade. That bipartisan foundation has been eroded under this administration, and it is that bipartisan foundation that needs to be reestablished because it is so critical for tackling tough trade issues ahead, for example, in the Doha Round. We cannot tackle these tough issues of agriculture, various parts of agriculture, or of services, including financial services, we cannot tackle them, nontariff barriers, unless there is a solid, nonpartisan, bipartisan foundation. We cannot do it by trying to squeeze out a one vote majority.

Security, economic and political, is best achieved in the region of Central America. By closing the dangerous gap between rich and poor, by development of a real middle class and a larger middle class and by expansion of freedom operating in the workplace and spreading throughout the society, it did, by the way, not only in our country in Poland and so many other places.

I want to close by emphasizing what is at stake, that this security, economic and political, is in the self-interest of our country, of our businesses

and of our workers. We need to address this issue of core labor standards, not only for the benefit of the workers in the other countries, of the development of a so badly needed middle class in those countries, but also because our workers increasingly refuse to compete with countries where the workers are suppressed. That is eroding the support for international trade in this country, and we need to reaffirm its importance by reaffirming some basic principles. That is going to be good, as I said, for our country, for our businesses, and for our workers.

I am not sure of the timetable for CAFTA. What I am sure is as of today, it would not pass. There may be an effort to try to make it pass by all kinds of deals, which those of us who favor expanded trade would never agree to. It may be endeavored to pass through some kinds of deals unrelated to trade, offering this and that, unrelated again to trade. That would be a terrible mistake.

We have an opportunity here to reconfigure CAFTA in a way that would bring about strong bipartisan support and be a foundation for the development of stable relationships within Central America and the Dominican Republic and between them and ourselves.

Also, as I said, we would be able to reestablish the bipartisan foundation that once prevailed for international trade in this institution. Without it, CAFTA, in my judgment, should not and cannot pass, and there is likely trouble in tackling the other issues that need to be addressed boldly, honestly and effectively.

The material I referred to previously I will insert into the Record at this point.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, April 4, 2005.

Hon. Peter Allgeier,

Acting U.S. Trade Representative,

Washington, DC.

Dear Ambassador Allgeier: In recent weeks, advocates for

the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) have made

assertions that the CAFTA countries' laws comply with basic,

internationally-recognized rules that ensure common decency

and fairness to working people. These advocates argue that

the only outstanding issue concerning the rights of workers

in the CAFTA countries is a lack of adequate enforcement of

existing labor laws.

Unfortunately, CAFTA advocates' rhetoric is not supported

by the facts. There are still no fewer than 20 areas in which

the CAFTA countries' labor laws fail to comply with even the

most basic international norms, as documented by the

International Labor Organization (ILO), the U.S. Department

of State and multiple non-governmental organizations.

More than a year ago, in November 2003, a number of us

wrote to you outlining these problems in detail. We had hoped

that doing so might lead to actions to remedy those problems,

or at least to a constructive dialogue about them. However,

the Members who signed that letter have yet to receive any

response to the list of problems documented in that letter--

either from your office or from the countries concerned. In

fact, the labor laws in at least one of the CAFTA countries

have been weakened in recent months.

In light of the fact that Congress may soon be considering

the CAFTA, it is important to move beyond rhetoric to the

facts. We urge you to provide documented information

concerning any amendments CAFTA countries have made to their

laws to address the shortcomings noted in the attached list.

Those shortcomings cannot be overcome with better enforcement

efforts. Even the best enforcement of inadequate laws--

whether relating to intellectual property, services

regulation or technical standards for manufactured products--

cannot yield acceptable results.

We support the right CAFTA for the Central American

countries and the Dominican Republic, just as we have

strongly supported the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI)

programs. These programs have done much to strengthen

economic ties with our friends and neighbors in Central

America and the Caribbean in ways that benefit both the

United States and the region.

However, the CBI programs were built on the dual pillars of

expanded economic opportunity and a strong framework for

trade. In particular, the programs were expressly conditioned

on the countries making progress in achieving basic labor

standards. By contrast, the CAFTA moves backward by not

including even these minimum standards, and using instead a

standard for each country of ``enforce your own laws.''

Ensuring that the CAFTA countries both adopt and effectively

maintain in their laws the most basic standards of decency

and fairness to working people is important to their workers,

their societies, and to U.S. workers. It also is critical to

ensuring strong and sustainable economic growth and promoting

increased standards of living.

