[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 26 (Thursday, March 1, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H512-H517]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 333, BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION 
                  AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2001

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 71 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 71

       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. 333) to amend title 11, United States Code, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill 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. 
     The amendments recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary 
     now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted in the 
     House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
     purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No further 
     amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such 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 such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. 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.
       Sec. 2. Upon receipt of a message from the Senate 
     transmitting H.R. 333 with Senate amendments thereto, it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House a motion offered 
     by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary or his 
     designee that the House disagree to the Senate amendments and 
     request or agree to a conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), my 
colleague and my friend; pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is a fair and structured 
rule, providing for the consideration of H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Abuse 
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001. The rule waives points 
of order against consideration of the bill and provides for 1 hour of 
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Judiciary.
  The rule also provides that the amendments recommended by the 
Committee on Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and that the 
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
purpose of further amendment and shall be considered as read.
  The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as 
amended and makes in order only those amendments printed in the 
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. It 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, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report divided equally and controlled by the proponent 
and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for the division of the question in the House or in 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The rule also waives all points of order against the amendments 
printed in the Committee on Rules report.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions and provides authorization for a motion in the House to go 
to conference with the Senate on the bill, H.R. 333.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Speaker, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection 
Act of 2001 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 under the leadership of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) to address this issue and to ensure 
that our bankruptcy laws operate fairly, efficiently, and free from 
abuse.

[[Page H513]]

  We must end the days when debtors who are able to repay some portion 
of their debt are allowed to game the system to take advantage of those 
laws. Instead, this bill is crafted to ensure the debtor's rights to a 
fresh start while protecting the system from flagrant abuses from those 
who can pay their bills.
  This should not be a controversial issue because Congress has spoken 
many times on this issue before today. Two Congresses ago, in the 105th 
Congress, the House and the Senate passed different versions of 
bankruptcy reform legislation. The House agreed to the conference 
report that was negotiated on October 9, 1998, by a vote of 300 to 125.
  During the 106th Congress, both the House and the Senate 
overwhelmingly approved bankruptcy reform legislation, also on a 
bipartisan basis. The House passed H.R. 833 by a vote of 313 to 108 in 
May of 1999 and later passed the conference report by voice vote on 
October 12, 2000. Each time the bankruptcy reform legislation has 
received overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. The Senate 
also voiced its strong support and passed the conference report by a 
vote of 70 to 28. Unfortunately, President Clinton chose to pocket veto 
this bill.
  That is why we are here again today, Mr. Speaker. The legislation 
that we consider today is virtually identical to the conference report 
that passed the House in the 106th Congress.
  There is a great need for this bill now. According to statistics 
released by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
bankruptcy filings reached an all-time high of more than 1.4 million in 
1998. The debts that remain unpaid as a result of those bankruptcies 
cost each American family that did pay their bills on time $400 a year 
in the form of higher cost for credit, goods and services. 
Unfortunately, much of the debt that was eventually passed on to 
consumers last year was debt that bankruptcy filers could have afforded 
to pay. They simply did not because of the current opportunities under 
the law. That is why it is so important for us today to pass real 
bankruptcy reform.
  Without serious reform of our bankruptcy laws, these trends promise 
to continue growing, as they have every year, costing business 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 the bankruptcy reform: number one, the bankruptcy system 
should provide the amount of debt relief that an individual needs, no 
more and no less; and, number two, bankruptcy should be the last resort 
and not a first resort to financial crisis. It should not become a way 
of life.
  Opponents of this bill have tried to divert the discussion away from 
the merits of the bill and claim 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 bill 
protects the financial security of women and children by giving them 
higher priority than today's 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 under today's law are the seventh 
priority behind such things as attorney's fees. Make no mistake about 
this, H.R. 333 puts women and children first at the top of the list. We 
should provide greater protection to families who are owed child 
support, and this bill will do just that.
  One important part of this legislation is known as the ``homestead 
provision.'' Protection of one's home is something that is very 
important to myself, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who will be 
speaking in just a minute on behalf of the minority, and also our 
constituents in Texas. The homestead provision maintains the long-held 
standard that allows the States to decide if homestead should be 
protected, yet stops those who purchase a home before filing bankruptcy 
as a means to evade creditors.
  The bill also addresses 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 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. Needs-based reform 
says that if someone can reasonably repay some of their debts, they 
should. This does not mean that the debtor cannot declare bankruptcy, 
but merely that the debtor needs to use chapter 13 rather than chapter 
7 to repay some of the debt if he or she is able to do so.

