[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 19, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H1981-H1988]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 975, BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2003
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 147 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 147
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. 975) to amend title 11 of the 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. 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 such
amendments are waived. 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. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), my friend and associate, pending which I yield myself
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution,
all time yielded is for the purposes of debate on this matter only.
Mr. Speaker, I am exceedingly pleased that tonight we will consider
much-needed bankruptcy reform legislation under the direction of a fair
and balanced rule that makes a total of five amendments in order,
including an amendment in the nature of a substitute sponsored by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member.
I am proud of the tireless and extensive efforts of many Members,
including the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), who will be here to
address us shortly in the rule on this, and the staff who have put
together countless hours toward the passage of this legislation over
several years now.
Their efforts allow us to ensure that our bankruptcy laws operate
fairly, efficiently and free of abuse. We must end the days when
debtors who were able to repay some portion of their debts are allowed
to game the system. This bill is crafted to ensure the debtor's rights
to a fresh start while protecting the system from flagrant abuses by
those who can pay their bills.
[[Page H1982]]
Congress has spoken on this issue many times before. As we all know,
the 105th, the 106th, the 107th Congresses passed legislation
addressing bankruptcy reform. In the 105th, the conference report
passed the House, but time expired before the Senate voted on a final
passage. In the 106th, the conference report received overwhelming
bipartisan support in both Chambers; however, President Clinton chose
to pocket veto the bill. In the 107th Congress, we came extremely close
to final passage of a conference report, but in the end could not
finally agree.
So, today, due to the outstanding work and leadership of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), his committee and so many
Members, we have the historic opportunity to make modern bankruptcy
reform a reality.
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 that an individual needs, no more, no
less. Bankruptcy should be a last resort and not a first response to a
financial crisis.
One important part of this legislation is known as the homestead
provision. Protection of one's homestead is something that is very
important to me and, of course, to all my constituents, and to any
Member and all their constituents. The homestead provision in this
legislation maintains the long-held standard that allows the States to
decide if homesteads should be protected, yet prohibits those who would
purchase a home before filing bankruptcy as a means to evade creditors.
By tightening our current laws and making it more difficult to escape
fraud by declaring bankruptcy, we are expressing no tolerance for those
who would game the system to make up for their wrongdoing.
Modern bankruptcy reform has been a long and somewhat arduous
journey. It makes the most anticipated result of our work today even
more rewarding. It has required not only hard work, but also some
difficult decisions on the part of Congress as we know. The result is
what I believe to be a carefully balanced package that protects the
women, children, family farmers, low-income individuals, and provides
access to bankruptcy for all Americans who have a legitimate need.
Today's vote I believe will finally make modern bankruptcy reform a
reality, and, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to
support this fair rule and the underlying legislation which is long
overdue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions) for the purposes of control.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this bill purports to improve the Bankruptcy Code by
ensuring fairness for debtors and creditors. Unfortunately, this bill
envisions fairness as choosing credit card companies over people in
dire financial situations. This bill attempts to solve a complex
problem with an oversimplified, one-size-fits-all solution when the
problem really requires a sophisticated solution.
The rhetoric around H.R. 975 paints a vivid picture of scheming
people running up huge debts, buying extravagant houses and expensive
cars just before they run to a local bankruptcy court to avoid paying
their bills, but the reality is that only 3 percent of the people who
file for bankruptcy are these kinds of cheaters.
In order to stop the 3 percent who abuse the system, the bill takes
the dramatic sweeping step of harming the 97 percent of people who are
forced to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Code because of
illnesses, unemployment or divorce. In fact, nearly half the people who
file for bankruptcy protection do so because of medical bills and the
financial consequences of illness or injury.
Middle-class families are only one serious illness away from
financial collapse, and the impact of medical cost is highest on women,
families headed by women and older people.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most forceful and persistent proponents of
changing the Federal Bankruptcy Code is the credit card industry. We
all know that credit card companies send us solicitations by the
boatload. They mailed 5 billion of them in 2001. Each of us get three
or four a day. They flood the mailboxes with credit card offers and
encourage debt, and it is very hard to sympathize with these companies.
They are actively, actively creating the problems that they now want
this body to fix for them.
Why does this legislation do nothing to address the culpability of
credit card companies in the growing numbers of bankruptcies? Nothing
in this legislation requires credit card companies to provide adequate
information to consumers about the costs of credit. Nothing in the bill
addresses the industry's aggressive marketing of credit to students and
to young teenagers. Nothing in this bill deals with predatory mortgage
loans or the high costs of so-called payday loans.
Douglas Lustig, a bankruptcy attorney in my hometown of Rochester,
New York, says that people are not abusing credit cards for
extravagances. Rather, he says, most people use credit cards out of
necessity. People are forced to use their credit cards to buy food or
pay for rent until they get through difficult economic times, and what
really breaks my heart is that as unemployment rates rise, this
Congress has failed to extend the unemployment benefits in so many
households. This is the only recourse that they have. Then if something
awful happens to them, and the wife is laid off or the husband
diagnosed with cancer, the family then is totally unable to meet its
financial burdens, and this bill chooses to make sure that the credit
card companies get paid instead of protecting the families and helping
them dig out of financial collapse.
What do bankruptcy judges think about this legislation? Judge A.
Thomas Small, who recently served as president of the National
Conference of Bankruptcy Judges and now is chairing the Federal
Bankruptcy Rules Committee, sees problems. He says this measure will
fail to block needless bankruptcy cases while making it a lot harder
for people who really need bankruptcy relief to get it.
