[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 22250-22258]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 2415, AMERICAN EMBASSY SECURITY ACT 
                                OF 1999

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
International Relations and pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII, I offer 
a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. CHABOT moves that the House disagree to the amendment 
     of the Senate to the Bill H.R. 2415 and agree to the 
     conference requested by the Senate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the purpose is to go to conference on H.R. 2415.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the motion.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. CONYERS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is it not 
traditional that at least the other side of the aisle would get half 
the time, 30 minutes? Is that not traditional here?

[[Page 22251]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time for debate on this motion is 1 
hour. It is at the discretion of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. NADLER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, do I understand the Chair to be saying that 
the majority party has decided that the minority has zero time for 
debate on this bill because it is embarrassed by this bill, or because 
of some other reason?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has moved the 
previous question on the motion.
  Mr. NADLER. Continuing parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from what the gentleman 
has said and from what the Speaker is saying that the minority is to be 
denied its customary time to debate this bill; that there is no time to 
debate this bill at all? Is that what we are to understand?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. NADLER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York will state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. NADLER. Under the rules of this House, how much time will the 
minority get to debate this bill, this motion?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If there is a motion to instruct the 
conferees, the hour of debate on that motion is equally divided.
  Mr. NADLER. I cannot hear you, sir.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Any motion to instruct conferees to follow 
will be debatable for one hour, equally divided.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, is the Speaker aware of other precedents 
where the minority was not given half the time to discuss the motion to 
go to conference?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has simply moved the previous 
question.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Excuse me, again, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the tradition 
of the House that the minority have an opportunity to discuss the 
motion, and not be silenced by this parliamentary maneuver?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot be the historian of the 
House under the guise of a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) has 
moved the previous question.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, may I try to untangle this?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Are there further parliamentary inquiries?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Continuing parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut will state 
his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Would it be appropriate at this point, Mr. Speaker, 
for the gentleman from Ohio to ask unanimous consent to remove his 
motion, and then we can have a discussion?
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request for the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the other side and 10 minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) 
each will control 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when we came to the floor for this august parliamentary 
debate, we came with the understanding that an agreement had been 
reached that on the motion to go to conference, that there would be no 
debate and that it would be routinely accorded a voice vote, and then 
we would move to what the minority has planned to do; namely, to move 
on a motion to instruct the conference. That was the understanding 
under which we came to the floor.
  If Members want to begin the debate on the content of their motion to 
instruct during the motion to go to conference, they are just 
duplicating effort. Why do we not all agree that the motion for 
conference, to go to conference, will be accorded a voice vote, and 
then go into the debate on the motion to instruct? That is the 
gentlemanly way to approach this.
  I ask the minority to allow the vote to go to conference to take 
place, and then we can proceed to the motion to instruct, and we will 
debate the merits of that motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania; they are there are two different questions involved. We 
cannot roll one into the other and say, let us go on. We want to talk 
about what is happening procedurally on this bill.
  We are dealing with a bill that has already been passed into law in 
which there is an attempt now to patently misuse the legislative 
process. Enough time on that.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the State Department 
authorization has already been enacted. Is this bill, therefore, merely 
being used as a vehicle to enact bankruptcy, the bankruptcy provisions?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), 
the ranking member of the subcommittee; the chair of the subcommittee.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, we should at least get that right.
  Mr. Speaker, I am willing to answer. Let us go back to something I 
said. How can the gentleman from Michigan say that?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, yes or no, please.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman yielding to me or not?
  Mr. CONYERS. I am, for an answer.
  Mr. GEKAS. What is the question? What is the answer?
  Mr. CONYERS. I could give the gentleman the answer as well, but the 
question is, is this bill before us merely a vehicle to enact the 
bankruptcy provisions?
  Mr. GEKAS. No, not merely.
  Mr. CONYERS. Not merely. What else?
  Mr. GEKAS. It depends on what the word ``else'' means and what ``is'' 
means. But at this point, it is not merely to put in the bankruptcy.
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes. That is very good.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very poor process, as everybody on the floor 
has already noted. This is totally against tradition, to attempt to 
move this measure of bankruptcy into a measure that has already been 
passed into law. This is incredible.
  Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I will ask for the assistance of 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and will need, at the 
appropriate time, to be asking the Speaker for an exercise of 
discretion to substitute him for me as a conferee on the following 
issues with regard to enhanced consumer protection, priority child 
support provisions, general and small business bankruptcy provisions, 
municipal bankruptcy provisions, data bankruptcy, and several other 
items.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Speaker to keep that in mind at the 
appropriate time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, some day before this session is over or before our 
careers are over, I say to the gentleman from Michigan, I want him to 
explain to me on a one-to-one basis why we came to this floor on a 
gentleman's agreement that we were going to proceed on the motion to 
conference and then reserve the debate for the motion to instruct?

