Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiries

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

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

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

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

Mr. GINGREY

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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.