Despite the many years that bankruptcy reform has been discussed by
this body, many serious problems persist in this legislation. The rule
before this body gags us and limits our right to speak fully about the
significant legislation and its real-world effects. Republicans in the
House Committee on Rules blocked the consideration of six substantive
amendments to this bill. This body has the right to discuss them, to
deliberate and to consider the changes they offer.
One amendment would protect the Active Duty members of the Armed
Forces, unemployed people who have exhausted their benefits, and
victims of terrorism. Another would have prohibited credit card
companies from issuing cards to people under the age of 21. A third
amendment would place a $125,000 national cap on the homestead
exemption without any of the exceptions allowed in the underlying bill.
Still another would place reasonable limits on exorbitant retention
bonuses, the severance package and other payments to corporate insiders
of companies that are bankrupt or facing bankruptcy. A fifth amendment
would crack down on the predatory lending practice known as payday
lending.
An amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers),
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and myself would give
bankruptcy courts the discretion to provide extra protection for people
entitled to alimony or child support, a piece of legislation that we
put in back in the days when Jack Brooks was chair of the Committee on
the Judiciary. Many of us worked very hard at that time to make sure
that child support was the first thing that a spouse had to or person
who was paying the
[[Page H1983]]
support had to discharge. That has changed now.
{time} 1230
The reform legislation elevates the credit card companies to the same
categories of child support. Mothers and fathers who are trying to get
money for food and clothes for their children will have to compete with
the major credit card companies with their legions of lawyers and
sophisticated collection departments for the same few dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I will enter this list of amendments left on the floor
of the room of the Committee on Rules into the Record.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 975 even fails to hold perpetrators of violence
against women's health care clinics accountable for their actions. As
part of a coordinated strategy, perpetrators of clinic violence have
filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying judgments against them for
violation of Federal law. This bill will allow them to discharge these
judgments and get away with breaking Federal law and trampling the
constitutional rights of women.
This rule and this legislation fail the American people. Years of
consideration have not produced bankruptcy reform that the American
people deserve, reform that fixes the current problems with a system
without causing significantly more harm than this prevents.
Mr. Speaker, we should produce legislation that strikes a balance
between risk-taking and responsibility and shelters that 97 percent who
deserve the Federal protection. I urge Members to vote against this
rule and against H.R. 975.
The previously mentioned list of amendments follows:
Amendments Rejected by the House Rules Committee During Consideration
of H. Res. 147, The Rule Governing Debate on H.R. 975, The Bankruptcy
Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2003
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Representative Delahunt--the
amendment places a $125,000 national cap on the homestead
exemption, without any of the exceptions allowed in the
underlying bill.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Representative Delahunt--the
amendment places reasonable limits on exorbitant ``retention
bonuses,'' severance packages, and other payments to
corporate insiders of companies that are bankrupt or facing
bankruptcy.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Representative Jackson-Lee--the
amendment cracks down on the predatory lending practice known
as ``payday lending.''
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Representative Waters--the
amendment prohibits credit card companies from issuing cards
to people under 21 years of age.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Representative Schakowsky--the
amendment excludes unemployed people who have exhausted their
benefits, active duty members of the armed forces, and
victims of terrorism from the bill's means test provisions.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Representatives Conyers,
Slaughter, and Jackson-Lee--the amendment gives courts the
discretion to disapprove an agreement or the discharge of a
debt if it would impair a debtor's ability to pay alimony or
child support.
Open Rule Motion Offered by Representative Frost--on a
party-line vote of 3-9, the Committee rejected Mr. Frost's
motion that the House consider H.R. 975 under an open rule,
which would have allowed the House to debate all of the
amendments Members brought before the Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about bankruptcy today again. We have
done this four times. This rule will pass because it is a fair rule.
The underlying legislation will pass overwhelmingly because it is great
legislation that the American people not only asked for but want. It
will help streamline and make better the bankruptcy procedures that are
necessary as our courts deal with them, and as people who have gotten
into financial trouble deal with the old legislation and find out what
a problem it is.
I am proud to be here today to talk about good legislation that is
good for the American public, it is good for consumers, and I am very
proud of what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this fair rule and the underlying
legislation, H.R. 975. H. Res. 147 is a fair and responsible rule that
will allow the House to work its will on the underlying bankruptcy
reform bill. It makes in order two amendments sponsored by Democrats,
two bipartisan amendments, and an amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). I urge
Members on both sides of the aisle to join me in approving this rule so
we can move on to H.R. 975, important bankruptcy reform legislation.
I support providing this bankruptcy protection. I believe that
American citizens should be able to gain a fresh start after finding
themselves incapable of meeting their obligations. In fact, our Nation
has historically understood the importance of providing this
protection.
As one individual put it during the congressional debate in the late
19th century, ``When an honest man is hopelessly down financially,
nothing is gained for the public by keeping him down; but on the
contrary, the public good will be promoted by having his assets
distributed ratably as far as they will go among his creditors and
letting him start anew.''
Today we debate the reform of U.S. bankruptcy law one more time. We
should focus on how to ensure that bankruptcy laws follow their
intended design, while working to derail the growing trend of using
bankruptcy as a means for avoiding the payment of debts, even when
those debtors are financially capable of paying off those debts. The
question before us is, How can we prevent individuals abusing these
protections, while ensuring that bankruptcy relief remains available
for those who truly need it?
