Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 64 (Wednesday, May 5, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 64 (Wednesday, May 5, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2644-H2654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 833, BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT OF 1999

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 158 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 158

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 833) to amend title 11 of the United States
Code, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. Points of order against
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section
302 or section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
the amendments printed in the report are waived. The chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a
request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce
to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 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.
H. Res. 158 is a fair, structured rule providing 1 hour of general
debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for
failure to comply with section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act
which prohibits consideration of legislation which exceeds a
committee's allocation of new spending authority, or section 311 of the
Congressional Budget Act which prohibits consideration of legislation
that would cause the total level of new budget authority or outlays in
the most recent budget resolution to be exceeded or cause revenues to
be less.

{time} 1100

The rule provides that it shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The rule waives all points of
order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and
amendments thereto.
The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. The rule
provides that amendments made in order may be offered only in the order
printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in
the report. These amendments shall be considered as read and be
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and opponent. They shall not be subject to
amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting
time to 5 minutes on a proposed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 833, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, will
fundamentally reform the existing bankruptcy system into a needs-based
system. I am proud of the tireless efforts of the House Committee on
the Judiciary to address this issue and ensure that our bankruptcy laws
operate fairly, efficiently, and free of abuse.
This should not be a controversial issue because Congress has spoken
on this issue before. Both the House and the Senate overwhelmingly
approved bankruptcy reform legislation last year on a bipartisan basis.
Although the measure fell short in the waning days of the 105th
Congress because the Senate failed to act on the conference report, the
House voted by a veto-proof majority of 300 to 125 to pass very similar
legislation last year.
There is great need for this bill now. A record 1.42 million personal
bankruptcy filings were recorded in 1998. This is a stunning increase
of 500 percent since 1980. Despite an unprecedented time of economic
prosperity, unemployment, and rising disposable income, personal
bankruptcies are rising, costing over $40 billion in the past year.
Without serious reform of our bankruptcy laws, these trends promise
to grow each year, costing businesses and consumers even more in the
form of losses and higher costs of credit.
As we debate and vote today, we should keep in mind two important
tenets of bankruptcy reform.
First, the bankruptcy system should provide the amount of debt relief
needed that an individual needs, no more and no less. Second,
bankruptcy should be a last resort and not a first response to a
financial crisis.
As a businessman with over 16 years' experience in the private sector
and because of many conversations that I have had with leaders,
consumers and others who are associated with loan defaults, I am well
aware of the problems that are associated with the abuse of our
bankruptcy laws.
A record 1.4 million personal bankruptcies were filed last year. That
is one out of every 75 households in America. The debts that remained
unpaid as a result of those bankruptcies each year cost American
families that do pay their bills on time $550 a year in the form of
higher cost for credit, goods and services.
Unfortunately, much of the debt that was eventually passed on to the
consumers last year was debt that bankruptcy filers could have avoided
by

[[Page H2645]]

simply repaying those bills because they had the ability. That is why
it is so important to pass real bankruptcy reform.
Opponents of this bill have tried to divert the discussion away from
the merits of the bill and claim that it would make it more difficult
for divorced women to obtain child support and alimony payments.
However, nothing could be further from the truth. This bankruptcy
reform protects the financial security of women and children by giving
them a higher priority than under current law.
The legislation closes loopholes that allow some debtors to use the
current system to delay or even evade child support and alimony
payments. The bill recognizes that no obligation is more important than
that of a parent to his or her children.
Currently, child support payments are the seventh priority, behind
such things as attorney's fees. Make no mistake about this, H.R. 833
puts women and children first, at the head of the list. We should
provide greater protection to families who are owed child support, and
this bill will do just that.
The bill also address other problems, including needs-based
bankruptcy. The heart of this legislation is a needs-based formula that
separates filers into Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 based upon their ability
to pay. While many families may face job loss, divorce or medical
bills, and therefore legitimately need the protection provided by the
Bankruptcy Code, research has shown that some Chapter 7 filers actually
have the capacity to repay some of what they owe.
The formula directs into Chapter 13 those filers who earn more than
the national median income which is roughly $51,000 for a family of
four, if they can pay all secured debt and at least 20 percent of
unsecured non-priority debt.
This bill recognizes the need for consumer education and protection.
It includes education provisions that will ensure that debtors are made
aware of their options before they file for bankruptcy, including
alternatives to bankruptcy such as credit counseling. And the bill
cracks down on ``bankruptcy mills,'' law firms and other entities that
push debtors into bankruptcy without fully explaining the consequences.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 833, I am pleased
that this legislation has come to the floor in a timely manner.
However, given the fact that this bill as well as the Defense
Supplemental are the only major pieces of business this week, I do
think that the Republican leadership should have afforded more Members
the opportunity to offer amendments to this important and far-reaching
legislation.
Madam Speaker, reform of the bankruptcy system in this country is
indeed a major initiative. In this decade, the number of personal
bankruptcy filings has skyrocketed, more than doubling in the past 8
years and increasing by an astonishing 400 percent since 1980.
Last year, more than 1.43 million Americans filed for personal
bankruptcy. This is indeed an alarming trend, and it is especially
alarming in light of the fact that the U.S. economy is booming and
personal incomes are rising.
While there are certainly more individuals among these numbers who
are seeking Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief as a last resort, there are
also many in this number who are using the bankruptcy system to escape
debts they are capable of paying.
As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said yesterday in the
Committee on Rules, this bill is an attempt to achieve an appropriate
balance between debtor and creditor rights. By establishing needs-based
bankruptcy standards, this legislation seeks to ensure that those who
need a fresh start will be given one but that those consumers who can
afford to repay their debts from future income must do so.
While similar legislation was passed overwhelmingly by the House last
year, there is still controversy surrounding this bill. The Committee
on the Judiciary held 5 days of hearings and markup on this bill and
took 28 recorded votes on amendments. In addition, 37 amendments were
filed with the Committee on Rules.
Yet, this rule only makes in order 11 amendments, including a
manager's amendment and an amendment in the nature of a substitute to
be offered by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The Nadler substitute retains much of the work of the committee but
differs significantly from H.R. 833 by granting local judicial
discretion in the determination about whether a debtor appropriately
belongs in Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The Nadler substitute
eliminates the provisions in the committee bill which establish new
grounds for making credit card debt non-dischargeable and offers
significantly different child support and alimony payment provisions.
Now, before my Republican colleagues jump in and say that this rule
provide for 4 and \1/2\ hours of debate on amendments, including 1 hour
on the Nadler substitute, as well as 1 hour of general debate in
addition to this hour on the rule, let me note for the record two of
the amendments which the Republican majority voted to exclude from
consideration: first, an amendment offered by the subcommittee ranking
member which would have significantly altered the bill's treatment of
child support payments; and, second, an amendment by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary, relating to claims on credit card debt in those cases where
the debtor had not been informed of the terms of the account agreement.
These are not insignificant amendments, Madam Speaker, and I believe
the House should have the opportunity to discuss these issues. As such,
I would urge Members to vote no on the previous question so that these
two amendments might be added to the list of amendments that the House
will consider today. I cannot buy the argument that just because the
House will have 6 hours and some odd minutes of debate on this bill, we
do not have time to consider additional amendments.
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has noted that
the bill does contain a provision which would allow States to opt out
of the homestead exemption cap imposed by the bill. I realize this is a
matter of some controversy; but, for the State of Texas, this is an
issue of major and fundamental importance. This matter is far from
resolved, but I am pleased that two amendments relating to the
effective date of the cap, which were imposed by my colleague from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen), were included in the manager's amendment.
Madam Speaker, while it is important that the House proceed to the
consideration of this important legislative proposal early in the
session, it is still early enough for the House to have a complete
debate on this matter. I am a strong supporter of this bill, as are
many of my colleagues here in this body. Consideration of a few
additional amendments would have only added time to this debate, time
which would have given the House the opportunity to fully air the
issues that affect consumers across the country.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for
yielding me this time.
I rise in support of this fair and balanced rule, which governs
consideration of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999.
This rule is very generous to the minority. Madam Speaker, out of 11
amendments the House will have the opportunity to debate and vote upon
today, seven are offered by Democrats, one is bipartisan, and only
three are offered by Republicans. All told, the House will have 6\1/2\
hours to debate their bill, which is very similar to legislation that
passed the House last year by an overwhelming margin of 300 to 125.
Madam Speaker, bankruptcy law is nothing if not complex, but the
goals of bankruptcy reform are fairly simple and straightforward.
Today, we are seeking to restore the values of personal responsibility
and integrity to an abused bankruptcy system.