We welcome and support all efforts to improve the capacity

of Central American countries to improve the enforcement of

their labor laws. In fact, for the last four years, we have

fought for better funding of such programs and against

massive Administration budget cuts for labor technical

assistance programs--many of these programs eroded-out or

slashed by up to 90 percent in budgets submitted by the

Administration. The Administration's track record gives us

little confidence that the one-time grant of $20 million

included in the FY05 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act

for labor and environmental technical assistance in the CAFTA

countries represents the kind of real and sustained

commitment needed in these areas. Moreover, such efforts on

enforcement are no substitute for getting it right on basic

laws.

Sincerely,

Benjamin L. Cardin,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade.

Xavier Becerra,

Member.

Charles B. Rangel,

Ranking Member.

Sander M. Levin,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, June 13, 2005, at 12:30 p.m., for morning hour debates.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Weiner/ McCotter amendment. We need to boost federal funding to fight the invasive species that are destroying native trees across the United States.

This amendment would provide an additional $19 million to help fight invasive species like the Asian longhorn beetle, the emerald ash borer, and the boll weevil. If you've never heard of these insects, or have never lost a tree in your district to these invaders, count yourself lucky. The emerald ash borer has been simply devastating to ash trees in my district in Southeast Michigan. The borer is native to China and was only discovered in the United States in 2002, but already it has killed more than 7 million ash trees. The emerald ash borer arrived in North America years earlier, so we have a huge job on our hands to contain this insect and stop its spread.

I can't overemphasize how destructive this small green insect is. Once it gets underneath the bark of an ash tree, the borer will kill the tree within a couple years. All species of ash trees are vulnerable. It is sobering to see so many beautiful trees that have stood in neighborhoods for decades become sick and die. It is also extremely costly to homeowners and communities to remove the ash trees and replace them.

By working quickly, we've managed to significantly slow the spread of the emerald ash borer, but people need to understand that every ash tree in the country is at risk if we don't contain this insect now. So far, the infestation has been limited to Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Ontario. To give you some idea of the dimension of the threat, there are 750 million ash trees in Michigan alone, and 7.5 billion ash trees nationwide. We need to make additional resources available now to fight the emerald ash borer, or there will be a much higher price to pay down the road.

I urge the House to support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Superintendent of Oak Park Public Schools, Dr. Alexander Bailey, who will retire June 30, 2005.

Dr. Alexander Bailey's career in education dates back to 1969 when he was a high-school teacher in Philadelphia, PA at Paul Washington High School. In subsequent years, Dr. Bailey continued his education, assumed building level responsibility as a principal, and ultimately was appointed Superintendent of Oak Park Public Schools in 1991.

Under his leadership, Oak Park Public Schools has successfully designed programs and intervention methods to meet the needs of their school population. Programs and interventions such as extended day, the Oak Park Academy, and the Literacy Academy have been critical to advancing the academic achievement of students throughout the District.

Dr. Bailey has been a very active participant in the community served by the School District. For example, Dr. Bailey was instrumental in developing the Oak Park Business Education Alliance. The Oak Park Business Education Alliance is a non-profit organization designed to build a relationship between the business community and the school district. To date, the Oak Park Business Education Alliance has provided countless volunteers for the district, over $100,000 in scholarship monies to Oak Park students, and has provided many career development opportunities in collaboration with local businesses.

In his 36 years of service, he has been a truly committed and effective educator. Dr. Bailey dedicated his life to ensuring that students receive a fair and equitable education. He is indeed an outstanding public servant. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work on issues of common interest with Dr. Bailey and have always appreciated his frank and forthcoming advice based on his active experiences in the school and community. One could always count on Dr. Bailey to clearly articulate the challenges faced by our school system as well as the real impact of public policy decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Alexander Bailey on his years of service and in wishing him good health and happiness in the next phase of his life.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey Amendment. This amendment provides badly needed funding for veterans health care, and represents the minimum necessary to maintain the current level of services.

While the increase in veterans health care funding in the underlying Military Quality of Life and Veterans Appropriations bill is welcome, it is also inadequate. The underlying bill fails to maintain the level of health care provided to our veterans at time when demand for those services is on the rise. The Obey Amendment corrects this by providing an additional $2.6 billion to ensure that all our veterans receive the health care they have earned and that they deserve.

I am disappointed that the President has failed to provide leadership on this issue. His request for less than a 1 percent increase for VA health care services was completely inadequate to meet the needs of our veterans. Furthermore, for the third straight year, the President proposed doubling prescription drug co-pays to $15 and charging a $250 enrollment fee to many of our veterans. Fortunately, the Appropriations Committee has rejected placing this unfair burden on our Nation's veterans and did not impose these new fees.