In 1787, the Founders of this country, some of whom were debtors
themselves, recognized the necessity for providing leniency to
individuals who are faced with increasing debts. The Founders
understood that it was impossible for debtors to work towards paying
off their debts while sitting in debtors' prison. I do not, however,
believe the Founders would have approved of a system where bankruptcies
have increased more than 400 percent in 23 years and represent a cost
of $400 to every American family who works hard to meet its own
financial responsibilities.
H.R. 975 works both to continue the Founders' vision for bankruptcy
protection while curbing the abuses that have plagued the system over
the past few decades. Congress should not be in the business of
protecting those who wish to use bankruptcy as a financial planning
tool, while penalizing hard-working Americans who fall into financial
difficulties.
Last year, almost 1.6 million bankruptcy cases were filed in this
country. We must ensure that this number is significantly reduced in
the future. It is not shameful to file for bankruptcy if one falls on
hard times. It is, however, shameful to use bankruptcy as a means of
paying one's obligations.
As such, I urge Members to join me in supporting both this rule and
the underlying legislation to help restore the legitimacy of this
protective tool and to bring commonsense reasoning back to American
bankruptcy law. I urge Members to join me in voting for the rule and
H.R. 975.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, two amendments rejected by the Committee on Rules which
I had hoped to offer illustrate the double standards represented by
this bill because wealthy debtors with their lawyers and financial
advisors can continue to game the system, and corporate insiders who
have managed healthy businesses into bankruptcy can still be awarded
with golden parachutes. Meanwhile, people of modest means will be
denied a genuine fresh start, and retirees whose pensions and life
savings have been wiped out by corporate bankruptcies will get little
relief.
My first amendment would have placed reasonable limits on exorbitant
retention bonuses, obscene severance
[[Page H1984]]
packages, and other outlandish payments to corporate insiders whose
companies are bankrupt or insolvent; and the amendment would have
reserved those assets for the benefit of employees, retirees, and other
creditors.
In the State of Massachusetts, Polaroid executives canceled their
retirees' health coverage days before filing for bankruptcy and then
terminated workers on long-term disability when the company
reorganized. At the same time they awarded themselves more than $5
million in various bonuses and incentive payments shortly before filing
for bankruptcy and then another $6 million in so-called retention
bonuses afterwards.
Of course, this pales in comparison to Enron, where their CEO,
Kenneth Lay, received gross profits of $247 million, or Global Crossing
where Gary Winnick, their CEO, grossed $512 million, all the while
eliminating thousands of jobs and driving their companies into
bankruptcy.
My second amendment would have helped eliminate the most notorious
abuse of all, the financial planning strategy whereby debtors purchase
expensive homes in States with unlimited homestead exemptions, declare
bankruptcy, and continue to enjoy a life of luxury while their
creditors get little or nothing, like the convicted Wall Street
investment banker who filed bankruptcy while owing some $15 million in
debt and fines, but still kept his $5 million mansion complete with 11
bedrooms and 21 bathrooms. Yet while the so-called bankruptcy abuse
prevention bill obsesses about whether small debtors can manage to pay
$100 a month in Chapter 13, it continues to tolerate this outrageous
abuse.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the only exemption that allows the wealthy
to shelter their assets. In addition to the million dollar mansion,
they can receive a substantial pension, have an IRA up to a million
dollars, and own annuities worth additional millions and not worry
about it because depending on where they live, these assets are exempt
and creditors cannot touch them. This bill does nothing about that.
What message does it send when Congress subjects middle-class debtors
to a means test while permitting the wealthy to continue to place their
millions out of reach of their creditors? We are creating different
classes of debtors, and every fair-minded person should find this
unconscionable. This rule should have provided an opportunity to deal
with these issues, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and vote
down this unfair and one-sided bill.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
The rule fails to allow the House to consider two amendments I had
intended to offer to illustrate the double standard represented by this
bill: A bill that denies a fresh start to people of modest means while
allowing wealthy debtors and corporate insiders to continue to abuse
the bankruptcy system.
It was one thing to consider this kind of legislation when our nation
was enjoying the prosperity of the 1990s. But this debate takes on a
certain surreal quality when we consider the depths of the economic
difficulties our country is facing at the moment. With unemployment
rising. Growing numbers of working Americans who can't buy health
insurance at reasonable rates. Retirees whose pensions and life savings
have been wiped out by corporate bankruptcies.
And what are we doing about it? We're helping the credit card
companies squeeze a few more pennies out of these same working
families. And we're ignoring the massive abuses that have turned the
Bankruptcy Code into a bonanza for a handful of unscrupulous
executives.
Some months ago, the Financial Times published an analysis of the
profits amassed by top officers and directors of the 25 largest
companies to declare bankruptcy during the previous 18 months.
According to the report, ``in just three years, they grossed about $3.3
billion before their companies went bust, having wiped out hundreds of
billions of dollars of shareholder value and nearly 100,000 jobs.''
And so, as Global Crossing was losing $9.2 billion and eliminating
over 5,000 jobs, its chairman, Gary Winnick, grossed $512 million.
While Enron lost $18.8 billion and eliminated 5,500 jobs, its CEO,
Kenneth Lay, and the chairman of its energy services subsidiary, Lou
Pai, made gross profits of $247 million and $270 million, respectively.
The sources of these windfalls included such now-familiar devices as
retention bonuses. Severance payments. Forgiven loans. And dividends on
holdings of company stock.