  This bill also 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.
  Finally, the bill also imposes new restrictions and responsibilities 
upon creditors with the goal of preventing borrowers from getting in 
over their heads. For example, the bill requires creditors to disclose 
more about the effect of paying only the minimum payment and 
establishes new creditor penalties designed to encourage good-faith 
bankruptcy settlements with debtors.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this bill. This resolution will bring 
bankruptcy reform to the House of Representatives. The rule allows for 
full and fair debate on the underlying measure, as well as adequate 
opportunity for those who oppose the legislation to offer amendments. I 
urge my colleagues to support this rule and H.R. 333.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have long been a supporter of bankruptcy reform, and I 
support the bill before us today. I am, however, concerned that the 
Committee on Rules majority has started the year by denying Democratic 
Members the opportunity to offer amendments to this significant 
legislative proposal. Granted, the bill before us is identical to the 
bill vetoed by the President last year; but at the same time, we do 
have a deliberate process in this body that is being stifled by the 
majority. Just as the majority is intent on considering massive tax 
cuts before we even have received a real budget from the President, 
much less before we have a budget debate on the Hill, the majority has 
once again subverted the process.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am a supporter of this bill, but there are 
issues that deserve to be heard and debated. This rule makes in order 
six amendments. Democrats are grateful the Republican majority has at 
least seen fit to give us a substitute, but other significant 
amendments offered in the Committee on Rules yesterday are not included 
in this list of six.
  For example, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking 
member of the committee, offered an amendment, along with the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who is a member of the 
Committee on Rules. This amendment relates to the issue of payment of 
child support and alimony by debtors, which has long been an issue that 
has given many Members pause when considering whether or not to support 
reform of the bankruptcy system. Mr. Speaker, many believe the 
provisions in the bill adequately address these concerns. However, it 
is an issue that deserves to be heard and the Conyers-Slaughter 
amendment should have been made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not as if we have been extraordinarily busy in the 
weeks since the 107th Congress convened. Perhaps giving us an extra 
hour or two of debate time might be too taxing, considering the 
schedule we have kept so far this year, and that is the reason we will 
not be able to debate the Conyers- Slaughter amendment or other 
amendments submitted by Democratic Members; but if we are to have the 
change of tone in Washington the President is seeking, it seems to me 
that there should be a little more collegiality on the part of the 
Republican leadership when it comes time to parcel out amendments to 
bills the House is to debate.

[[Page H514]]

  Mr. Speaker, Democrats are not here to subvert the process. We have 
constituencies to represent and real problems to address. We can only 
hope in the coming months that we will be allowed to do that as we 
consider legislation that is vital to our country and to the people we 
represent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
resolution, an order of business resolution, providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer 
Protection Act of 2001.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions); the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules; and all the members of the Committee on Rules for reporting a 
fair, balanced, and appropriate rule for consideration of this 
important bankruptcy reform bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is not unlike rules passed in the 105th and 
106th Congress providing for the consideration of bankruptcy reform 
bills. This structured rule provides ample time for debate and 
consideration of opposing views. It makes in order one minority 
substitute and provides one hour of debate on that substitute. It also 
makes in order a technical amendment which I will be offering which 
will make some minor technical corrections in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule and I urge the Members to support 
this resolution.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill represents an ill-considered change in public 
policy that totally advantages some creditors, particularly large 
credit card issuers, over families that seek bankruptcy relief because 
of financial catastrophes caused by major medical expenses, divorce, 
job loss, death of the family bread winner and the like. In fact, it 
was the former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), that pointed out last year during 
the course of this debate that there were 75 consumer creditor 
enhancements in this bill. It also advantages the sophisticated debtor 
who has accumulated so-called ``exempt assets,'' to the detriment of 
the unsophisticated debtor who has no assets and is earning $40,000, 
$45,000, or $50,000 a year trying to put bread on the family table.
  The American people should know that a debtor can live in a mansion 
in Florida worth millions, have an individual retirement account of up 
to $1 million, have annuities worth additional millions of dollars, 
receive a nice big fat pension and not worry, because these assets are 
exempt and creditors cannot touch them.