I urge the Majority to allow a vote on the Obey Amendment and let the House complete the work of writing a bill that honors our veterans by providing the necessary health care resources. This is the very least we can do for the men and women who have given so much in the service of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

The American people need and want a carefully crafted stem cell research policy that allows us to seek scientific breakthroughs.

We do not have such a policy today. The stem cell policy established by President Bush is severely restrictive and arbitrary. The National Institutes of Health has reported that of the 78 stem cell lines promised by President Bush, only 22 lines meet the President's criteria for use. A number of those lines have developed genetic mutations which will make research on them useless. The vast majority of the remaining usable lines are in other countries that have shown little interest in making them available to U.S. researchers. As a result, our researchers are falling behind their counterparts in other countries, and our citizens are watching their hopes for cures within their lifetimes slip away.

What is at stake are potential cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and cancer.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act expands the number of stem cell lines that are available for federally funded research. The bill also implements strong ethical requirements on stem cell lines that would be eligible for federally funded research.

This is an issue that can impact families across America, crossing all lines of income, political persuasion or religious affiliation. Furthermore, delay in effectively resolving this issue could for countless Americans be a matter of basic health or indeed life. Keeping in mind the essential federal role in critical basic health research, I believe that it is essential that we support this bill so our country can continue in the lead in exploring the frontiers of science and medicine.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and all of the members on the committee who have worked hard on this bill to make sure that it is targeted in the right direction and that it will be, indeed, effective.

We have an immense counterfeiting problem in this country. A lot of it occurs overseas outside of our shores, but a lot of it occurs right here in the United States. We need to do more about what is going on overseas. I heard on the radio coming in this morning that they are selling in China a counterfeit DVD of the new ``Star Wars'' movie, and people here in the United States are waiting in line to get into the theater.

Here in the U.S. the counterfeiting problem has grown, and that was the inspiration for this bill. It has struck manufacturing in many respects. It has surely hurt the automobile industry, including the auto parts industry. Some estimates are that counterfeiting has cost the automotive parts industry over $12 billion in the last year. This is a time when that industry, as so many other parts of manufacturing, are having an immense challenge. They face an unlevel playing field. There is much talk in trade and competition about the need to level it, and there is nothing that rigs a field more than counterfeiting. That is the ultimate rigging.

This bill is an effort to get at this problem, to increase the sanctions, to increase the ability of law enforcement to crack down.

Mr. Speaker, I hope there is unanimous support for this bill. There is surely bipartisan support. Again, we have been glad to work with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and others on this, and we salute the Committee on the Judiciary, the majority and the minority, for taking this issue seriously and working out any problems and placing this bill on a path where it could be brought up today and, we hope, supported across the board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of H.R. 1499. This bill is supported by my Democratic colleagues. We acknowledge fully the work of our military personnel who continue to perform for our Nation. We honor their bravery and their sacrifice. Therefore, it goes without saying that we endorse this effort by this Congress to make it possible for these men and women to take advantage of every tax benefit

that is available to them, including saving for their retirement.

H.R. 1499, as my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), has said, would allow our servicemen and -women to treat their compensation, received while serving in combat, as taxable income in order to help them meet the income eligibility retirement for making contributions to an individual retirement account.

At a recent hearing of our committee, two of our five witnesses highlighted the large shortfall in retirement savings many of our workers in this country face. I am sure that many members of the military fall within this group. This bill is a small step in the right direction of closing that gap.

Other larger steps need to be taken. For example, Democratic Members of this Congress are hopeful that we can work with our Republican colleagues to preserve another tax benefit that may be of even greater help to many military families. A provision in current law would permit military families to treat combat pay as taxable compensation for purposes of claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit. This provision is set to expire at the end of this year.

The EITC is a refundable credit many low- and middle-income taxpayers can claim when they file their Federal tax returns. Eligible families may claim a portion of their credit ratably during the year. The EITC helps to relieve the Federal tax burden on many families who are working full-time yet find themselves at or below the poverty level.

We had hoped that this provision could be included as part of the bill before us today to further help military families. However, we were assured that this provision will be taken up later in the year, and we will continue to press for the extension of this provision before it expires.