[[Page 22252]]

  If there was no such agreement, then I say to the gentleman, we will 
stay here for 3\1/2\ hours, if the gentleman wants to, to debate the 
motion to instruct, or any phase of what the gentleman wants to try to 
get across.
  All I am saying to the gentleman is, are we not prepared now to go to 
a motion to instruct?

                              {time}  1715

  Let us just proceed with the debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, let me start from the beginning and say I 
was aware of no gentleman's agreement. In order to purchase the right 
to speak on this bill, we just gave up the right to vote on this bill 
because of the coercion by the Republican majority.
  We had to purchase the right to speak on this bill for 10 minutes on 
our side instead of 30 minutes, because my colleagues are trampling on 
the rules and the customs and the procedures of the House, because my 
colleagues do not want any debate on this bill, because it will not 
stand the light of day, especially what my colleagues are doing here.
  This is a State Department reauthorization bill, but who is managing 
it? Do we see the foreign affairs committee people here on either side 
of the aisle? No, everybody knows that is a fiction. This is a 
bankruptcy bill, and therefore the Committee on Judiciary people are 
here, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Conyers), myself in order to deal with this bankruptcy 
bill in the guise of the State Department authorization bill, a motion 
to go to conference on the State Department authorization bill, a bill 
that was signed into law last year, number one.
  Number two, why? Why are we trampling upon the normal procedures and 
rules of the House? Because $40 million has been spent on lobbying and 
campaign contributions by the big banks and they must be repaid. They 
must get their way. People in the margins of society, those who have 
had their jobs sent overseas, who have suffered serious illnesses, who 
have had to face the economic consequences of divorce or the death of a 
breadwinner, these Americans have very small voices in this Congress, 
and they are drowned out by the millions spent by the big banks, by the 
shopping centers, the credit card companies.
  This dominates and will have their way on this, even if the majority 
just trampled the rules and the procedures and customs of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not getting prescription drug relief. We are not 
getting campaign finance reform. Farmers have been without chapter 12 
relief for months while family farms are still being held hostage to 
the banks' wish list. We have not even done our basic business and 
passed the appropriations bills to fund the Federal Government.
  But today we have before us in the guise of a motion to go to 
conference on a State Department bill, a 400-page list of favors for 
the large special interests. We should pay our debt to the American 
people, first. No one knows what is in the bill that is going to be 
proposed in this conference. Nobody here will get to review it.
  This will be another secret shame on the House and on the voters. 
This is a perfect illustration of the depths to which our failure to 
pass serious campaign finance reform a few years ago has brought us. I 
am sorry that we do not have a full hour to debate this bill, that we 
have only 20 minutes because of the wish of the majority to trample on 
the rules of this House, because they do not want to see this bill 
really debated, to see the light of day, because if the American people 
really knew what was in it, they would be outraged.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) really wants to 
debate the bill. If we do debate it for another 2 hours or 4 hours, it 