[[Page H2646]]

The unfortunate fact is that bankruptcy is no longer a rare
occurrence among many American consumers who today are becoming
dangerously comfortable with the concept of credit and debt.
Last year, more than 1.4 million bankruptcy cases were filed. That is
a 500 percent increase since 1980. And the case load is growing, even
as our country enjoys economic prosperity and low unemployment.
Madam Speaker, we all understand that sometimes unforeseen
circumstances, often out of our control, can lead to the financial ruin
of an individual, a family or a business. Our bankruptcy laws are
designed to help the truly needy, honest citizen when he finds himself
in an impossible situation. We all see a societal good in that. That is
one of the things that makes this Nation great.
However, when intelligent citizens ignore basic common sense by
spending outside of their means, we need to establish a reasonable
level of accountability and demand some personal responsibility to
protect those who have extended credit to them in good faith.
That is not to say that creditors do not have some lessons to make
about poor decision-making and high-risk lending; and there are some
steps we take to urge responsible behavior among creditors.

{time} 1115

Madam Speaker, through this legislation we are asking individuals who
apply for bankruptcy if at all possible to repay their debts to the
extent that they are able. The bill sets up a needs-based mechanism to
determine how much debtors can reasonably be expected to pay.
This needs-based approach, based on current IRS standards,
strengthens existing law to weed out abusers of the system who want all
their debts dismissed but actually have the means to pay some of them.
These individuals will be directed to a repayment plan so their
creditors can collect at least some of what they are owed.
This is a fair approach that will not excuse reckless spending but
offers needed relief for those who are in a hopeless situation and need
a fresh start to get back on their feet. And I am happy to say that the
bill puts alimony and child support at the very top of the list. This
bill recognizes that a parent's financial responsibility to his or her
child takes priority above all other obligations, and I am pleased to
report that Ohio's Attorney General supports the child support
provisions of the bill, as do many other attorneys general throughout
this Nation who are on the front lines, in the trenches, of child
support enforcement and collection.
Decreasing the number of bankruptcies in America requires more than
new standards to guide repayments. We also must address the factors
that lead to bad spending decisions in the first place. This act helps
to educate consumers by requiring credit card companies to disclose the
long-term costs of paying only the minimum balance each month.
The bill also directs the Federal Reserve Board to study whether
consumers indeed have adequate information about the consequences of
borrowing beyond their means. Further, the bill will direct the General
Accounting Office to examine whether extending credit to college
students is contributing to a large extent to the bankruptcy rate.
By combining these consumer protections with requirements that demand
personal responsibility, the Bankruptcy Reform Act strikes a balance
between the rights of debtors and creditors. At the same time this bill
keeps the safety net in place for honest individuals who are in a hole
of debt that they cannot climb out of without a helping hand.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule and the
underlying legislation which will restore some integrity to our
bankruptcy laws.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Those
who support the so-called means test principle and other provisions of
this bill say they wish to end the use of the Bankruptcy Code as a
financial planning tool for those who would scam the system. Yet they
have denied the House the opportunity to end once and for all the most
flagrant and notorious abuse of the Bankruptcy Code.
The bill would subject middle-income debtors to elaborate new
restrictions. Yet it leaves in place a loophole that allows wealthy
debtors to buy expensive homes in one of the handful of States such as
Texas or Florida with an unlimited homestead exemption, declare
bankruptcy and continue to enjoy a life of luxury while their creditors
get little or nothing. If we are truly serious about curtailing abuse
of the bankruptcy system, this is the place to start:
With the owner of the failed Ohio S&L who paid off only a fraction of
$300 million in bankruptcy claims while keeping his multimillion dollar
ranch in Florida. Or with the convicted Wall Street financier who filed
bankruptcy while owing billions of dollars in debts and fines but still
kept his $3 million beach front mansion. Or the movie actor, Burt
Reynolds, who was more than $10 million in debt but kept his $2.5
million home while his creditors received 20 cents on the dollar.
Now, I do not suggest that these abuses happen every day. But every
time they occur, they bring the fairness and rationality of the
bankruptcy system into disrepute. That is why the National Bankruptcy
Review Commission urged Congress to place a uniform national cap on the
amount of equity that could be claimed under the homestead exemption.
At subcommittee I offered an amendment to cap the exemption at
$250,000. My amendment was adopted by an overwhelming vote but it was
not allowed to stand. When the full committee took up the bill, the
provision was amended to permit individual States to opt out, in effect
returning us to the current law.
Supporters of the opt-out provision argued that a Federal cap on the
homestead exemption would violate States rights. This is certainly
ironic, Madam Speaker, because by setting the cap at $250,000, we had
expressly left in place the lower thresholds in effect in every one of
the 45 States that have established a cap of their own. In other words,
those 45 States, in effect, will be subsidizing deadbeats in the
remaining five States if this bill passes.
To say the Congress should set no cap at all is to say we must stand
by while a handful of States undermine the uniform enforcement of a
Federal statutory scheme. That is like legislating a Federal income tax
and leaving it to the State legislatures to determine what will count
as a business deduction.
By refusing to fix this problem, the authors of this bill have
revealed the double standards by which they have gone about these so-
called reforms. They ask us to perpetuate the current inequities in the
treatment of debtors who live in different States, and they ask us to
create new inequities in the treatment of debtors of different
financial means.
This is unfair, Madam Speaker, and it is poor public policy. I urge
my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, despite some of the rhetoric on the other side of the
aisle, H.R. 833 is a pro-consumer piece of legislation. That is, pro-
responsible consumer. H.R. 833 protects individuals and businesses from
having to pick up the tab for irresponsible debtors, some of whom are
capable of paying off a significant portion of their debts.
This legislation establishes a clear causal link between a debtor's
ability to pay and the availability of Chapter 7 bankruptcy remedies.
In other words, it makes those who can afford to pay their debts pay.
There are, of course, some people who truly have a legitimate need to
declare bankruptcy. At times, hardworking people come up against
extraordinary circumstances. Family illness, disability, or the loss of
spouse may necessitate the need to seek relief. H.R. 833 protects these
individuals.
Too frequently, however, people who have the financial ability or
earnings potential to repay their debts are seeking an easy way out.
While this may