Also let me finish by expressing my hope and the hope of so many on my side of the aisle that this Congress and the administration will meet their responsibilities to our veterans on health, on re- employment, and so many other major needs of those in the military and the veterans of the United States of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) for his leadership on this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey amendment. Three weeks ago, by a bare three-vote margin, the House of Representatives approved the Republican budget. Today, we're dealing with the consequences of that vote and the majority's misguided priorities. The budget that was agreed to contained more than $100 billion in additional cuts--the vast majority of which disproportionately benefit the very richest individuals in this country. At the same time, the budget calls for billions of dollars in spending cuts, nearly all of which were not specified.

Well, the chickens have come home to roost. The bill before the House contains a $241 million cut in Clean Water funding, a reduction of 22 percent. This cut comes on top of the Clean Water funding reductions that were approved last year.

There was a time during the 1970s and 1980s when the Federal Government provided most of the funding to upgrade water treatment plants and improve sewer infrastructure around this country. Today, there is really only one Federal program left to help communities improve sewer infrastructure to keep pollution out of our lakes, rivers and streams, and that's the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Program.

Let me tell you what this program has done in my district. In the mid-1990s, fourteen communities in my district were confronted with the difficult necessity of upgrading the Twelve Towns Drain. The problem was that whenever there was a significant storm in Southeastern Michigan, the Drain would quickly overflow and spill millions of gallons of partially treated sewage into the Clinton River. The result was deteriorating water quality in the Clinton River and beach closures at the River's terminus in Lake St. Clair.

The solution was to expand the retention basin to prevent the sewage overflows, but the cost was enormous: $130 million.

The Twelve Towns Drain improvements could not have been accomplished without the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The communities involved with this project borrowed more than $100 million from the revolving fund. Giving these communities the ability to borrow the needed money at below-market interest rates is the least the Federal government could do, and that's what the State Revolving Fund makes possible. Thanks to the Revolving Loan Program, this massive water infrastructure effort will be completed later this year. This is an example of the kind of water quality work that will be sacrificed unless we approve this amendment.

Earlier this week, I received a letter from the Director of the Michigan Department on Environmental Quality. This is what he says: ``Discharges from aging and failing sewerage systems, urban storm water, and other sources continue to pose serious threats to Michigan's lakes, rivers, and estuaries, endangering our public health, tourism, and recreation areas.'' He goes on to say that the proposed State Revolving Fund cuts ``will likely severely impede the amount of water infrastructure projects that can be funded in the state of Michigan.''

There isn't a Member of this House who supports polluted waterways or beach closures, but there is a chasm between rhetoric and reality when it comes to providing the needed resources. If this Congress wants to be on the side of rivers, lakes and streams that are drinkable, swimmable and fishable, it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Vote for the Obey amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republican majority has written a budget that uses every penny, every penny of the Social Security surplus. I went back and read what the President said March 22, 2001. ``The budget I set up says the payroll taxes are only going to be spent on one thing, and that is Social Security.'' Once again, the President is not keeping that commitment.

The budget, this budget of yours, raids Social Security in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. That is reform? That is regression. And for every year covered by this budget, every penny comes out of the Social Security surplus, every penny.

Now, it was not many weeks ago the President went to West Virginia. And we all read about it. He went to the bureau that holds the trust fund documents of the Social Security, and he said, ``There is no trust fund, just IOUs.''

I could not disagree with the President more. Those bonds held by the trust fund are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. So the problem is not with Social Security or the trust fund, it is with the fiscal irresponsibility of this administration.

I remember 1993, when many of us joined to put this country on the path of fiscal responsibility. And we faced not deficits, but surpluses, not using Social Security.

But then the Republican majority comes here, and the Bush administration, and they push through a number of measures, including the irresponsible tax cuts, with the results that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has just indicated. And we warned you, more red ink. And you did not listen.

So last year, we have a deficit of $412 billion. But if you do not include Social Security, it is $567 billion. That is reform?

This same lack of fiscal discipline will result in an even larger deficit this year. This has to stop. It has to stop. And we can do that tonight.

I urge the House to reject this irresponsible budget, defeat the previous question and demand a budget that does not raid the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in commemorating the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

This past Sunday, April 24th, marked 90 years since the beginning to one of history's dark chapters. On that day in 1915, the government of the Ottoman Empire began a brutal and systematic campaign of genocide against the Armenian people. It started with the execution of some 300 Armenian leaders, professionals and intellectuals. By 1923, over 1.5 million Armenians had been killed, and another 500,000 had been deported.

The Ottoman Empire claimed that it was acting to suppress civil unrest among Armenians during World War I. The absurdity of this justification for a reign of terror was pointed out at the time by no less credible a witness than our own Ambassador to the Empire, Henry Morganthau. His report to Washington described the Ottoman campaign as one of ``race extermination.''