will be a cumulation, a cumulative period of about 50 hours that we 
have spent debating the very same items that are in this bill that were 
in when we first debated it and which gained in the House of 
Representatives 315 votes.
  This was a bigger vote on the same provisions, almost the same 
wording, a bigger vote than the previous time when the House voted 300-
something-plus on the same provisions to which we are addressing these 
remarks.
  It has been debated in committee, in subcommittee, off the floor, in 
informal conference, in the newspapers, in the forums of the news 
media, and we are prepared to do the will of the Congress, to do the 
will of the House. That is why we had to use this extraordinary measure 
to make sure that the will of the people in the country and the will of 
the Members of the House and of the Senate be accorded a vote finally 
on bankruptcy reform.
  What has happened is, even though we tried valiantly through our 
chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), to try to convene a 
conference as far back as June, recalcitrant Members of the minority in 
the other body saw fit to try to wreck this reform measure, just as 
others even on the floor here today are trying to do, and because of 
that, we had to move along, plug along in trying to get a vehicle or a 
methodology by which we can return back to this floor with the bill 
which had handsomely passed this membership. And even though the 
gentlemen who are now speaking on the minority were eloquent in 
lambasting the unfairness of the bill and all the concoctions that they 
wrought for the purpose of trying to defeat the bill, despite all of 
that, I repeat with pride, that 315 Members voted in favor of it.
  Only the members of the Committee on the Judiciary on the minority 
were in any kind of gathering of force to try to oppose it, and they 
failed miserably.
  What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to allow this body to again 
voice its approval of a much-needed reform. Our country needs 
bankruptcy reform. The people by a handsome majority favor the reform 
measure. If we want to argue it some more, we will keep bringing up the 
315 votes, we will keep bringing up those people who support it, all 
the groups around the country that are in favor of bankruptcy reform, 
and do whatever it takes to re-convince the 315 that we are prepared to 
bring reform in bankruptcy to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Gekas) has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we come 
again with the same representation of 315 votes. This is the people's 
House, but we voted on this bankruptcy legislation that is now being 
tagged on to a State Department authorization for no reason in 1997, 
1998, and 1999. There is no swell in this for this bill to be brought 
forward with all of the ills that it has. It is a bad bill. There is no 
need in this economy for a bankruptcy reform.
  The bankruptcy judges have said there is no need. The trustees have 
said there is no need, but there is need to help those who suffer from 
catastrophic illnesses or senior citizens who cannot afford to do what 
they need to do because of catastrophic illnesses or because people are 
divorced, or because there is a question about child support and 
alimony. These need to be fixed.
  There is a homestead exemption that needs to be balanced with other 
States; but, yet, we are coming to the floor with the bankruptcy bill 
in the dark of night almost with no understanding as to why this bill 
has to be pushed through in this session, when, in fact, Mr. Speaker, 
it has problems.
  I know we are going to go to conference. I hope we can try and fix 
these problems in conference.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