[[Page H2647]]

prove convenient for the debtor, it is not fair to their friends and
neighbors who are stuck with their bills. The average American family
pays $550 per year in a bad debt tax in the form of higher prices and
increased interest rates to cover the economic cost associated with
excessive bankruptcy filings.
I am so concerned about the shifting of financial obligations from
neighbor to neighbor that I introduced language at the subcommittee
level that will relieve at least some of the burden for the 42 million
Americans who live in our Nation's cooperatives and condominiums and
homeowner associations. With all too much regularity, bankrupt
individuals have been abandoning their homes to avoid paying their
share of community assessments. Vacant or occupied, the unit continues
to receive a wide spectrum of benefits that enhance the inherent value
of the property while neighbors are left to pick up the tab through an
increase in association fees.
Nationally, consumer bankruptcies reached a record 1.4 million
filings in 1997 and are projected to be even higher this year. What
makes these numbers significant and particularly alarming is the fact
that this trend began in 1994, during a time of solid economic growth,
low inflation and low unemployment.
The primary culprit for this dramatic increase is a system that
allows consumers to evade personal responsibility for their debts too
easily. People who make above the national median income and can afford
to pay off a significant portion of their debt should not be allowed to
file under Chapter 7 bankruptcy. This bill puts those individuals where
they belong, in Chapter 13, where they will be given a generous 5 years
to establish a fair repayment plan and get their financial house in
order.
Opponents of H.R. 833 are offering a substitute today that will do
little or nothing to curb the abuses prevalent in our current system.
For instance, the substitute would strike from the bill key provisions
that prevent debtors from loading up on credit card debt just before
declaring bankruptcy and obtaining a complete discharge of that debt
upon filing. These opponents actually think that individuals should not
be held responsible for taking huge cash advances and purchasing luxury
goods just prior to filing bankruptcy. Unfortunately, this practice has
become far too common as more and more individuals have begun using
bankruptcy as a financial planning tool.
Madam Speaker, I fully support H.R. 833 and urge my colleagues to do
the same and vote ``yes'' for fair and balanced bankruptcy reform.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule.
Although for the second Congress in a row, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, has
promised to seek the most open rule possible, this certainly is not it.
Of the 37 amendments filed, only 11 were made in order. Of those only
four, including the Hyde-Conyers bipartisan amendment, can be said to
come from Members who have expressed problems with the bill. Four out
of 37.
We will not have a real debate on consumer protection or on requiring
creditor as well as debtor responsibility because the Delahunt-LaFalce
amendment was not made in order. We will not have a real debate on
child and family support--which this bill murders--because my
amendment, which was written with the help of the National Women's Law
Center and which would have placed debts to the family higher than
debts to the government, and would have prevented the government from
blocking a Chapter 13 reorganization plan if it provided for payments
to family and other creditors but not payment in full in arrears to the
government, was not made in order.
We cannot debate those issues. We will not be allowed to vote on
whether people who terrorize and murder women and their doctors should
be allowed to discharge their civil debts as a result of such terrorist
actions. Their civil penalties, should they be able to discharge their
penalties in bankruptcy? We had such an amendment, but evidently clinic
bombers and people who harass women seeking health care services and
who violate the law to push their political agenda have more influence
at the Committee on Rules than the bipartisan supporters of this
amendment. The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and I had asked
that in a bill which makes drunk boating debts nondischargeable, we
could at least have a vote on making debts of clinic bombers
nondischargeable.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) spoke
of the fact that this bill allows the homestead exemption in essence to
continue, in some States unlimited. I think it is unfair but that is
what the bill does.
But we will not have a vote on my amendment that would have said,
well, if you are going to allow States to have an unlimited homestead
exemption for the rich, how about requiring that you have at least a
limited homestead exemption for the poor? In my own State of New York,
the homestead exemption is $9,500. Try to buy a house for $9,500.

{time} 1130

The Federal homestead exemption is 16,150, not exactly princely, but
we are not going to have a debate or a vote on the amendment that would
have said, ``If you're going to allow millionaires to have unlimited
homestead exemptions in some States, at least require that all States
allow the use of the Federal minimum homestead exemption of $16,000.''
We have to be fair to the rich, but we cannot be fair to the middle
income and the poor.
Madam Speaker, this bill hurts families, it hurts businesses, it will
increase costs to the system, and it is opposed by most of the Nation's
bankruptcy experts.
We will not have a vote on the amendment to stop the provisions of
this bill from killing small businesses. That amendment was not made in
order.
Many small businesses today, Madam Speaker, go bankrupt, they go into
a Chapter 11 reorganization, they are entitled to try to be protected
from their debts for a while while they work things out, and then they
are saved, and they get on with it, they pay their debts, and a
business and jobs are saved.
Some businesses do not make it. They are liquidated.
This bill puts so many new restrictions and burdens on small
businesses, not big businesses, small businesses in bankruptcy
proceedings, that we are told by the Small Business Administration and
by others that it will result in a lot of small businesses that could
have been saved going bankrupt.
We had an amendment in committee defeated on a party line vote, an
amendment in the committee that said that if the judge makes a finding
of fact that imposing those restrictions would cost five or more jobs,
the judge would have the discretion not to have these new restrictions
on the small business so that the jobs could be saved and the business
could be saved. That was voted down. The Committee on Rules thinks we
should not have a chance to debate and vote on that provision on the
floor.
Should tractors and other farm implements in a family farm going
bankrupt, should those tractors and farm implements be saved to help
keep the farm in running order, or must they be surrendered to the
government for payment of back taxes?
Madam Speaker, we are not going to have a vote or a discussion of
that either because, apparently, the Committee on Rules does not think
saving family farms is important, or allowing the farmer in bankruptcy
to keep his tractor, or his hoe, or whatever else it may be.
The government's claim comes first, and to heck with the farmers.
This bill, as I said, hurts families, it hurts small businesses, it
hurts farmers, it hurts child support collectors, it hurts children, it
will increase costs to the system, and it is opposed by most of the
Nation's bankruptcy experts. The administration will veto the bill
unless it is moderated, and we should support the administration's
efforts to negotiate a good bill. That can only

[[Page H2648]]