In my corner of the world, Polaroid executives cancelled their
retirees' health and life insurance coverage and terminated workers on
long-term disability--all while awarding themselves more than $5
million in various bonuses and ``incentive'' payments before filing for
bankruptcy and another $6 million in retention bonuses afterwards.
Officers and directors received severance packages while employee
severance was terminated. Officers and directors were able to redeem
their company stock while employees, forced to put 8 percent of their
salaries into the stock option plan, were prohibited from withdrawing
the funds and watched their holdings evaporate. No sooner was the sale
of the company completed than the new CEO terminated the retiree
pension plan.
What happens to people who lose their livelihood, their savings, and
their health coverage? Lots of them wind up unable to pay their debts
and forced into bankruptcy. So in fact, we have corporate bankruptcies
causing personal bankruptcies. And the only response from Congress has
been to push an industry-sponsored bill that would make it harder for
these people to get a fresh start. A bill that penalizes the very
working families that have been victimized by corporate misconduct,
while preserving the loopholes and exemptions that allow corporate
insiders to shelter their ill-gotten gains when they declare
bankruptcy.
I had sought to offer an amendment that would begin to redress the
balance. It would have placed reasonable limits on exorbitant
``retention bonuses,'' severance packages, and other payments to
corporate insiders of companies that are bankrupt or insolvent. The
amendment would not have prohibited such payments to the extent that
they are truly necessary to keep key employees in place. But it would
have permitted them only when the court finds that, first, the employee
has a bona fide job offer from another business at the same or greater
rate of compensation; second, the services provided by the person are
essential to the survival of the business; and third, the amount of the
payment is not excessive when measured against the amounts paid to
nonmanagement employees in the ordinary course of business.
The amendment would have empowered the court to return excessive
payments to the bankrupt company, so that these funds can be available
to help the company reorganize, or, in the alternative, can be
distributed to employees, retirees, and other creditors. It would have
restored some semblance of fairness to this unbalanced bill.
The second amendment I had hoped to offer would have helped eliminate
the biggest loophole in the Bankruptcy Code, by placing a meaningful
national cap on the homestead exemption.
I say ``meaningful,'' Mr. Speaker, because the $125,000 cap that is
currently in the bill is qualified by a series of exemptions that
assure that those who engage in flagrant abuse of the bankruptcy system
by sheltering homestead assets can continue to do so.
My amendment would have left the cap at $125,000 while eliminating
the exemptions for transactions conducted more than 1,215 days
preceding the bankruptcy filing and for interests transferred from a
debtor's previous principal residence acquired within the same state
prior to that time.
The rationale we have been given for the so-called ``needs-based''
reforms proposed in H.R. 975 is to eliminate abuses of the bankruptcy
laws--abuses which proponents of the legislation have characterized as
the use of the Bankruptcy Code as a ``financial planning tool.''
Yet while the bill obsesses about whether small debtors can manage to
pay $100 a month in chapter 13, it continues to permit--indeed, it
endorses--the most notorious abuse of the consumer bankruptcy system of
all: The ``financial planning'' strategy whereby debtors purchase
expensive homes in states with unlimited homestead exemptions, declare
bankruptcy, and continue to enjoy a life of luxury while their
creditors get little or nothing.
If we are truly serious about curtailing abuses, it seems to me that
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 multi-million-dollar horse ranch in Florida.
Or the convicted Wall Street financier who filed bankruptcy while
owing some $50 million in debts and fines, but still kept his $5
million Florida mansion--complete with 11 bedrooms and 21 baths.
Or the Miami physician with no malpractice insurance, who was named
in four separate malpractice actions, filed for bankruptcy protection,
and kept a $500,000 home--complete with a 100-foot swimming pool.
Or the movie actor, Burt Reynolds, who declared bankruptcy in 1996,
claiming more than $10 million in debt. Reynolds kept a $2.5 million
home--appropriately named ``Valhalla''--while his creditors received 20
cents on the dollar.
[[Page H1985]]
The situation in Florida has become so notorious that one Miami
bankruptcy judge told the New York Times, ``You could shelter the Taj
Mahal in this state and no one could do anything about it.''
The sponsors of the bill will claim that they have closed the
loophole by putting a cap on the exemption. But the provision is
riddled with loopholes that ensure that wealthy debtors who are
sophisticated enough to plan ahead will still be able to shelter their
assets without ever being subject to the cap. Under the bill, they can
purchase a homestead to shelter their non-exempt assets and simply wait
the 1,215 days before filing their petition. And the bill expressly
permits them to transfer their assets from a previous principal
residence into a new one at any time prior to their bankruptcy filing
without being subject to the cap, provided that the former residence is
located in the same state.
What message does it send, Mr. Speaker, when Congress subjects
middle-class debtors to a means test while permitting the wealthy to
continue to place their millions out of reach of their creditors? What
message does it send when we impose tough repayment plans on working
families that are barely making ends meet, while allowing corporate
insiders to drive their companies into bankruptcy and pocket millions
of dollars in bonuses, severance packages, and other ill-gotten gains?
I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and vote down this bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Massachusetts has been a very active player in
this process for a very long time, and he speaks very forcefully about
all these rich people who utilize the schemes within the bankruptcy
law, but then the gentleman failed his own test when he spoke about
millionaires because he moved the test down to a household of $125,000,
not a house that a millionaire or some rich corporate executive that
the gentleman speaks about would want to protect, but where the average
American lives, where the average American who would have a chance to
lose their own house in the event of bankruptcy, and that is the sad
part about this, is that this clamoring, this beating of the drum about
corporate executives and corporations and how bad they are for America
and all these rich fat cats, and then the other party takes it out on
the average person, and they want more. They want to make sure that
literally any person who would have a bankruptcy could lose their
house.