[[Page 22253]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) 
has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the record should reflect the fact that every 
single issue that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
articulated here in her remarks has been debated, redebated, discussed, 
rediscussed, overdiscussed, continuously discussed, and hearings were 
held on them. Then I repeat, because it is an important fact for 
everybody to remember, after all of that and all of the debate, 
including the gentlewoman's concerns which she just expressed, 315 
Members of the House and whatever it was in the other body 
overwhelmingly approved bankruptcy reform.
  The time has come for us to resolve the issue. Should we or should we 
not bring bankruptcy reform to the American people? We are facilitating 
that through this mechanism of the conference which we are about to 
convene.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to ask the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), chairman of the subcommittee, since he 
assured us a moment ago that this House has voted on this bill, can he 
assure us that the bill that we are going to see is the same bill the 
House voted on, or is it a different bill? How do we know?
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, it will be different, but the basic core 
values of the bankruptcy reform bill which will make sure----
  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. GEKAS. Does the gentleman want to reclaim his time?
  Mr. NADLER. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for answering the question. The 
gentleman said it will be different, so we have not debated that bill. 
We may have debated a bill with similar core values. I am not going to 
say I concede that, I assume that, but it is not the same bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask one other if the gentleman wants to answer. 
What on earth does this have to do with the State Department 
authorization? What on earth does this have to do with reauthorization 
of the State Department?
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, it has to do with the search for better 
government within the Congress of the United States, in the realm of 
the State Department and in the realm of bankruptcy reform, and for the 
good of our people who demand action on the State Department and on 
bankruptcy reform.
  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. 
In other words, we are using the State Department bill for something 
that has nothing to do with the State Department, because we cannot 
find an honest way under the rules of the House to do this.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Gekas) has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot) has 40 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Is there a 
tie now?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we vote against this misguided 
effort to include provisions of so-called reform of the Bankruptcy Act 
that would impose an indiscriminate means test that will be injurious 
to women, to the payment of childcare; and not only is this process 
disappointing, the substance of the bill before us falls far short of 
what this body should do for the hard-working and poor people of this 
country, more than half of whom file for bankruptcy because of health 
care costs.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is yet another blatant example of the misuse of the 
legislative process by the Republican majority. Last week, it was used 
in the Violence Against Women Act as an excuse to pass special 
interests legislation benefiting the alcohol wholesalers.
  Today, we are attempting to use the State Department bill as a ruse 
to pass special interests bankruptcy provisions. Now what is wrong with 
the bill? The proposal attempts to oppose an indiscriminate means test 
to determine eligibility for bankruptcy relief. It is highly damaging 
to a single mother's access to the bankruptcy system.
  The business provisions of the proposal will impose harsh time 
deadlines and massive new legal and paperwork requirements. And so I 
want to say to my colleagues that the bankruptcy referees who have 
tried to consult with us are shocked that we would move such 
legislation forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to give it their support.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to go to conference on 
H.R. 2415. I also rise in support of the inclusion of the bankruptcy 
reform legislation as a part of this measure. Inclusion of the 
legislation as part of this act will enable us to move forward with a 
much-needed reform of the bankruptcy laws.
  That reform was approved in this House in May by the overwhelming 
vote of 315 to 108, and I would suggest that that strong vote 
underscores the broad agreement among Members of the House on both 
sides of the aisle that we need a bankruptcy reform that restores an 
element of personal responsibility to the bankruptcy process.
  In February of this year, the Senate approved a similar measure by 
the vote of 83 to 14. Unfortunately, due to procedural hurdles in the 
Senate, it has been difficult to reach an agreement between the two 
bodies so that uniform legislation may be considered by both Chambers.
  The hurdles encountered in the other body have created the need to 
utilize the procedure that we are considering today. The legislation 
takes a balanced approach to bankruptcy reform.
  Our main goal in passing the legislation was to encourage those 
individuals who can repay a substantial part of what they owe to use 
the reorganization procedures of Chapter 13 rather than the complete 
liquidation procedures of Chapter 7.
  That is a modest and needed reform endorsed broadly in this House, 
endorsed broadly in the other House. All that we are asking now is the 
opportunity to have a conference to bring final agreement to this much-
needed measure.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge that this House approve the motion to go to 
conference.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) if he is 
prepared to go to a vote to go to conference. If so, I will yield back 
the balance of my time, and we can vote on the conference and go to the 
next portion of this.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the answer is 
yes.
  Mr. GEKAS. Yes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the motion.
  The previous question was ordered.

