[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.
____________________