happen if we deny the sponsors of this bill the supermajority they need
to roll the special interest legislation through unmodified. They have
crafted this rule to avoid the really tough issues, so we must insist
that those issues be considered today by rejecting the previous
question.
If the previous question is rejected, the minority will ask the two
amendments be made in order, one which will protect child and spousal
support, which the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and I had
hoped to offer, and one which would hold credit card lenders
accountable and put an end to some of the most abusive practices which
would have been offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). We must defeat
the previous question or we will not have an opportunity to consider
placing some balance in this bill.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question, on the
rule and on the bill.
Madam Speaker, this rule is part of a pattern of silencing debate, of
rushing through a bad bill with no serious consideration, a bill which
will have implications for many, many years, and this rule deserves to
be defeated.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), who is subcommittee chairman
of the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House.
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 158, a fair,
structured rule for consideration of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999.
The Committee on Rules has done its best to accommodate Members who
filed amendments with the committee. As has been stated, we have been
more than fair in permitting seven Democrat amendments, three
Republican amendments and one bipartisan amendment. We faced numerous
amendments in the Committee on Rules, and we did our best to allow an
open debate on most key issues in dispute.
On the substance of the bill, the statistics on U.S. bankruptcy
filings are frightening. Bankruptcies have increased more than 400
percent since 1980. In the past, it was possible to blame many
bankruptcies on recessions or poor economic situation. Today, however,
we face record numbers of bankruptcy filings at a time of economic
growth and low unemployment.
If we take these factors into account, we can realistically come to
only one conclusion: bankruptcies of convenience have provided a
loophole for those who are financially able to pay their debts but
simply have found a way to avoid personal responsibility and escape
their financial responsibilities.
This bill is a continuation of our efforts to advance the values of
personal responsibility. In the welfare bill, we thought that helping
the poor escape the welfare trap, restoring the dignity of work and
reviving individual responsibility would help people rise from
generation after generation of despair. This bankruptcy bill is the
Congress' next step in cultivating personal responsibility and
accountability.
I expect that we will hear more hollow charges that we are being
heartless and cruel. Nonetheless, the abusers of the bankruptcy laws
need to receive a message that Federal bankruptcy laws are not a haven
for personal fiscal irresponsibility. If a debtor has the ability to
pay the debts that have been accumulated, then they must be held
accountable.
Under this bill, effective and compassionate bankruptcy relief will
continue to be available for Americans who need it. But we cannot
condone, however, those who file for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 7
and have the capacity to pay at least some of their debts. In order to
ensure that those who can pay actually do pay, this legislation set in
motion a needs-based mechanism.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and the Committee on the
Judiciary have done their legislative duty in crafting a bill that
ensures the debtor's rights to a fresh start and protects the system
from flagrant abuses from those who can pay their bills. This is a
great opportunity to equalize the needs of the debtor and the rights of
the creditor.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we
may pass this important legislation.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time.
I rise in opposition to the rule. I have concerns about the bill, but
I will reserve a discussion of those concerns for the debate on the
bill. But my concerns are about the rule itself and the terms under
which we will conduct this debate.
Here is the copy of the bill that we are considering today. It is 314
pages long.
Here is a list of the amendments that have been offered to this bill
that Members of this House would like to offer as amendments to this
major important piece of legislation. There are 37 amendments, proposed
amendments, on this list. The Committee on Rules decided that it would
make in order only 11 of those amendments.
Now one of those 11 is an amendment by the manager who has had this
bill under his control from the very day it was filed. So for all
practical purposes the Committee on Rules has seen fit to allow only 10
other Members to offer amendments on this important bill, and so we
cannot have a full and fair and democratic debate and allow our
constituents to bring their concerns about the content of this bill to
the floor of the House.
Madam Speaker, that is really what this rules debate is about. Some
of the amendments that were not made in order by the Committee on Rules
were amendments that were voted on in the Committee on the Judiciary,
on which I sit, and the Committee on the Judiciary divided half and
half. There are three of those amendments on the list, and we did not
even have an affirmative opinion of the Committee on the Judiciary
members about whether those were good or bad amendments, and now we
cannot bring those amendments to the floor of the House and have a full
and fair debate among our colleagues to allow all of the members to
work their will on those amendments.
So in a sense this debate on the rule is about what rights we have as
Members of this House to have our voices heard and have the voices of
our constituents heard on important legislation.
Three hundred and some pages long; only 10 amendments.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the subcommittee chairman of the Subcommittee
on Commercial and Administrative Law.
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, we say that we are happy with the crafting
by the Committee on Rules of the procedure by which this debate will go
forward. We should all be happy with it because it reflects in a grand
way the bipartisan manner in which this entire issue was promulgated
from the start.
In the last term the cosponsorship alone of a vehicle in that stage
of these proceedings was substantially bipartisan. The votes that were
undertaken, both in the House and in the general debate and then later
in the conference report, reflected a gigantic bipartisan vote, 300
votes plus. By any measure, that turns out to be bipartisan.
Now when we reintroduced the bill this year, it has, still does have,
substantial numbers of the minority as part of the cosponsorship. It
is, indeed, a bipartisan vehicle in this term that we are visiting.
On top of that, in the hearings that were held, some eight of them by
the subcommittee and with over 70 witnesses to supplement the some 50
or 60 witnesses that we had last term, all of them gave testimony from
which was drawn here and there special features which we put into the
bill showing not just bipartisanship thus far but nonpartisanship; that
is, drawing from the witnesses' actual phraseology and suggestions that
became part of this bill. That makes it a balanced, well-apportioned
bill from a policy standpoint and from a partisan standpoint, if we
want to allow it to be described as that.
On top of that, in the subcommittee we adopted proposals made by the
minority. We did so in the full committee

[[Page H2649]]

on the basis of assertions and offerings made by the minority.
So some of the provisions that are in this bill already are born of
the opposite view side that expressed itself during the subcommittee
and the full committee markups.
This is a balanced bill in many, many respects, in most all respects.
What the Committee on Rules did in crafting this particular rule was to
patiently reflect that bipartisanship, that balanced approach. Our
colleagues' voices have been heard already in subcommittee and full
committee in many different ways. They have been heard through their
cohorts who have cosponsored this bill, and the final outcome will be a
bipartisan one.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 158,
the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 833, the bankruptcy reform
legislation.
While I am supportive of the rule, I want to compliment my colleague
from Texas (Mr. Frost) and my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for
their assistance in allowing the manager's amendment to include two
amendments which I had brought before the Committee on Rules yesterday.