                              {time}  1045

  But if you do not have any so-called exempt assets and are barely 
making it and genuinely need bankruptcy relief, woe is you. Those 
credit card companies will be able to chase you forever. Just imagine 
how this different treatment of debtors will appear to the American 
people. You can properly call this not a tax break for the wealthy but 
bankruptcy protection for the rich. Every fair-minded American should 
find this offensive and unconscionable. We are in the process of 
establishing different classes of debtors.
  Now, proponents are concerned, justifiably, about the dramatic 
increase in the number of personal bankruptcy filings that peaked in 
1998, as my friend from Texas indicated. I share his concern and their 
concerns. It is just that this bill is not the answer. It is not the 
panacea they claim. They predicted that unless we adopted an earlier 
version of this bill, those filings would continue to escalate. The 
original bill was introduced in 1997. Well, they were dead wrong. The 
bankruptcy rate declined by more than 9 percent in 1999 and further 
declined 6 percent in the year 2000. That represents 170,000 fewer 
filings in the year 2000 than in 1998. That is what they are not 
telling you, Mr. Speaker. That is a 2-year decline of greater than 15 
percent in the bankruptcy rate. No doubt if the bill had passed when 
introduced in 1997, the sponsors would be taking bows for this positive 
trend. But it would have been undeserved. I have no doubt that they 
sincerely believe that the spike in the number of personal bankruptcies 
was caused by debtors, as I have heard the term, gaming the system, 
that bankruptcy was becoming a financial planning tool and that there 
was no longer a social stigma associated with bankruptcy and that the 
current Bankruptcy Code encouraged debtors to file for bankruptcy. 
Again in large measure they were wrong. Maybe they never carefully 
examined the evidence, because every independent analysis concluded 
that there was no data, no empirical research, no hard evidence that 
supported that theory. Let me add when I say independent analysis, I 
mean studies that were not bought and paid for by the credit card 
industry.
  Government agencies agreed with those independent experts. To note a 
few, a CRS report issued in 1998 states, ``There is a dearth of 
empirical data to support or refute the hypothesis.'' The CBO issued a 
report last year. One sentence sums it all up, and I am quoting: ``The 
available research casts a dim light on the causes of personal 
bankruptcy and its consequences for the cost and availability of 
credit.''
  Myself and others proposed amendments, Mr. Speaker, that would have 
added some balance to the bill, that would have equaled the 
relationship between creditors and debtors. But unfortunately they were 
not made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that the rule is rejected and that the underlying 
bill is defeated.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Our previous speaker, who is a very good friend of mine, was speaking 
about credit card debts, was speaking about who would and would not get 
relief under this bill. I would like to just state that the purpose of 
this bill is to allow all Americans the opportunity to file bankruptcy. 
The gentleman indicated that credit card companies would stay after 
that little guy for forever. But, in fact, that is not true. Because if 
the little guy that was in reference to, unless they had a 
nondischargeable debt, meaning that they took on this credit card debt 
fraudulently, immediately upon filing for bankruptcy they would get the 
relief, just like anyone else in this country.
  We are not after the little guy. We are trying to do the right things 
for everybody. And so whether you did have a pension or whether you 
were a little guy, we would offer that same protection.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, again let me be very, very clear. The 
priority that is now given to credit card debt under this proposal is 
vastly different and much of that debt will become nondischargeable and 
we will be chasing people for $80 a month while others are living, with 
these exempt assets, the life of luxury. That is totally wrong and 
unconscionable.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman's help. In fact, I believe 
that a nondischargeable debt, as most of them are, would simply be 
given relief, and so it would not be cost effective to chase after $80 
for forever, nor would it be appropriate and right. Nor would it be 
allowed under this law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Palm Bay, 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Abuse 
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001. In recent years despite 
the trends downward, bankruptcies remain too high. I remain deeply 
troubled by this. I am very concerned that filing for bankruptcy 
continues to be much higher than it should be, and I believe that today 
many Americans are filing for bankruptcy again as a financial planning 
tool.
  Filing for bankruptcy should be reserved for Americans who have been 
generally responsible but have gotten in over their heads primarily for 
circumstances that they could not control, such as the loss of a job, 
high

[[Page H515]]

