[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.

                          ____________________