The Republican Party disagrees; I disagree. I think that people who
are Americans who get up and go to work and are hard working would find
this really despicable, to take a person's home because they got into
trouble. But now we say oh, no, down to $125,000, not the millionaire.
So once again we learn the Democratic Party philosophy, and that is
anybody who has a job or house is not protected. Oh, up to $125,000 is.
I wonder who has those kinds of houses? The answer is millions of
Americans, and that is what the other side of the aisle is out after on
the floor of the House of Representative again today if one engages in
bankruptcy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill,
H.R. 975, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.
{time} 1245
This legislation reflects many years of effort by both the House and
the Senate to enact bankruptcy reform which protects consumers from
having to pick up the tab for irresponsible debtors, debtors who are
capable of paying off a significant portion of their debts. There are
people who truly have a legitimate need to declare bankruptcy. At times
hard-working people come up against special circumstances that are
beyond their control. Family illness, disability or the loss of a
spouse may necessitate the need to seek relief under our bankruptcy
laws. This legislation will protect these individuals.
Too frequently, however, individuals who have the financial ability
or earning potential to honor their debts are simply seeking an easy
way out of repaying those debts. While this may prove convenient for
the debtor, it is not fair to their friends or to their neighbors who
are ultimately stuck with the bill. Those who can afford to pay their
debts must honor their commitments.
The current economic climate necessitates bankruptcy reform now more
than ever. Some individuals and small businesses in this Nation are
facing severe financial hardship, hardship that may justify the need to
file for bankruptcy. As a result, the bankruptcy system must be
reformed to ensure that those with a legitimate need are not adversely
affected by those who abuse the system.
Mr. Speaker, the hard-working families in my district in Cincinnati,
Ohio, pay far more than they ought to in taxes. They do not need to
incur an additional burden created by those who seek to hide from their
debts. This bill holds those irresponsible debtors accountable and
protects those hard-working families. I urge support of this rule, and
I urge support of this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
In response to my colleague and dear friend from Texas, it is not the
cap. It is not the cap that disturbs us. The question is, is it a
genuine cap, or is it a sham? I suggest that this cap is a sham. There
are more loopholes in this particular provision than one can even
comprehend. This is not about the individual, the average, middle-class
American who earns 25-, 30- or $35,000, but it is about the
sophisticated investor, it is about the sophisticated individual who
has access to the very best in terms of legal talent and financial
advice, who knows how to game the system. We are talking about not
$125,000, but about the millions, the millions, that are being
prevented from going to legitimate creditors because of this particular
exception.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman and I have spoken about this often, as a matter of
fact, including in the Committee on the Judiciary. We will still hold
on this side of the aisle that if you want to aim at millionaires, then
make it to a millionaire level instead of to a middle-class issue, and
that is $125,000. I do not get it, and I do not think they do, either.
But the American public that loses their home does understand it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Cannon), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me the time to talk about this issue.
I would urge support of our Members for this rule and the underlying
bill. Over the last three Congresses, the House has passed this bill on
six different occasions. We hope that today we can do it for the
seventh time. From about the 105th Congress to the present Congress,
the House Committee on the Judiciary has held hearings at which more
than 130 witnesses have appeared representing nearly every constituency
that is affected in the bankruptcy and business community.
H.R. 975 is virtually identical to the bankruptcy reform legislation
that the House passed just 4 months ago, which was essentially the
bankruptcy conference report, without the so-called Schumer amendment,
so we have eliminated that controversy that we had last year. Last
year's bankruptcy conference report was the product of nearly a year of
extensive negotiations and compromises that were bipartisan and
bicameral.
Let me just point out some of the things that this bill does. H.R.
975 consists of a comprehensive package of reform measures pertaining
to both consumer and business bankruptcy cases. It improves bankruptcy
law and practice by restoring personal responsibility and integrity in
the bankruptcy system and by closing loopholes for abuse. It responds
to many of the factors contributing to the increase in consumer
bankruptcy filings, such as lack of personal financial accountability
and ineffective oversight with respect to deterring abuse in the
system. It ensures that consumer debtors repay creditors to the maximum
that they can afford. It also includes consumer protection reforms that
prioritize the payment of spousal and child support, for instance,
making sure that the deadbeat parents cannot use bankruptcy to avoid
their support
[[Page H1986]]
responsibilities. It also protects a debtor's retirement pension and
educational IRAs for the debtor's children from the claims of
creditors. And it requires debtors to receive credit counseling before
they can be eligible for bankruptcy relief so that they will be able to
make an informed choice about bankruptcy, its alternatives and its
consequences. We find that many people today are taking out bankruptcy
and then finding out how brutal it is to have done so after the fact.
We have also touched on many other issues. We help family farmers and
fishermen who are facing financial distress. This is a program we have
reauthorized several times independently last year. We authorize the
creation of 28 additional bankruptcy judgeships. One of the things we
do that is really quite important is we reduce the systemic risk in the
financial marketplace in this enactment, which Federal Reserve Chairman
Greenspan has described as ``extremely important'' for our system
today.