[[Page 22254]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                Motion To Instruct Offered By Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. NADLER moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2415) be instructed 
     to insist that--
       (1) A meeting of the committee of conference be held and 
     that all such meetings
       (A) be open to the public and to the print and electronic 
     media; and
       (B) be held in venues selected to maximize the capacity for 
     attendance by the public and the media.
       (2) the committee of conference allow sufficient 
     opportunity for members of the committee on conference to 
     offer and to debate amendments to the matters in conference 
     at all meetings of the committee of conference.

  Mr. GEKAS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read, and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XXII, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, if it is in deference to the wish of the 
majority to move expeditiously, I ask unanimous consent that we limit 
debate to 15 minutes on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I will think about it for about 3 seconds and 
say proceed. We will agree to restrict it to 15 minutes on each side.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct simply instructs the managers on 
several points: one, that all meetings of the conference committee be 
open to the public and to the print and electronic media and be held in 
venues selected to maximize the capacity for attendance by the public 
and the media; that is, that it be held in a large room and that it be 
open and public.
  Secondly, that the committee of conference allow sufficient 
opportunity for members of the committee on conference to offer and to 
debate amendments to the matters in conference at all meetings of the 
committee of conference.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, if we are sending this bill to a 
conference committee, it should be a real conference committee, not the 
sham, shadow conference where only people who basically approved of the 
bill were consulted, and not the sham conference we had 2 years ago 
where, after a ceremonial opening where no one was allowed to offer 
amendments, everything else was done in camera and the members of the 
minority were presented only with a written report to sign or not to 
sign. There were no further meetings.
  If the spirit of democratic procedure, with a small ``d,'' in this 
House is to be upheld, then the conference committee ought to be a real 
committee. There ought to be meetings. The meetings ought to be held in 
a room with chairs and seats and space for the media to report on it as 
is generally the case with, as in fact is uniformly the case with the 
rules of the House for committee meetings. That is all this says.
  I find it difficult to imagine how anyone can vote against this 
because all it says is the meetings of the conference committee should 
be in conformance with the normal practices, open meetings, and the 
bill should be a result of open deals openly arrived at, to paraphrase 
Woodrow Wilson.
  It is a very simple motion. I expect everyone will support this 
obviously uncontroversial and constructive motion so that the bill and 
the changes that will be made in it can be done in the light of day, 
and everyone can be responsible for what they do. The media, whoever is 
interested can be there, and there will be seats in the room so people 
who are interested can watch it. It is hard for me to imagine any 
grounds for opposing this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am willing to and will yield back the balance of my 
time and say to the movers of the motion that we agree to the content 
of the motion and we can go directly to a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for a question.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I will answer if 
I can.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, do we have a commitment from the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), a personal commitment, that the terms of 
this motion to instruct will, in fact, be adhered to, because we have a 
record here of motions to instruct being ignored. So in other words, do 
we have a commitment that, in fact, the meetings will be open to the 
public as it says here and members of the conference committee will 
have opportunity to offer amendments and so forth?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, the procedure is implicit in the rules of the 
House as to how a conference and to what proportions Members will be 
able to participate and to what degree access to the public will be 
made, and so I do confirm the rules of the House in that regard.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, frankly, no one has to 
confirm the rules of the House. The rules of the House are what they 
are. But despite the rules of the House, past conferences on this bill 
and conferences on other bills have not been done this way. Some have. 
Many have not been.
  So I ask if we have the gentleman's personal commitment as a member 
of the majority, perhaps the chairman of the conference, that the 
conference will be done in accordance with the urgings of this motion 
that we are apparently about to pass. Because the rules of the House 
have no enforcement mechanism. That is why I am asking for his personal 
commitment as the enforcement mechanism on this situation.
  Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) is 
looking at me with a quizzical look on his face----
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I always do.
  Mr. NADLER. Well, sometimes, I deserve that.
  Mr. GEKAS. Yes.
  Mr. NADLER. And sometimes not. But in any event, the rules of the 
House are often waived. So that is why I am simply asking for the 
gentleman's word, his commitment that, in this case, the rules of the 
House, as expressed in this motion to instruct, namely, that the 
meetings will be open to the public and to the print and electronic 
media, that they will be held in rooms large enough so people can 
attend, and that members of the conference committee will have the 
opportunity to offer and debate amendments, that that in fact will be 
done.
  Do I have the gentleman's commitment and assurance that that, in 
fact, will be done?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I think we have to divide the gentleman's 
question. It has so many facets to it.
  Let me put it this way. If I become chairman of the conference, I 
will have some power to determine the parameters of how it would be 
run. I am the lowly chairman of the subcommittee which happened to 
author this wonderful and needed bankruptcy reform measure. To the 
extent that we can expedite this matter, I have tried to cooperate on 
the floor, as I have in all stages of these procedures. I want this 
thing to move on; and whatever the conference requires of its members, 
I will accede in doing.