The almost unimaginable pain and suffering endured by the Armenian people has been compounded since by the refusal of the Ottoman Empire and now the government of Turkey to acknowledge that the Genocide ever even occurred. Generations of Turks have been raised to deny this atrocity, perpetuating resentments and hostilities. By trying to defend the indefensible, the government of Turkey has denied the Armenian people, as well as its own people the chance to begin the process of healing these wounds.

Mr. Speaker, 90 years is far, far too long for a people to wait for an acknowledgment of the crimes committed against them. That is why I am proud to support the resolution that will be introduced in the coming days remembering the victims and honoring the survivors of the Armenian Genocide. This resolution will appropriately recognize these acts for what they were. Only with a common understanding of this dark period can we move forward and work to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

While we mark the loss and pain of the Armenian people every April 24th, it is my fervent hope that some day soon, it will no longer be necessary to urge the recognition of these terrible events as genocide. I am particularly disappointed that the President has once again failed to lead on this issue. Once again, President Bush's statement this weekend studiously avoided proper recognition of this tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all my colleagues take the time to reflect on this anniversary, and that we renew our commitment to the victims of the Armenian Genocide and to each other to never allow such human suffering to occur again.

Madam Chairman, if ever there was a time when this country needed a smart, forward-looking energy strategy, this is it. Energy prices throughout the country are close to record highs. Consumers in my State are struggling with soaring gasoline costs. The price of gasoline in Michigan today is 36 cents a gallon higher than it was just 1 year ago.

Steep increases in the price of natural gas have resulted in skyrocketing increases in consumers' home heating bills over the past few winters.

So what is the response of the House of Representatives? The Leadership of the House has brought a bill to the Floor that will do little or nothing to reign in energy prices. This is virtually the same bill that the Senate rejected 2 years ago. According to the Bush administration's own Energy Information Administration, the policies contained in this legislation will have a negligible effect on energy production, consumption, imports and prices.

Instead of bringing us a comprehensive energy bill that brings down gas prices and encourages greater U.S. energy independence, the bill before the House is little more than a grab-bag of special interest giveaways. For example, the tax title of this legislation contains just over $8 billion worth of tax incentives. Only about 6 percent of these go to energy efficiency, renewable energy or conservation. Nearly all of the $8 billion goes to the oil, gas and nuclear industries, as well as electric utilities.

With oil and gas prices--to say nothing of energy industry profits-- near record levels, why are we extending these additional subsidies? Just the other day, President Bush said that ``with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives.'' Yet this bill is chock-full of these unneeded incentives. There's $3.3 billion in oil and gas production tax incentives, plus a number of ``royalty holiday'' provisions for energy extraction on public lands. It's easy to see how this legislation is good for the bottom lines of oil and gas companies, but it's consumers that need our help today.

I know that the proponents of this legislation have been saying that opening up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling will help bring down gas prices. This simply is not the case. We have no idea how much oil lies beneath the Refuge. The New York Times reported in February that the ``major oil companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there.

``Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America's needs.''

The crusade to drill in the Refuge is a distraction. Even if there is extractable oil there, it would take nearly a decade to bring the energy to market.

This country badly needs a balanced energy policy. We can't drill our way to energy security. We need a balance between energy production, on the one hand, and greater use of renewable sources of energy and conservation on the other. The bill before the House today doesn't even pretend to seek balance, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Oakland Community College on their 40 years of educational excellence.

When the voters of Oakland County voted to establish the Oakland Community College District on June 8, 1964, they not only approved the establishment of a valuable opportunity for thousands of students, but also an institution which would eventually become one of the State of Michigan's largest educational facilities. And, with 888 full-time employees, OCC is one of the County's largest employers.

When the college opened, a record 3,860 students enrolled to take classes. Today, annual enrollment reaches 74,000 and some 700,000 students have received a world-class education at OCC since it opened.

As the largest community college in the state of Michigan, and 14th largest in the nation, OCC has attracted students from over 80 countries.

Oakland Community College is certainly a home-town institution with more than 11 percent of Oakland County's high school graduates attending OCC. The college also boasts the largest freshman class in the entire state. And with campuses throughout Oakland County, many of which I have had the pleasure to represent at one time or another, this institution increasingly became accessible to students. I worked very hard years ago with an active group of citizens and Board members to open campuses in South Oakland County. Today, the Southfield and Royal Oak Campuses are among the two largest in the County.