medical bills, a disability in the family that puts a tremendous strain 
on the family budget, and other such circumstances.
  Earlier this week, I had the members of the credit unions in the 
State of Florida come into my office. As we all know, credit unions are 
membership-owned financial institutions, owned by working people. They 
support this bill. Why is that the case? Because they are increasingly 
seeing bankruptcies of convenience, bankruptcies used as a financial 
planning tool. These are people who have been often irresponsible in 
their spending habits.
  And who picks up the tab for these bankruptcies of convenience? All 
of the other members of the credit union, through higher interest rates 
and reduced benefits. Just to cite as an example what the credit unions 
are telling me that they are seeing more and more often is people who 
run up large credit card bills at places like Disney World, on trips to 
theme parks and trips to very, very nice hotels in the days and weeks 
prior to them filing for bankruptcy. Meanwhile, thousands of other 
hardworking Americans in those credit unions do not go to those kinds 
of places simply because they cannot afford it. But nonetheless they 
are paying for those trips by those people.
  I realize that this is a very difficult issue, but I believe that the 
bill that we have on the floor today strikes the proper balance. It is 
a good bill. It protects consumers. That is what we should be primarily 
concerned about. It protects all Americans fairly. I encourage all my 
colleagues to support this rule, which is a very, very fair and good 
rule, and support the underlying bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. During 
committee consideration, I offered several amendments to correct 
oversights in the bill. These amendments were of a relatively minor 
character. The first would provide that when someone, for example, is 
legally separated from their spouse and files individually for 
bankruptcy, that we would not consider the separated spouse's income in 
determining whether the person filing for bankruptcy met the means 
test. As a practical matter, if someone is legally separated and has no 
access to the assets of the other spouse and yet that other spouse's 
assets are considered in the means test, they will not qualify for 
chapter 7. That is not appropriate. I am really astounded that this 
provision was taken out of the manager's amendment. During the 
committee hearing, the sponsor of the bill indicated that he thought 
that there was likely merit to this amendment.
  The second that I offered would provide for a GAO study to determine 
the impact on child support, whether this will make it more difficult 
for people to collect child support. That was also rejected, a mere 
study of the issue. I do not know what we are afraid of. If we have a 
study of the issue and it finds, as the proponents of the bill say, 
that this has no net adverse impact on women trying to collect child 
support, then great, we know that. But if a year goes by and the study 
is conducted and it finds there are problems, we can then address them. 
What are we afraid of? Why are we afraid to find out the answer to 
those questions?
  I am hoping this bill comes back from conference with the Senate in a 
different form. Many of us would like to support this bill. This bill 
has many important bankruptcy reforms in it. Many of us believe 
bankruptcy reform is vital. There are some positive things on child 
support in this bill, like relief from the automatic stay. But if even 
these minor issues that could ultimately be very important are rejected 
out of hand as they are in this rule, then the House is essentially 
delegating to the Senate to do the meaningful work on the bill. We are 
delegating to the Senate to decide what amendments should be taken and 
what not, what the form of the bill ought to be. I hope that this 
pattern would not persist with other legislation as well or we will 
really be delegating our responsibility to the other House.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge opposition to this rule and 
in the future would hope that where there are amendments that are 
acknowledged in committee as probably having merit, where suggestions 
such as a study are made, that they would be considered in order. I 
thank the Members for their consideration.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Columbus, Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas and 
my colleague on the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of this balanced rule and for the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us a fair and evenhanded rule that will 
allow us to consider important legislation to reform our Nation's 
bankruptcy system. This bankruptcy reform legislation will remedy 
weaknesses in existing law that allow higher income taxpayers to escape 
their responsibilities even when they are able to repay a portion of 
what they owe. This bill will take steps to eliminate what we call the 
bankruptcy of convenience. At the same time, the legislation will 
protect those who are truly needy and in need of a second chance to 
maintain their ability and obtain a fresh start.
  Further, the legislation contains important protections for children 
and spouses who are owed child support and alimony. By equipping State 
child support collection agencies with the necessary tools and 
codifying the importance of child support and alimony obligations, this 
legislation will increase our commitment to children and families and 
will hold parents, husbands and wives to their responsibilities.
  Mr. Speaker, the American public has indicated their desire for 
bankruptcy reform and, in fact, the Congress just last year 
demonstrated its strong support in passing very similar bankruptcy 
legislation reform, with 313 bipartisan votes. Today, we build upon our 
past success and take an important step forward toward finally enacting 
these needed reforms into law.
  The administration has already stated its support for this overall 
package and recognizes the need to curb many of the abuses of the 
current bankruptcy protections. I urge my colleagues to support this 
fair and balanced rule as well as passage of this important 
legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing today, I would like to say that the Bankruptcy Review 
Commission was created in 1994 and filed its report in 1997. It was 
composed of people who were on the front lines, not only bankruptcy 
judges but also trustees from all across the country as well as those 
who were interested in small business, consumers and others. They have 
provided us feedback that we have included in this bill today. Today I 
had an opportunity to speak with the trustee of the Northern District 
of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas, Bill Neary.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. Neary provided me information and feedback that, in fact, he 
believed that the most complete, up-to-date opportunities that they are 
seeing in the marketplace today are included within this bill.
  This rule that we are talking about is fair. It is doing the right 
thing. It will support the underlying legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Committee on 
Financial Services, I hereby submit for the Record correspondence 
between that Committee and the Committee on the Judiciary relating to 
the Financial Services Committee's agreement to waive its consideration 
of H.R. 333, the ``Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection 
Act of 2001.''