In addition to the base bill, we have in the rule a Cannon-Delahunt
amendment. If I can speak to that for just a moment, this amendment is
identical to H.R. 5525, a bill that our former colleague George Gekas
from Pennsylvania introduced in the 107th Congress. This really deals
with some of the issues that our colleague from Massachusetts has been
pounding on here recently, where we have had Enron, WorldCom, Global
Crossing and other corporations that have shown us how bad a company
can actually be. This bill would provide heightened protections for
employees by increasing the monetary cap on wage and employee benefit
claims that are entitled to priority under the Bankruptcy Code from
$4,650 to $10,000. In addition, it would lengthen the reach-back period
for wage claims from 90 days to 180 days.
Secondly, the amendment increases the reach-back period during which
fraudulent transfers can be rescinded from 1 year to 2 years and
provides that outrageous compensation payments and bonuses and other
perks given to a corporation's insiders during the reach-back period
which we have now doubled can be rescinded and the payments returned to
the bankruptcy estate for distribution to its employees and creditors.
Third, it requires the court to reinstate retiree benefits that a
corporate debtor modified within 180 days preceding the bankruptcy
filing unless the balance of the equities justifies the modification.
This amendment reflects sound bankruptcy policy and will effectuate
meaningful reforms.
I hope that the Members of this body will support this rule and the
underlying bill and amendment. I would like to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for working with us on this amendment, which I think is
going to be very effective in reaching the core problem of companies
and insiders who do illegal, wrongful things and then walk away scot-
free with a lot of money. Not only should those people be criminalized,
they should be put in jail and their assets taken back and put back in
the estate so that employees and creditors can have the benefit of that
transaction. I thank the gentleman for his work on this issue.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 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. Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in
listening to a former speaker cite the concepts of the Founding
Fathers. We have been spending a lot of time today utilizing the
Constitution, and for this body that is good. Whenever we can attribute
part of our debate and reasoning to the Constitution, we are on solid
ground. He reminded us of the concept of the debtors' court and the
Founding Fathers. Maybe that is all that may be truly accurate in the
representation of utilizing the Founding Fathers' purposes.
Yes, they did not want to have a situation where people were
victimized by those who did not pay their honest debts. We also know
that this country had several States, maybe one in particular, that was
founded by exiled or fleeing debtors. Certainly a now prominent member
of the United States, meaning the United States family, this State is a
thriving, prosperous State today.
All debtors should not be condemned. And the consensus, I believe,
that you could interpret the Founding Fathers' concept does not equate
to modern times, and that is, the Founding Fathers did not know
anything about predatory creditors and usurious rates, interest rates;
they did not know that there would be a proliferation of credit cards
so that if you were 14 years old, you got a letter; if you were
incapacitated in a hospital, they would be soliciting you to get a
credit card; or you could be on a college campus barely making ends
meet, and they would solicit you for a credit card.
And now this legislation simply puts in documentation individuals who
have been preyed upon to get these credit cards now in a situation
where we go into the bankruptcy court, we, one, out of this legislation
take more discretion away from the judges so that they can ascertain
the reasons why you are filing a bankruptcy. You take judicial
discretion away from the judges, and you put a means test so that if
you have a catastrophic illness, or you are divorced or you are elderly
and you lose a loved one, or your spouse and you have fallen upon hard
times, there is no way to give discretion to helping you as you file in
the bankruptcy court.
Let me assure you that neighbors do not put signs out on the front
yard and say, ``I am bankrupt, I have filed bankruptcy, I'm proud of
it.'' It is something that we certainly disagree with or are concerned
with.
My friends in the credit card industry and the credit union industry
have many good points, and to my friends particularly in the credit
union industry of which I support enthusiastically and as well, Mr.
Speaker, have worked with them and would propose certain aspects to
correct their problems, but this legislation fails to protect the
parent who needs alimony and child support. It has them grappling and
fighting on the ground between high-priced credit card companies,
because it dumps all of those particular debts into one pot and has
them fighting with each other.
Unfortunately, you can burn up a Planned Parenthood center and hide
behind the Bankruptcy Code. I hope that is fixed in the other body.
What we call payday loans, the amendment that I had that we would
protect those who, because they have no money, they go to loan sharks
on payday, usurious high rates. Their weekly check, they use it, they
cannot pay it back, they file bankruptcy, and then those usurious rate
people who take advantage of folks who needed an emergency loan at
ridiculous rates can go in and press them to pay those ridiculous loans
back.
Mr. Speaker, we are not fixing the problem, we are making the problem
worse. And how in the world can you expect a single parent, whether it
be a mom or dad, to be able to fight equally with the bigshots with a
lot of lawyers? When we started this some 4 or 5, 6 years ago, it was
noted that the credit card companies paid $40 million in lobbying and
campaign contributions to make sure. They are persistent. And here we
go again with a big document that does not treat the little guy fairly.
I support the Cannon-Delahunt legislation, and I hope next time we
can go even further, because I come from the community where Enron laid
off 5,000 employees within 72 hours after they filed bankruptcy and
gave out $120 million in bonuses.
What we need to do is to do a step further. I will be offering
legislation that makes employees laid off because of the malfeasance of
their corporations secured creditors and first in line. And then I will
make those who have been laid off, losing their benefits, their health
benefits, like a victim in my community who died, because they were
getting benefits, they had a catastrophic illness, and because they
were laid off by this company, they lost their life.