{time} 1145

I am concerned that this bill in particular, the underlying bill that
we are going to consider later today if the rule is adopted, the bill
includes section 147, which would establish a new Federal standard for
homestead exemptions, which I believe is both unnecessary and unfair.
It includes two provisions, one which would require a resident to
reside in their homestead for 2 years before they can enjoy protections
afforded by State law, and it would prohibit them from transferring
assets into their homestead during that period.
Additionally, the bill, during consideration of the bill in the full
committee two more amendments were added, one which would supersede
State homestead laws and overturn more than 200 years of precedent of
allowing States the right to make determinations about what property
can be exempted under bankruptcy filings.
The first amendment added a new provision that would cap the amount
of equity that a consumer can protect during a bankruptcy at $250,000.
This would affect the States of Texas, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota,
Oklahoma and South Dakota.
Now, the second amendment, which was a compromise, would allow States
to opt out of this new Federal standard. While I appreciate that this
provision will provide States with an opportunity to preserve their
State homestead laws, I am concerned that the opt-out provision raises
new problems.
In particular, those States where the legislatures meet only
periodically, homeowners would be subject to this new cap until the
next legislative session. For instance, in the State of Texas our
session ends on May 30 this year and does not meet again until January
of 2001.
The Committee on Rules yesterday agreed to accept the second Bentsen
amendment which would make the date of enactment of the cap at the end
of the next legislative session of the State, and for that I am
appreciative.
The third amendment that I offered, which the committee accepted and
put in the manager's amendment, would allow States to prospectively opt
out of the homestead cap prior to the bill being enacted in law.
I want to commend the Members of the committee for accepting these
amendments. I think it is appropriate. Again, there is no empirical
evidence of abuse or any problem, substantial problems, with the
homestead laws as the States have designed them. This is something that
has been left up to the States. It is their prerogative and we ought to
continue it that way.
I would just say in the State of Texas our homestead laws go back
prior to Texas becoming part of the Union, when we were a Republic. It
has been in the State constitution since we have been a State. It is
something that ought to be left up to the State of Texas. This is
supported by Governor Bush, our current Lieutenant Governor Perry and
the Speaker of the House Pete Laney.
I encourage my colleagues to vote to adopt the rule and the manager's
amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Bryant), who is the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law.
(Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I want to just add an echo to what our
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), said about the
rule. I think it is a very good rule in this case. This bill itself,
H.R. 833, is a product of a number of years of work, including last
session up to the point of actually getting a conference report, an
agreement on a bankruptcy bill, together with the renewed debate this
year in this Congress in the full committee, something like 5 or 6 days
of debate, healthy debate on the merits and some would say lack of
merits of this bankruptcy reform bill.
H.R. 833 is a necessary bill, and this is a good rule to support to
move that bill forward. H.R. 833 restores fairness and common sense and
personal responsibility to a bankruptcy code that, in many ways, is out
of control. Current bankruptcy filings are about triple the level of
the early 1980s, when the rates of interest and unemployment were
significantly higher than today.
In other words, even in the robust economy that we are living in
today, bankruptcies are more than triple what they were in past times.
To make the situation worse, many of the petitioners who file under
Chapter 7, which is the straight bankruptcy, doing away with all the
debts provision, many of these are simply walking away without any
responsibility for any of their debts. This, despite the fact that many
have the ability to repay at least a portion of the debts they owe.
It is because of these figures and trends that this reform is needed
to handle the increasing number of petitions.
This bill also creates a way to determine the amount of relief a
debtor needs, and requires individuals to repay what they can. There is
a formula it establishes there.
Under the compromise between the House and Senate versions of this
bill last year, this legislation combines the best aspects of both the
approaches of this means testing, a bright line standard for measuring
the repayment capacity and preserving the right of a debtor in
bankruptcy to have a judge review its case if there are unique
circumstances that can be taken into account.
The bill also establishes child support and alimony priorities. The
bill significantly improves current law by raising child support and
alimony payments to the first priority in a bankruptcy proceeding, thus
putting the needs of the family and children where they belong, ahead
of others.
In addition, after bankruptcy, the bill requires all child support
and alimony obligations to be paid before unsecured debt. There is also
a debtor's bill of rights. This protects consumers from law firms and
other entities that might inappropriately steer consumers into filing
bankruptcy petitions without adequately informing them of the other
options that may be available to them.
This is sound legislation. It offers protection to both the debtors
and creditors. I very much appreciate the efforts of our chairman, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), and other colleagues who are
helping move this bill along. Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote
for this rule and later on for the bill as it moves forward.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, this legislation and the
underlying rule, the rule that we are addressing right now, have the
capacity of being a bipartisan piece of legislation.
I remind my colleagues that when we reformed the Bankruptcy Code in
the 1970s we took 5 years, and I think we had a legislative initiative
that lasted

[[Page H2650]]

until this time, 1999. I am concerned about this rule because I think
we would have been better off if we had maintained or had an open rule
to answer some of the concerns that many of us have expressed.
I am delighted to see the Hyde-Conyers amendment that alters the very
mean-spirited means test, which the Bankruptcy Review Commission did
not support itself, because the means test provides a difficult hurdle
for debtors who are truly suffering from catastrophic illnesses and
other unfortunate times that would result in them filing for
bankruptcy. It is an enormous hurdle for them to overcome.
In addition, the Committee on Rules did not allow an amendment that I
proposed that would take out Social Security income in the accounting
for current monthly income. So that means, for example, Madam Speaker,
that in fact one would have the Social Security as a part of
determining whether or not they would move from Chapter 13 to Chapter
7. At the same time, they did not protect those individuals who would
sue HMOs for fraudulent activities, to protect against the HMOs filing
for bankruptcy.
The other portion, Madam Speaker, that I think is extremely
important, I am grateful for the amendment we had in committee that
dealt with the homestead issue in the State of Texas, where at least we
have the ability to opt out. I certainly join in the fact that that has
helped the State of Texas by the Bentsen amendments, in that now they
can opt out as opposed to waiting until the bill's enactment.
But we would have done better if we had allowed this bill to be an
open rule, because even with some of the amendments we have not yet
answered the full question dealing with the child support, which really
still raises its ugly head inasmuch as we still have the custodial
parent, male or female, fighting the government in order to get child
support payments.
I think this rule could have been improved. I think we should vote
``no'' on this rule, and I wish we had committed ourselves to an open
discussion by having an open rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against this rule, which frames
the debate on H.R. 833, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999. In my
estimation, the modified closed rule that has been recommended by the
Committee merely gives us another instance in which House leadership
has steam-rolled a bill, filled with perks for corporate America,
through the House in the name of ``reform''. I would like to tell you,
this bill in no way reforms bankruptcy, rather, it merely changes the
rules of the game so that consumers will be even more helpless to
defend themselves from multi-million dollar creditors practicing
unhealthy and reckless lending practices.
As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been privileged enough
to watch the development of this bill from its inception. I have seen
the bill undergo no substantial changes after a week and a half of
markups. I have seen meaningful amendments promoted by the Chairman of
the Committee rebuffed by the Members of his own party. I have seen the
good work of many of my Democratic colleagues be summarily dismissed.
Having just come out of Committee just this Tuesday, I remember the
votes well. I remember the Republicans saying no to an amendment I
offered to protect the recipients of federal disaster assistance. A
vote saying no to the recipients of Social Security. A vote saying no
to children who receive child support. A vote saying no to veterans.
And all the while, the Republicans were quick to cast their votes to
protect tobacco companies that are poisoning our children. They voted
to protect credit card companies from reasonable reporting requirements
that would have been required under an amendment offered by Congressman
Delahunt. They moved the bill along despite an amendment I would have
offered that would have held HMOs and other managed care entities
responsible in cases where they have committed fraud.
Even worse, this bill has been moved along without its inspection by
the Banking and Financial Services Committee. This is true even though
this bill touches and concerns issues that directly relate to the
practices employed by lenders and creditors of all sorts.
And now here we are today debating the rule of debate for this bill.
It is a bill that limits amendments, which is unacceptable for a bill
this far-reaching. Furthermore, it is a rule that omitted a great
number of important amendments that were presented to the
Rules Committee yesterday. Those include amendments that would have
allowed the exclusion of social security from ``current monthly
income'', thereby making bankruptcy less onerous to our seniors, and
one which would have kept tobacco companies from manipulating the
bankruptcy system.