OCC is also home to the CREST Program. The CREST or Combined Regional Emergency Service Training Facility is a 22-acre site which is the only emergency-response training center in the Midwest designed for the combined training of police, fire and emergency medical technicians in ``real-life'' scenarios.

Mr. Speaker, on May 5th Oakland Community College will celebrate its 40th anniversary at a dinner to raise money for its scholarship endowments. I ask you and my colleagues to join me in saluting a major community asset, Oakland Community College, as it celebrates its past and focuses on the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the City of Madison Heights, Michigan, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary of its incorporation as a city.

On January 17, 1955, the residents of the east side of Royal Oak Township voted for the incorporation of the City of Madison Heights and elected nine commissioners to draft a charter for the new city. The Charter Commission drafted its first charter within six months of incorporation. The draft charter was presented to the citizens at a June 6th election and was defeated. A Revised Charter was again presented to the citizens on December 6, 1955, and it was approved, becoming the tenth city government in South Oakland County. At that time, the 7\1/4\ square-mile City was the second largest in South Oakland County. Madison Heights ranked as fifth-highest populated City in South Oakland County. The first City Hall was located at 26305 John R Road, the former township offices. On April 5, 1963, a new municipal building was constructed which is on the present location at 300 West Thirteen Mile Road.

The City of Madison Heights was named a ``High Tech Hot Spot'' by Detroiter Magazine. Nestled in the heart of Automation Alley, the newest technology cluster in the United States, Madison Heights offers lifestyle and economic benefits to its residents. There are more than 1,300 commercial and industrial businesses and services within the City and the City is proud to have a majority of small businesses, as well as more than 100 major companies within its borders.

The Madison Heights City motto is ``The City of Progress'' and it's well deserved. Over 31,000 people call Madison Heights home and enjoy the many benefits of living in a full-service and forward-thinking community. The city leadership has been central to providing growth as well as maintaining a sense of community.

As the city of Madison Heights celebrates this auspicious occasion, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating its citizens as they celebrate the past and focus on the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bankruptcy bill before the House.

This legislation has two fundamental flaws. The first problem is that the bill does not distinguish between those individuals who abuse their credit and then seek to wipe the slate clean through Chapter 7, and those who enter bankruptcy as the result of a costly medical emergency or after one of the breadwinners in a family loses their job. We need to make a distinction between a family who is struggling to pay for a medical operation for a child and a person who maxes out their credit cards on a shopping spree at the mall. This bill does not do so.

A recent Harvard University study underscores the fact that the bankruptcy bill's impact will extend well beyond cracking down on people who abuse credit. The study looked at 1771 bankruptcy filers in five states. The results were striking: Half of the people in the study said that illness or medical bills drove them into bankruptcy. Most of these people actually had some health insurance; but high co-payments, deductibles, exclusions from coverages left them liable for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs when serious illness struck. Other people in the study suddenly lost their jobs and therefore their health insurance. In many cases, people were let go from their jobs soon after the onset of a debilitating illness, so the medical bills begin to arrive just as the insurance and paychecks disappear.

The second fundamental problem left unaddressed by the bill is the credit card industry's role in the surge of bankruptcy filings in recent years. The industry hands out credit cards like popcorn, and then loads on extraordinary penalty fees and higher interest rates after a payment is late. The result is that even if someone wants to pay off their credit debts, they are unable to do so because of thousands of dollars of punitive fees and penalty interest rates that can run as high as 40 percent. The lending policies of the credit card companies themselves is a major factor in driving consumers into bankruptcy, yet the legislation before the House does nothing to end these abuses.

I include with my statement an article from the March 6 edition of the Washington Post entitled, ``Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors; Senate Nears Action on Bankruptcy Curbs.''

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 6, 2005]

Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors; Senate Nears Action on

Bankruptcy Curbs

(By Kathleen Day and Caroline E. Mayer)

For more than two years, special-education teacher Fatemeh

Hosseini worked a second job to keep up with the $2,000 in

monthly payments she collectively sent to five banks to try

to pay $25,000 in credit card debt.

Even though she had not used the cards to buy anything

more, her debt had nearly doubled to $49,574 by the time the

Sunnyvale, Calif., resident filed for bankruptcy last June.

That is because Hosseini's payments sometimes were tardy,

triggering late fees ranging from $25 to $50 and doubling

interest rates to nearly 30 percent. When the additional

costs pushed her balance over her credit limit, the credit

card companies added more penalties.