Mr. Speaker, we can do a better job. Vote down the rule and vote down
the bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, last year my colleagues and I on the
conference committee for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
[[Page H1987]]
sent to the President a bill that included tough new criminal penalties
for corporate malefactors. I think at that time we took a number of
steps that were important. We drastically increased the sentencing
guidelines for securities fraud, for document shredding, for mail and
wire fraud. I think Congress provided a strong deterrent for many
white-collar criminals that would misrepresent the true financial
health of their companies.
{time} 1300
By passing this legislation, I think we send a serious message to
Wall Street and to Main Street that these corporate criminals would be
dealt with as harshly as other criminals. I think today Congress has
the opportunity to finish the task of preventing corporate malfeasance
by agreeing to pass this bill, H.R. 975. This bill may not have
everything we want in terms of how it is phrased, but included in this
bill I think is a sensible provision that sharply limits to $125,000
the homestead exemption that many CEOs and corporate officers have used
to shield their assets from creditors after they plunder their
shareholders' wealth. This is in cases where someone has committed
securities law violations or other bad acts, and I think by empowering
the government to go after the ill gotten gains that corporate officers
who break the law and then tie up those assets in offshore mansions at
the expense of parishioners who have been swindled, I think this is an
important addition to the law.
Also, this bill prohibits people convicted of felonies like
securities fraud from claiming an unlimited exemption when filing for
bankruptcy, and I think that protects taxpayers from having to bear the
cost of corporate collapses like Enron and WorldCom; and I think it
also guards against fraud and abuse by requiring that high-income
debtors who have the ability to repay a significant portion of their
debts do so, preventing them from sticking responsible borrowers with
their tab in the long run.
It accomplishes all of this while preserving the ability of people
who truly need to discharge their debts to do so. For far too long,
Americans who have worked hard and paid their bills have been held
accountable for their debts but also by debts incurred by those who
irresponsibly file for bankruptcy; and I think this long-overdue
legislation will reform the critically flawed bankruptcy process and
prevent affluent filers from gaming the system and passing on their bad
debts to hard-working families, while preserving the ability of people
who truly need to discharge their debt through bankruptcy to do so.
Bankruptcy should be preserved as a last resort for those who truly
need the protections that the bankruptcy system has to offer, not a
tool for those who could pay their debts, but choose to discharge them
instead. By agreeing to this legislation, Congress will make the
existing bankruptcy system a needs-based one and correct a flaw in the
current system that encourages people to file for bankruptcy and walk
away from debts regardless of whether they are able to repay any
portion of what they owe, and it does this while protecting those who
truly need protection.
So I commend my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation,
and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this report and
help honest taxpayers by closing the loopholes in the current
bankruptcy system.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, for centuries American bankruptcy law has had the
principle that if a person ever gets over their head in debt, they can
cash in all their assets, pay off all the debts that they can, and get
a fresh start. For policy reasons, a few assets have been historically
exempt and a few debts have been historically nondischargeable,
especially those that have been incurred by fraud or through abuse of
the bankruptcy system. Yet the principle has always been the same, cash
in all one has and get a fresh start.
This bill violates the historic principle. People who incur debts
because of illness, unemployment, or business failure and have debts
they cannot pay off will be denied an opportunity to get a fresh start.
They will be stripped of every penny of income after basic expenses
such as food and rent without reasonable allowance for unforeseen
emergencies such as auto repairs and so forth, which will inevitably
come up. People in these circumstances will be in economic slavery for
5 years and probably be worse off at the end of 5 years than they were
before. During this time a person over his head in debt has nothing to
lose. This bill will deny relief under the traditional bankruptcy laws
for at least 5 years.
The bill has no rational measure for determining a person's ability
to pay off their debts. It says if they can pay off $10,000 on their
debts over 5 years, that is $167 a month, then they are not entitled to
a discharge. A person could co-sign a spouse's business loan only to
have the spouse die or disappear and with a $50,000 salary find him or
herself owing $1 million, unable to even make interest payments, and
that person would be denied relief under this bill. This will cause
many Americans who have had unforeseen business failures, health
problems, or unemployment to find themselves unable to pay their debts
and be trapped with no way out.
If our goal, Mr. Speaker, is to create a situation where people are
stressed out with nothing to lose and to maximize the chances that a
person will totally lose control and terrorize the community or their
co-workers, this is it. Just this week in Washington, D.C. we have seen
the impact of financial stress. The North Carolina farmer who drove his
tractor into the pond near the National Mall was quoted as saying:
``I'm broke, busted, I'm out.'' No one in the community is safer when
we have increased the number of our neighbors who have nothing to lose.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we need to consider the impact this bill will
have on small business entrepreneurs. How many will be willing to take
a chance on a new business if any failure will result not just in
bankruptcy but no relief for the family for 5 years? No bank in the
future will lend a business any cash, especially one in financial
distress which actually needs the money, without the personal signature
of the owner. Long ago we decided that there would be no debtors
prisons in America. This bill represents an effort to take a giant step
backwards to this bygone era, and I urge my colleagues to reject this
bill and the rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has been the subject of debate
today; and the Committee on Rules met last night to talk about this
bankruptcy bill, presented a fair, as they always do, rule to be able
to discuss and debate this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from
Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for his spectacular job in so
ably handling the management of this rule.