Other very good and important amendments were also left at the table,
such as the Nadler-Morella Amendment that would have gone after those
terrorists that intentionally utilize the bankruptcy system to protect
them from liability when they bomb women's health clinics. We will also
not get to discuss any of the amendments that would have removed the
new protections available to credit card companies under this bill when
they engaged in reckless lending. This is not the way that we should
proceed on this bill, and therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote
against this rule.
Debate on this bill should be focused squarely on the issues that
hurt it the most, so that it can be improved to a level where we can
all vote for it. As reported by the Congressional Research Service,
this bill is opposed by Public Citizen, the Consumer's Union, the AFL-
CIO, the Consumer Federation of America, UAW, UNITE, the National
Partnership, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), and
the National Women's Law Center. How can we move forward without
addressing any of the issues that these groups are clamoring about? How
can we ignore amendments aimed squarely at improving the way this bill
handles domestic support, or social security, or credit counseling?
Thankfully, the rule does provide for a Democratic Substitute to this
bill being offered by Congressmen Conyers, Nadler, and Meehan. This
will give many of us the opportunity to vote for a bill that truly
reforms bankruptcy without destroying its very principles. That
substitute provides a realistic means test that takes into account the
debtor's actual income and expenses; modifies the child support
provisions in this bill to take away the new special rights given to
credit-card companies; requires credit card lenders to provide the
necessary information to its customers that they need to make informed
decisions about their finances; and eliminates the new grounds for
making credit card debts nondischargeable. We ought to pass this
substitute if we are going to have a real bankruptcy reform, and I ask
each of you to support it when it comes to a vote later this afternoon.
Even then, I hope that every Member will vote against this rule, and
send it back to the Rules Committee so that we can have a meaningful
debate on the issues that will make this a bill worthy of being signed
into law.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Orlando, Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Crime.
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the rule and the underlying
bill. I think what is important for us to understand as we consider
this bankruptcy bill today is that the heart of this bill is needs-
based reform. It needs to be kept as strong as possible.
What is needs-based reform? It is simple. If someone can reasonably
repay some of their debts, they should. Does this mean the debtor
cannot declare bankruptcy? Not at all. It only means that the debtor
has to use Chapter 13 to repay some debt if he can afford to do it,
rather than Chapter 7.
Let me make it clear. If someone is in Chapter 13, they are in
bankruptcy. The needs-based test does not affect their ability to
declare bankruptcy. The needs-based test asks can a person reasonably
repay some of their debts while they are in bankruptcy.
How does the test determine what is reasonable? We do the obvious and
compare the debtor's income with other debts and living expenses, and
if the debtor has a little income and a lot of debt the needs-based
test will not affect them.
For those who suffer catastrophic illness or lose their jobs or
experience other catastrophic events, this reform will not affect them,
but those who can afford to pay back their debt, it will affect them.
Many, unfortunately, are using the Bankruptcy Code for financial
planning or mere convenience. It will affect upper-income individuals
who declare bankruptcy not because they have to but because they want
to. Even for these folks, they will still be able to declare bankruptcy
but they will have to repay some of their debt, what they can.
This is such common sense that many Americans think this is already
the way the bankruptcy system works,

[[Page H2651]]

but it does not work that way and that is why we are here today, to
restore integrity and responsibility and common sense to the system.
Why should Americans care? Because bankruptcy will cost our Nation
more than $50 billion in 1998 alone. That translates into over $550 for
every household in higher costs for goods and services and credit. It
hurts responsible consumers who pay the price in the form of higher
costs for goods, services and credit.
Bankruptcies have increased about 400 percent since 1980. Last year
there were more than 1.4 million filings. That is more than one
bankruptcy in every 100 American households. This rate of increase is
occurring not in the midst of a recession but during what are by all
accounts great economic times. From 1986 to the present time, real per
capita annual disposable income grew by over 13 percent but personal
bankruptcies more than doubled.
We need to have this bankruptcy reform. We need the needs-based
reform. We need to adopt this rule and get on with the bill today.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I have supported this bankruptcy
legislation in the past. I believe that it is important to exercise
personal responsibility. There have been some abuses of the system.
While the bill was not perfect and needed further perfection, I thought
it was generally in the right direction.
I am troubled about the bill, however, in its form today, because
while most of the focus has been on individuals who did not engage in
personal responsibility, there have also been instances in this country
of corporate citizens who did not demonstrate any sense of
responsibility. Indeed, since the consideration of this bill in the
last session, I was particularly troubled by the problem of Dorothy
Doyle.
I do not know Dorothy but I have read some of her plight. I know that
she is not the only one who suffered from this situation. Dorothy is an
87-year-old widow, a retired Pentagon secretary, who required about
$240 a day in nursing care because of her physical condition.
Fortunately for her, her younger sister decided that there was a
solution to her problems and that together they would purchase a
continuing care living arrangement, and they did that.
They moved into the Park Regency Retirement Center out in Scottsdale,
Arizona, and they invested a substantial amount of their life savings
and received, in turn, a lifetime guarantee. Within 9 months of paying
their entrance fees, they were faced with a meeting in the dining room
at the Park Regency where the owner declared that he had lost a lot of
money in his offshore investments and that he was filing for
bankruptcy.
Well, Dorothy and her sister Creta, like a number of other seniors
who have invested their lifetime savings in these facilities, of which
there are some 2,700 across the country, found themselves in a
situation where they had no good remedy.

{time} 1200

They had advanced this money as an interest-free loan to get into the
facility, their life's savings, and they were unsecured creditors.
So to address the plight of Dorothy and Creta and other seniors
across the country, I advanced an amendment that simply says, let us
treat them as priority creditors. Let us recognize that if someone has
invested their life's savings in an effort to try to get the health
care and the nursing care that they need in our society, that they
deserve some protection also.
Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules decided to not make that
amendment in order. Apparently responsibility does not apply to
everyone, does not apply to such irresponsible corporate citizens. I
would urge a vote against the rule.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an
amendment to the rule that will make in order two amendments.
The first amendment would be the Nadler/Jackson-Lee amendment, that
addresses treatment of child support payments in bankruptcy.
The second amendment would be the Delahunt/LaFalce/Watt/Roybal-Allard
amendment, which would disallow bankruptcy claims for consumer credit
card debt if, at the time of solicitation to open an account, the
debtor was not informed in writing of certain disclosure factors.
These amendments were offered in the Committee on Rules last night
and, unfortunately, were defeated on a party-line vote. Madam Speaker,
these are important amendments and deserve to be considered by the
entire House.
Madam Speaker, this vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote
against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican
majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the
moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House
should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives,
(VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule
as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject
before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the
previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January
13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the
demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution
to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909,
a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House
defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a
parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker
Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been
refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the
gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they
will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on
whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . .
. [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications
whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how
the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own
manual:

Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule
because the majority Member controlling the time will not
yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same
result may be achieved by voting down the previous question
on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question
is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led
the opposition to ordering the previous question. That
Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an
amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of
amendment.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the
subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to
order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported
from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and
further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''

The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive
policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those
who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative
plan.
Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the text of the amendment and
extraneous materials.
The material referred to is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 158--H.R. 833--Bankruptcy Reform Act

At the end of the resolution add the following new
sections:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, it shall be in order to consider the amendments
specified in section 3 of this resolution as though they were
after the amendment numbered 11 in House Report 106-126. The
amendment numbered 12 may be offered only by Representative
Nadler or Representative Jackson-Lee or a designee and shall
be debatable for 30 minutes. The amendment numbered 13 may be
offered only be Representative Delahunt or Representative
LaFalce or Representative Watt or Representative Roybal-
Allard or a designee and shall be debatable for 40 minutes.

[[Page H2652]]

``Sec. 3. The amendments described in section 2 are as
follows:

Amendment to H.R. 833, As Reported; Offered by Mr. Nadler of New York

Page 15, strike lines 18 and 19, and insert the following
(and make such technical and conforming changes as may be
appropriate):

not otherwise a dependent, but excludes--
``(A) payments to victims of war crimes or crimes against
humanity; and
``(B) payments received in satisfaction of a domestic
support obligation;'';
Beginning on page 81, strike line 15 and all that follows
through line 10 on page 82 (and make such technical and
conforming changes as may be appropriate).
Beginning on page 83, strike line 1 and all that follows
through line 7 on page 84 (and make such technical and
conforming changes as may be appropriate).
Beginning on page 86, strike line 1 and all that follows
through line 7 on page 90, and insert the following (and make
such technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

SEC. 140. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT OBLIGATION.