``I was really trying hard to make minimum payments,'' said

Hosseini, whose financial problems began in the late 1990s

when her husband left her and their three children. ``All of

my salary was going to the credit card companies, but there

was no change in the balances because of that interest and

those penalties.''

Punitive charges--penalty fees and sharply higher interest

rates after a payment is late--compound the problems of many

financially strapped consumers, sometimes making it

impossible for them to dig their way out of debt and pushing

them into bankruptcy.

The Senate is to vote as soon as this week on a bill that

would make it harder for individuals to wipe out debt through

bankruptcy. The Senate last week voted down several

amendments intended to curb excessive fees and other

practices that critics of the industry say are abusive. House

leaders say they will act soon after that, and President Bush

has said he supports the bill.

Bankruptcy experts say that too often, by the time an

individual has filed for bankruptcy or is hauled into court

by creditors, he or she has repaid an amount equal to their

original credit card debt plus double-digit interest, but

still owes hundreds or thousands of dollars because of

penalties.

``How is it that the person who wants to do right ends up

so worse off?'' Cleveland Municipal Judge Robert J. Triozzi

said last fall when he ruled against Discover in the

company's breach-of-contract suit against another struggling

credit cardholder, Ruth M. Owens.

Owens tried for six years to pay off a $1,900 balance on

her Discover card, sending the credit company a total of

$3,492 in monthly payments from 1997 to 2003. Yet her balance

grew to $5,564.28, even though, like Hosseini, she never used

the card to buy anything more. Of that total, over-limit

penalty fees alone were $1,158.

Triozzi denied Discover's claim, calling its attempt to

collect more money from Owens ``unconscionable.''

The bankruptcy measure now being debated in Congress has

been sought for nearly eight years by the credit card

industry. Twice in that time, versions of it have passed both

the House and Senate. Once, President Bill Clinton refused to

sign it, saying it was unfair, and once the House reversed

its vote after Democrats attached an amendment that would

prevent individuals such as anti-abortion protesters from

using bankruptcy as a shield against court-imposed fines.

Credit card companies and most congressional Republicans

say current law needs to be changed to prevent abuse and make

more people repay at least part of their debt. Consumer-

advocacy groups and many Democrats say people who seek

bankruptcy protection do so mostly because they have fallen

on hard times through illness, divorce or job loss. They also

argue that current law has strong provisions that judges can

use to weed out those who abuse the system.

Opponents also argue that the legislation is unfair because

it ignores loopholes that would allow rich debtors to shield

millions of dollars during bankruptcy through expensive homes

and complex trusts, while ignoring the need for more

disclosure to cardholders about rates and fees and curbs on

what they say is irresponsible behavior by the credit card

industry. The Republican majority, along with a few

Democrats, has voted down dozens of proposed amendments to

the bill, including one that would make it easier for the

elderly to protect their homes in bankruptcy and another that

would require credit card companies to tell customers how

much extra interest they would pay over time by making only

minimum payments.

No one knows how many consumers get caught in the spiral of

``negative amortization,'' which is what regulators call it

when a consumer makes payments but balances continue to grow

because of penalty costs. The problem is widespread enough to

worry federal bank regulators, who say nearly all major

credit card issuers engage in the practice.

Two years ago regulators adopted a policy that will require

credit card companies to set monthly minimum payments high

enough to cover penalties and interest and lower some of the

customer's original debt, known as principal, so that if a

consumer makes no new charges and makes monthly minimum

payments, his or her balance will begin to decline.

Banks agreed to the new rules after, in the words of one

top federal regulator, ``some arm-twisting.'' But bank

executives persuaded regulators to allow the higher minimum

payments to be phased in over several years, through 2006,

arguing that many customers are so much in debt that even

slight increases too soon could push many into financial

disaster.

Credit card companies declined to comment on specific cases

or customers for this article, but banking industry

officials, speaking generally, said there is a good reason

for the fees they charge.

``It's to encourage people to pay their bills the way they

said they would in their contract, to encourage good

financial management,'' said Nessa Feddis, senior federal

counsel for the American Bankers Association. ``There has to

be some onus on the cardholder, some responsibility to manage

their finances.''

High fees ``may be extreme cases, but they are not the

trend, not the norm,'' Feddis said.

``Banks are pretty flexible,'' she said. ``If you are a

good customer and have an occasional mishap, they'll waive

the fees, because there's so much competition and it's too

easy to go someplace else.'' Banks are also willing to work

out settlements with people in financial difficulty, she

said, because ``there are still a lot of options even for

people who've been in trouble.''