The proverbial ``Ground Hog Day'' is what comes back to mind. We have
been dealing with this issue over and over and over again, and we tried
desperately in the waning days of the 107th Congress to move ahead with
a conference report on this because everyone agrees the problem that
exists out there of abuse of the bankruptcy law needs to be fixed, and
we know that members of the Committee on the Judiciary have worked long
and hard on this issue, and we appreciate the fact that we have worked
in a bipartisan way on the legislation.
But, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud of the fact that when we
looked at this rule, I know that my friends on the other side of the
aisle would like to have an open amendment process with every single
proposal that was put forth to the Committee on Rules consider, but
quite frankly virtually all of these issues were addressed in the
Committee on the Judiciary, and they dealt with these questions, and we
have the responsibility of trying to manage as well as we possibly can
this floor and at the same time, as I said when I was here last week,
working hard to ensure
[[Page H1988]]
the rights of the minority. I do feel very strongly about that. I feel
strongly about it because, as I said when I was here last week, I
served for 14 years in the minority and I believe that we need to work
as hard as we can to allow as many ideas as there are out there to
address these concerns and have a chance to come forward. So that is
exactly what we have done.
Mr. Speaker, there were 14 amendments submitted to the Committee on
Rules, and I am happy to say that we have two bipartisan amendments
that we have made in order and three amendments offered by Democrats,
exclusively by Democrats that have been made in order on this issue;
and I know yesterday that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the
ranking minority member, referred to the Gutierrez amendment as a
technical amendment. I happen to be very strongly in support of the
Gutierrez amendment. I think it is a very important measure. It needs
to be addressed, but it is a Democratic amendment.
So, Mr. Speaker, as we try to focus on issues of individual
initiative, responsibility for one's actions, while at the same time
ensuring that those who are in fact really down and out and need to
have as a recourse the filing of bankruptcy, I believe that as we look
at those concerns that this legislation, when we pass this rule, will
allow for an open discussion of the different alternatives and the
proposals that people have, including the gentleman from Michigan's
(Mr. Conyers) substitute, which we have made in order; and then at the
end of the day I hope we can pass this and then move ahead and have
action taken in the other body and a conference after years and years
and years with so much hard work put into this. The gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner),
and the others on the Committee on the Judiciary who worked on this
finally have a product that the President will be able to sign.
So I thank my friend again for yielding me this time, and I thank him
for his superb service on the Committee on Rules; and since I see two
other members of the Committee on Rules here, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), I also thank them for their fine service on the Committee
on Rules as well.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
I strongly urge all Members to oppose this rule. Yesterday,
Republicans on the Committee on Rules refused to make in order my
amendment that would help three categories of individuals who should be
given an opportunity to get back on their feet while still being
obligated to take responsibility for their debts. Without my amendment,
credit card companies will get more consideration than, one, men and
women on active duty in uniform; two, victims of terrorism; and, three,
unemployed Americans.
As we stand within hours of war, we owe it to our soldiers in uniform
to think about their financial vulnerability. My amendment would have
made sure that the brave men and women who serve this country will be
able to file chapter 7 exempting them from the rigid means test
required by H.R. 975. There is a great possibility that the families of
many of the men and women who go to war in Iraq will have economic
problems. This past Sunday on ``60 Minutes,'' Mrs. Vicky Wessel, whose
husband is a Reservist who was sent overseas, summed it up by saying:
``Emotionally it's been tough not having a husband around, not having a
father for the kids; but financially it's been really difficult because
a staff sergeant's pay is a 60 percent cut in pay from what my
husband's regular job pays.''
There are thousands of families like the Wessels. If we enter war
with Iraq, we can expect that some of these families will be forced to
file bankruptcy, and they should not be subjected to the means test.
Two, victims of international terrorism. I do not believe anyone
would argue that the victims of terrorism should be subject to the
means test in the bill. As we all know, many of these families have
lost loved ones who were their families' primary breadwinners. After
and during all of their grieving, they may find themselves as victims
again of economic devastation. Minimally they deserve the protection
that chapter 7 bankruptcy affords them.
Third, the unemployed. In today's economy, 10 million unemployed
workers want jobs but cannot find them. More than 2 million unemployed
workers have run out of their regular State-provided unemployment
benefits and the emergency unemployment benefits they received under
the temporary Federal program. Many of these workers now have no jobs
and no means of support. Two thirds of those filing for bankruptcy
report a significant period of unemployment preceding their filing. My
amendment would make sure that people who exhaust their unemployment
benefits would not be subject to the H.R. 975 means test. We should
make sure that people who have lost their jobs through no fault of
their own are able to file for chapter 7 bankruptcy. We should make
sure they have an opportunity to regain their economic independence.
And finally let me say that we should put the interests of American
families, ordinary American families, people in uniform, people who
have lost their jobs, people who are victims of terrorism, before the
interests of profitable credit card companies.
Oppose this rule. Vote against the underlying bill. It is a bad rule
and a worse bill that could not come at a worse time.
{time} 1315
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a vigorous debate. We go through this
often. There are some nice things I would like to say about two nice
gentlemen also. One of them is the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman
Hyde), and the other is the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner).
These gentleman have ably, carefully taken in the views of witnesses,
of thoughts and ideas not only about bankruptcy, but have included in
that the thought processes of consumers and normal people and
bankruptcy judges. These two gentlemen have worked diligently to make
sure that this body, the United States Congress, has a chance to have
before it not only good legislation, but legislation that is well
thought out.
In particular I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his patience, guidance and leadership to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House,
and also the body of the Committee on Rules, because the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) has done an outstanding job in
making sure that today we have a great piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________