Section 101 of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (12A); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (14) the following:

(14A) `domestic support obligation' means a debt that accrues
before or after the entry of an order for relief under this
title that is--
``(A) owed to or recoverable by--
``(i) a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor or
that child's legal guardian; or
``(ii) a governmental unit;
``(B) in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support
(including assistance provided by a governmental unit) of
such spouse, former spouse, or child, without regard to
whether such debt is expressly so designated;
``(C) established or subject to establishment before or
after entry of an order for relief under this title, by
reason of applicable provisions of--
``(i) a separation agreement, divorce decree, or property
settlement agreement;
``(ii) an order of a court of record; or
``(iii) a determination made in accordance with applicable
nonbankruptcy law by a governmental unit; and
``(D) not assigned to a nongovernmental entity, unless that
obligation is assigned voluntarily by the spouse, former
spouse, child, or parent solely for the purpose of collecting
the debt.''.

SEC. 141. REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN CONFIRMATION AND DISCHARGE
IN CASES INVOLVING DOMESTIC SUPPORT
OBLIGATIONS.

Title 11, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 1129(a), by adding at the end the following:
``(14) If the debtor is required by a judicial or
administrative order or statute to pay a domestic support
obligation, the debtor has paid all amounts payable under
such order or statute for such obligation that first become
payable after the date on which the petition is filed.'';
(2) in section 1325(a)--
(A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) if the debtor is required by a judicial or
administrative order or statute to pay a domestic support
obligation, the debtor has paid all amounts payable under
such order for such obligation that become payable after the
date on which the petition is filed.''; and
(3) in section 1328(a) in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ``, after a debtor who is required by a
judicial or administrative order to pay a domestic support
obligation certifies that all amounts payable under such
order that are due on or after the date the petition was
filed have been paid, and after a debtor who is required by a
judicial or administrative order to pay a domestic support
obligation, certifies that all amounts payable under such
order that are due before the date on which the petition was
filed if such amounts are due solely to a spouse, former
spouse or child of the debtor or the parent of such child
pursuant to a judicial or administrative order, unless the
holder of such claim agrees to a different treatment of such
claim'' after ``completion by the debtor of all payments
under the plan''.

SEC. 142. EXCEPTIONS TO AUTOMATIC STAY IN DOMESTIC SUPPORT
OBLIGATION PROCEEDINGS.

Section 362(b) of title 11, United States Code, as amended
by sections 104 and 606, is amended--
(1) amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) under subsection (a)--
``(A) of the commencement or continuation of an action or
proceeding for--
``(i) the establishment of paternity as a part of an effort
to collect domestic support obligations; or
``(ii) the establishment or modification of an order for
domestic support obligations; or
``(B) the collection of a domestic support obligation from
property that is not property of the estate; or
``(C) under subsection (a) of--
``(i) the withholding of income for payment of a domestic
support obligation pursuant to a judicial or administrative
order or statute for such obligation that first becomes
payable after the date on which the petition is filed; or
``(ii) the withholding of income for payment of a domestic
support obligation owed directly to the spouse, former spouse
or child of the debtor or the parent of such child, pursuant
to a judicial or administrative order or statute for such
obligation that becomes payable before the date on which the
petition is filed unless the court finds, after notice and
hearing, that such withholding would render the plan
infeasible;'';
(2) in paragraph (19), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (20), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (20) the following:
``(21) under subsection (a) with respect to--
``(A) the withholding, suspension, or restriction of
drivers' licenses, professional and occupational licenses,
and recreational licenses pursuant to State law, as specified
in section 466(a)(16) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
666(a)(16)) or with respect to the reporting of overdue
support owed by an absent parent to any consumer reporting
agency as specified in section 466(a)(7) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(7)) if such debt is payable
solely to a spouse, former spouse or child of the debtor or
the parent of such child pursuant to a judicial or
administrative order or statute, unless the holder of such
claim agrees to waive such withholding, suspension or
restriction;
``(B) the interception of tax refunds, as specified in
sections 464 and 466(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 664 and 666(a)(3)) if such tax refund is payable
solely to a spouse, former spouse or child of the debtor or
the parent of such child pursuant to a judicial or
administrative order or statute; or
``(C) the enforcement of medical obligations as specified
under title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.).''.

SEC. 143. EXEMPTION FOR RIGHT TO RECEIVE CERTAIN ALIMONY,
MAINTENANCE, OR SUPPORT.

Section 522(b)(3) of title 11, United States Code, as so
redesignated and amended by sections 115 and 203, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``and'' at the end,
(2) in subparagraph (D) by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and'', and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
``(E) the right to receive--
``(i) alimony, maintenance , support, or property traceable
to alimony, maintenance , support; or
``(ii) amounts payable as a result of a property settlement
agreement with the debtor's spouse or former spouse; or of an
interlocutory or final divorce decree;

to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the
debtor or a dependent of the debtor.''.

SEC. 144. AUTOMATIC STAY INAPPLICABLE TO CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE DEBTOR.

Section 362(b)(2) of title 11, United States Code, as
amended by section 144, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) the commencement or continuation of a proceeding
concerning a child custody or visitation;
``(D) the commencement or continuation of a proceeding
alleging domestic violence; or
``(E) the commencement or continuation of a proceeding
seeking a dissolution of marriage, except to the extent the
proceeding concerns property of the estate;''.

SEC. 145. CERTAIN POSTDISCHARGE PAYMENTS HELD IN TRUST.

Section 523 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(f) A creditor that receives a payment, or collects money
or property, in satisfaction of all or part of any debt
excepted from discharge under paragraphs (2) and (14A) of
section 523(a) of this title shall hold such payment, such
money, or such property in trust and, not later than 20 days
after receiving such payment or collecting such money or
property, shall distribute such payment, such money, or such
property ratably to individuals who then hold debts in the
nature of a domestic support obligation. Not later than 5
years after receiving such payment or collecting such money
or property, such creditor shall make the distribution
required by this section to all individuals whose identity is
known to such creditor, or is reasonably ascertainable by
such creditor, at the time of distribution.''.
____

Amendment to H.R. 833, As Reported; Offered by Mr. Delahunt of
Massachusetts, Mr. LaFalce of New York, Mr. Watt of North Carolina, and
Ms. Roybal-Allard of California

Page 101, after line 9, insert the following (and make such
technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

SEC. 154. DISCOURAGING RECKLESS LENDING PRACTICES.