Many bankruptcy lawyers disagree. James S.K. ``Ike''

Shulman, Hosseini's lawyer, said credit card companies

hounded her and did not live up to several promises to work

with her to cut mounting fees.

Regulators say it is appropriate for lenders to charge

higher-risk debtors a higher interest rate, but that negative

amortization and other practices go too far, posing risks to

the banking system by threatening borrowers' ability to repay

their debts and by being unfair to individuals.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David H. Adams of Norfolk, who is

also the president of the National Conference of Bankruptcy

Judges, said many debtors who get in over their heads ``are

spending money, buying things they shouldn't be buying.''

Even so, he said, ``once you add all these fees on, the

amount of principal being paid is negligible. The fees and

interest and other charges are so high, they may never be

able to pay it off.''

Judges say there is little they can do by the time cases

get to bankruptcy court. Under the law, ``the credit card

company is legally entitled to collect every dollar without a

distinction'' whether the balance is from fees, interest or

principal, said retired U.S. bankruptcy judge Ronald

Barliant, who presided in Chicago. The only question for the

courts is whether the debt is accurate, judges and lawyers

say.

John Rao, staff attorney of the National Consumer Law

Center, one of many consumer groups fighting the bankruptcy

bill, says the plight consumers face was illustrated last

year in a bankruptcy case filed in Northern Virginia.

Manassas resident Josephine McCarthy's Providian Visa bill

increased to $5,357 from $4,888 in two years, even though

McCarthy has used the card for only $218.16 in purchases and

has made monthly payments totaling $3,058. Those payments,

noted U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stephen S. Mitchell in

Alexandria, all went to ``pay finance charges (at a whopping

29.99%), late charges, over-limit fees, bad check fees and

phone payment fees.'' Mitchell allowed the claim ``because

the debtor admitted owing it.'' McCarthy, through her lawyer,

declined to be interviewed.

Alan Elias, a Providian Financial Corp. spokesman, said:

``When consumers sign up for a credit card, they should

understand that it's a loan, no different than their mortgage

payment or their car payment, and it needs to be repaid. And

just like a mortgage payment and a car payment, if you are

late you are assessed a fee.'' The 29.99 percent interest

rate, he said, is the default rate charged to consumers ``who

don't meet their obligation to pay their bills on time''

and is clearly disclosed on account applications.

Feddis, of the banker's association, said the nature of

debt means that interest will often end up being more than

the original principal. ``Anytime you have a loan that's

going to extend for any period of time, the interest is going

to accumulate. Look at a 30-year-mortgage. The interest is

much, much more than the principal.''

Samuel J. Gerdano, executive director of the American

Bankruptcy Institute, a nonpartisan research group, said that

focusing on late fees is ``refusing to look at the elephant

in the room, and that's the massive levels of consumer debt

which is not being paid. People are living right up to the

edge,'' failing to save so when they lose a second job or

overtime, face medical expense or their family breaks up,

they have no money to cope.

``Late fees aren't the cause of debt,'' he said.

Credit card use continues to grow, with an average of 6.3

bank credit cards and 6.3 store credit cards for every

household, according to Cardweb.com Inc., which monitors the

industry. Fifteen years ago, the averages were 3.4 bank

credit cards and 4.1 retail credit cards per household.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the large increase in

cards, there is a ``fee feeding frenzy,'' among credit card

issuers, said Robert McKinley, Cardweb's president and chief

executive. ``The whole mentality has really changed over the

last several years,'' with the industry imposing fees and

increasing interest rates if a single payment is late.

Penalty interest rates usually are about 30 percent, with

some as high as 40 percent, while late fees now often are $39

a month, and over-limit fees, about $35, McKinley said. ``If

you drag that out for a year, it could be very damaging,'' he

said. ``Late and over-limit fees alone can easily rack up

$900 in fees, and a 30 percent interest rate on a $3,000

balance can add another $1,000, so you could go from $2,000

to $5,000 in just one year if you fail to make payments.''

According to R.K. Hammer Investment Bankers, a California

credit card consulting firm, banks collected $14.8 billion in

penalty fees last year, or 10.9 percent of revenue, up from

$10.7 billion, or 9 percent of revenue, in 2002, the first

year the firm began to track penalty fees.

The way the fees are now imposed, ``people would be better

off if they stopped paying'' once they get in over their

heads, said T. Bentley Leonard, a North Carolina bankruptcy

attorney. Once you stop paying, creditors write off the debt

and sell it to a

debt collector. ``They may harass you, but your balance

doesn't keep rising. That's the irony.''