i thank the distinguished gentleman . 
mr. speaker , i rise today to answer my good friend , the chairman of the committee on rules , to simply say the reason why a substitute was not offered is because the bankruptcy code as it now stands addresses the needs of the american people . 
it is interesting that the republicans want to tell us what kind of amendment to offer when we had 35 amendments that would have protected the american people . 
mr. speaker , i am outraged because the bankruptcy bill stabs the american people in the back . 
the reason why i say that is because we have a bankruptcy code that allows for the discretion of the judiciary in the bankruptcy courts to be able to determine whether your case is frivolous . 
but now we have put in place what we call a means test which indicates that hardworking american families , middle-class families who have faced catastrophic illnesses , divorce , loss of job in this horrible economy , these individuals will be barred from entering the bankruptcy court because they do not meet the irs guidelines . 
who wants to meet the irs guidelines ? 
we already know what the internal revenue service will do to you . 
all we wanted to do is to give more leeway . 
if you listen to professor elizabeth warren of harvard university , she will tell you that the time for the bankruptcy bill has long passed . 
it is an 8-year-old bill that was written more than 8 years ago . 
now we find that more consumer bankruptcies have declined . 
there are less consumer bankruptcies . 
but if you look at what the president is going to do with social security and take so much money out of our economy and break the american people , you are going to see an upsurge . 
but what you are going to see is the american people , because of this bankruptcy bill , losing their house , pulling their children out of school , not being able to make ends meet . 
it is an outrage . 
this rule should be defeated because the american people are being stabbed in the back . 
it is a disgrace . 
i ask for a `` no '' vote on the rule . 