(a) Limiting Claims Arising From Irresponsible Lending
Practices.--Section 502(b) of title 11, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8) by striking ``or'' at the end,
(2) in paragraph (9) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and

[[Page H2653]]

(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) the claim is for a consumer debt under an open end
credit plan (as defined in section 103 of the Truth in
Lending Act) and before incurring such debt under such plan
the debtor was not informed in writing in a clear and
conspicuous manner (or in the case of a worldwide web-based
solicitation to open a credit card account under such plan,
at the time of solicitation by the person making the
solicitation to open such account)--
``(A) of the method of determining the required minimum
payment amount, if a minimum payment is required that is
different from the amount of any finance charge, and the
charges or penalties, if any, which may be imposed for
failure by the obligor to pay the required finance charge or
minimum payment amount;
``(B) of repayment information that would apply to the
outstanding balance of the consumer under the credit plan,
including--
``(i) the required minimum monthly payment on that balance,
represented as both a dollar figure and a percentage of that
balance;
``(ii) the number of months (rounded to the nearest month)
that it would take to pay the entire amount of that current
balance if the consumer pays only the required minimum
monthly payments and if no further advances are made;
``(iii) the total cost to the consumer, including interest
and principal payments, of paying that balance in full if the
consumer pays only the required minimum monthly payments and
if no further advances are made; and
(iv) the following statement: `If your current rate is a
temporary introductory rate, your total costs may be higher.'
;
``(C) of the method for determining the required minimum
payment amount to be paid for each billing cycle, and the
charge or penalty, if any, to be imposed for any failure by
the obligor to pay the required minimum payment amount;
``(D) of any charge that may be imposed due to the failure
of the obligor to make payment on or before a required
payment due date, the date that payment is due or, if
different, the date on which a late payment fee will be
charged, and that the terms and conditions of such charge
will be stated prominently in a conspicuous location on each
billing statement, together with the amount of the charge to
be imposed if payment is made after such date;
``(E) in any application or solicitation for a credit card
issued under such plan that offers, during an introductory
period of less than 1 year, an annual percentage rate of
interest that--
``(i) is less than the annual percentage rate of interest
which will apply after the end of such introductory period,
of such rate in a statement that includes the following: `The
annual percentage rate of interest applicable during the
introductory period is not the annual percentage rate which
will apply after the end of the introductory period. The
permanent annual percentage rate will apply after [insert
applicable date] and will be [insert applicable percentage
rate].' ; or
``(ii) varies in accordance with an index, which is less
than the current annual percentage rate under the index which
will apply after the end of such period, of such rate in a
statement that includes the following: `The annual percentage
rate of interest applicable during the introductory period is
not the annual percentage rate which will apply after the end
of the introductory period. The permanent annual percentage
rate will be determined by an index and will apply after
[insert date]. If the index which will apply after such date
were applied to your account today, the annual percentage
rate would be [insert applicable percentage rate].' ;
``(F) in the case of any credit card account issued under
such plan, that a creditor may not impose a fee based on
inactivity for the account during any period in which no
advances are made if the obligor maintains any outstanding
balance and is charged a finance charge applicable to such
balance;
``(G) that a credit card may not be issued to or on behalf
of, any individual who has not attained 21 years of age
except in response to a written request or application to the
card issuer to open a credit card account containing--
``(i) the signature of the parent or guardian of such
individual indicating joint liability for debts incurred by
such individual in connection with the account before such
individual reaches the age of 21; or
``(ii) a submission by such individual of financial
information indicating an independent means of repaying any
obligation arising from the proposed extension of credit in
connection with the account;
``(H) that no creditor may cancel an account, impose a
minimum finance charge for any period (including any annual
period), impose any fee in lieu of a minimum finance charge,
or impose any other charge or penalty with regard to such
account or credit extended under such account solely on the
basis that any credit extended has been repaid in full before
the end of any grace period applicable with respect to the
extension of credit, but may impose a flat annual fee which
may be imposed on the consumer in advance of any annual
period to cover the cost of maintaining a credit card account
during such annual period without regard to whether any
credit is actually extended under such account during such
period, or the actual finance charge applicable with respect
to any credit extended under such account during such annual
period at the annual percentage rate disclosed to the
consumer in accordance with this title for the period of time
any such credit is outstanding;
``(I) that no increase in any annual percentage rate of
interest (other than an increase due to the expiration of any
introductory percentage rate of interest or due solely to a
change in another rate of interest to which such rate is
indexed) applicable to any outstanding balance of credit
under such plan may take effect before the beginning of the
billing cycle which begins not less than 15 days after the
obligor receives notice of such increase;
``(J) that if an obligor referred to in subparagraph (I)
cancels the credit card account before the beginning of the
billing cycle referred to in such paragraph--
``(i) an annual percentage rate of interest applicable
after the cancellation with respect to such outstanding
balance on such account as of the date of cancellation may
not exceed any annual percentage rate of interest applicable
with respect to such balance under the terms and conditions
in effect before the increase referred to in subparagraph
(I); and
``(ii) the repayment of such outstanding balance after the
cancellation shall be subject to all other terms and
conditions applicable with respect to such account before the
increase referred to in such paragraph;
``(K) that obligor has the right--
``(i) to cancel the account before the effective date of
the increase; and
``(ii) after such cancellation, to pay any balance
outstanding on such account at the time of cancellation in
accordance with the terms and conditions in effect before the
cancellation;
``(L) that a creditor may not provide the obligor with any
negotiable or transferable instrument for use in making an
extension of credit to the obligor for the purpose of making
a transfer to a third party, unless the creditor has with
respect to such instrument provided to an obligor, at the
same time any such instrument is provided, a notice which
prominently and specifically describes--
``(i) the amount of any transaction fee which may be
imposed for making an extension of credit through the use of
such instrument, including the exact percentage rate to be
used in determining such amount if the amount of the
transaction fee is expressed as a percentage of the amount of
the credit extended; and
``(ii) any annual percentage rate of interest applicable in
determining the finance charge for any such extension of
credit, if different from the finance charge applicable to
other extensions of credit under such account; and
``(M) that a creditor may not impose any fees on the
obligor for any extension of credit in excess of the amount
of credit authorized to be extended with respect to such
account if the extension of credit is made in connection with
a credit transaction which the creditor approves in advance
or at the time of the transaction.''.
(b) Definition.--Section 101 of title 11, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (9) the
following:
``(9A) `credit card' includes any dual purpose or
multifunction card, including a stored-value card, debit
card, check card, check guarantee card, or purchase-price
discount card, that is connected with an open end credit plan
(as defined in section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act) and
can be used, either on issuance or upon later activation, to
obtain credit directly or indirectly;''.

Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question so
we may add these amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee
on Rules, to close debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Texas, for yielding time to me. I want to congratulate him on the fine
job that he has done in working out this rule, which, as he said and as
others have said, is a very fair and balanced rule dealing with the
minority's concerns.
I look at my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) here,
and I was pleased we were able to make one of his amendments in order.
It is among the seven Democratic amendments, including an amendment in
the nature of a substitute to be offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler), and it is basically a 7-to-3 ratio.
And then there is a bipartisan amendment that will be offered by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary,
and two additional Democratic amendments submitted were accommodated

[[Page H2654]]

in the manager's amendment. So that stresses the fairness of it.
What we tried to do, and I believe have done successfully in crafting
this rule, is we have not made in order amendments that are singling
out one or two industries or interest groups simply to score political
points. Basically, the bill provides comprehensive bankruptcy reform,
and allows individuals and businesses very broad protection to
reorganize so that their creditors are protected.
Enactment of the bill will greatly reduce abuses of the bankruptcy
system. By providing predictable standards to be used in bankruptcy
proceedings, it will be reducing frivolous litigation in which debtors
gamble on the uncertainty in the current system. This will dramatically
reduce the cost of credit for all Americans.
It is a very good rule, fair to everyone concerned, and I believe the
measure itself is worthy of a very strong bipartisan vote of support. I
look forward to consideration of that.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to five minutes the time for electronic voting, if ordered,
on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 190, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 109]

YEAS--227

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)

NAYS--190

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu

NOT VOTING--16

Becerra
Berman
Bliley
Brown (CA)
Carson
Davis (FL)
Istook
Mollohan
Simpson
Slaughter
Tiahrt
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Wynn
Young (FL)

{time} 1222

Messrs. HALL of Ohio, HOLDEN and BALDACCI changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ROTHMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________