                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                Washington, DC, February 21, 2001.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Jim: On February 14, 2001 the Committee on the 
     Judiciary ordered reported H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Abuse 
     Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001. As you know, 
     the Committee on Financial Services was granted an additional 
     referral upon the bill's introduction pursuant to the 
     committee's jurisdiction under Rule X of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives over banks and banking, credit, and 
     securities and exchanges.
       Because of your willingness to consult with the Committee 
     on Financial Services

[[Page H516]]

     regarding this matter, your continuing support for our 
     requested changes, and the need to move this legislation 
     expeditiously, I will waive consideration of the bill by the 
     Financial Services Committee. By agreeing to waive its 
     consideration of the bill, the Financial Services Committee 
     does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 333. In addition, 
     the Committee on Financial Services reserves its authority to 
     seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within 
     the Financial Services Committee's jurisdiction during any 
     House-Senate conference that may be convened on this 
     legislation. I ask your commitment to support any request by 
     the Committee on Financial Services for conferees on H.R. 333 
     or related legislation.
       I request that you include this letter and your response as 
     part of your committee's report on the bill and the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation 
     on the House floor.
       thank for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Michael G. Oxley,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                Washington, DC, February 22, 2001.
     Hon. Michael G. Oxley,
     Chairman, House Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mike: This letter responds to your letter dated 
     February 21, 2001, concerning H.R. 333, the ``Bankruptcy 
     Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001'' which 
     was favorably reported by the House Committee on the 
     Judiciary on February 14, 2001.
       I agree that the bill contains matters within the Financial 
     Services Committee's jurisdiction and appreciate your 
     willingness to be discharged from further consideration of 
     H.R. 333 so that we may proceed to the floor.
       Pursuant to your request, a copy of your letter and this 
     letter will be included in the report of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary on H.R. 333.
           Sincerely,
                                      F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule. I had 
hoped that the House would have had an opportunity to debate the 
amendment sponsored by myself and Representatives Kanjorski, Nadler, 
and Jackson-Lee, that would have addressed the very serious problem of 
misleading and deceptive credit card practices. It is extremely 
disappointing that the Rule only provides for a handful of amendments. 
But, the Rule is thereby consistent with the history of this 
legislation, for H.R. 333 is the product of a shadow conference, not 
full congressional deliberations, where issues important to consumers 
and working families could have been seriously considered. The 
Financial Services Committee never even availed itself of the 
opportunity to review the bill, although it contains significant 
changes to the Truth In Lending Act.
  The bill is not balanced. H.R. 333 attempts to deal with the results 
of the increasing level of consumer bankruptcies. But the bill fails to 
deal adequately with one of the principal causes. That cause is the 
aggressive promotion of consumer debt by credit card companies, without 
any attention to reasonable underwriting standards, and increasingly 
targeted at vulnerable populations that can neither afford it nor, 
often, repay it. As policymakers, we cannot expect consumers to 
willingly assume the greater financial responsibility contemplated 
under this bill unless we also simultaneously protect them from abusive 
practices which unfairly trap them into debt they can ill afford.
  Our amendment addresses credit card company practices that directly 
contribute to the increasing level of consumer debt and the rise in 
consumer bankruptcies. It goes beyond the traditional emphasis on 
disclosure and provides stronger protections for all consumers against 
credit card company practices that are at the very least misleading 
and, often, intentionally deceptive. In particular, it addresses the 
concerns of populations which have proven to be most vulnerable. People 
in their twenties are the fastest growing group filing for bankruptcy. 
To a large degree, that is the result of aggressive targeting of 
students and young people just starting out in life by credit card 
companies that trap them into a cycle of debt before they have adequate 
income to sustain it.
  The few provisions in H.R. 333 that attempt to address this issue are 
inadequate and may turn out to be illusory because their effective date 
could be delayed indefinitely through a mandatory regulatory process.
  The credit card industry is asking Congress for relief from allegedly 
inadequate bankruptcy statutes. Congress should not consider such 
relief unless it also relives vulnerable consumers of the burden of 
abusive credit card company practices. We must do a better job of 
bringing balance to this bill, and ensuring that credit card issuers 
take responsibility for their own actions that have helped to create 
the consumer debt problems that America faces today.
  I urge that my colleagues vote against this Rule, and let the 
Committees do their job and hold full and fair hearings on these 
issues.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 281, 
nays 132, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 22]

                               YEAS--281

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--132

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)

[[Page H517]]


     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Ackerman
     Baird
     Bonior
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Deal
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Kingston
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Norwood
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Snyder
     Toomey
     Towns

                              {time}  1123

  Ms. SOLIS, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. POMEROY, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. 
FARR of California, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. GEPHARDT 
and Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________