[[Page 22255]]


  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, with all due deference, that is not an 
answer.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, the question is----
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, excuse me, it is my time now.
  Mr. Speaker, with all due deference, the best way, I do not know if 
it is the best way, but the easiest way to expedite the process of the 
bill is to walk out with a bill, have the majority members of the 
conference committee sign it, and come back and say this is the 
conference report with no meetings.
  So I will ask again, do I have a commitment that there will, in fact, 
be meetings in a room with the members of the conference committee 
present at the same time and with members of the conference committee 
able to offer and debate amendments? Simple request. Do I have that 
commitment, yes or no?
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I will offer all 
the recommendations of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) to the 
committee when it is fully formed, and I will have a copy of the 
Congressional Record with all his recommendations in it. We will hope 
that the conference, for his sake, will accommodate as many of his 
requests in that multirequest statement he just made, Mr. Speaker.
  So there is no need to prolong this. Let us go to conference.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we did not get any 
commitment that this will be adhered to. I will predict right now, and 
I will say it on the floor, and, in fact, let me pose a challenge to 
the Republican leadership. I do not believe they are going to adhere to 
this. I do not believe there will be a meeting. I do not believe 
members will have the opportunity to offer amendments. I do not believe 
there will be votes on those amendments. I do not believe anyone will 
be able to sit at that meeting.
  I challenge them to show me I am wrong. I predict that I am right. I 
challenge them to show me I am wrong. I challenge them to show me they 
can, in fact, proceed on this bill in an honorable way under the rules 
of the House. I bet they do not.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) 
has 15 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has 
7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I still wanted to go to a vote here. That is why I 
agreed to the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I will challenge the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler) to meet me here in this body next January when we reconvene and 
review what happened here today to see whether he was satisfied at the 
procedure that completed the work on bankruptcy reform. I challenge him 
to do that. Because the conference is a life all of its own. I cannot 
predict what it will do. I will not chair that conference.
  I want to do the best I can to bring before the American people much-
needed bankruptcy reform. Where have my colleagues heard that before, 
Mr. Speaker? They heard that from me, because it is the logical answer 
to all the contentions made by the people who oppose bankruptcy reform.
  We are using a proved mechanism within the rules of the House and the 
Senate to bring a measure to the floor which has been debated, 
redebated, discussed, rediscussed, returned to the House, returned to 
the Senate, one term to the next. There is nothing more to be said 
except shall I vote yes or no on bankruptcy reform?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not have to wait till next January, because I 
predict that we will have a bill on the floor, a completed conference 
report on the floor tomorrow. I also predict there will not have been a 
meeting, there will not have been votes or amendments.
  Now, I am not talking now about the merits of the bill. I am talking 
about honest, open and democratic procedure so that people can see what 
is being done in the open light of day in accordance with the normal 
rules of the House, which hopefully would not be waived in this case.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), the honorable ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on the 
Judiciary here. Could I ask if he would kindly join with us in pledging 
to affirm and carry out the details of the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) 
for some closure on this matter.
  Okay. The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) does not care to 
comment on this matter.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman made some 
interesting points. One, I think the gentleman's inquiry is whether or 
not the bankruptcy bill is the same bill that saw one or two votes on 
the floor of the House. The response was that it is not.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that is an important point. I rise to support 
this motion to instruct because in the last session of Congress I was 
part of the conference on bankruptcy. I recall that conference being 
the opening of a door to a room, the seating at a table, the gaveling 
of the opening of that conference and the gaveling of the conclusion of 
that conference; all probably occurring within a 20-minute time frame, 
to my recollection. But there was no time for amendments or public 
view.
  I think the misnomer that we have here, Mr. Speaker, is the 
terminology being used here: bankruptcy reform. There is no reform if 
we do not take into account people's catastrophic illnesses, divorce, 
the need for alimony protection, or child support protection. And there 
is no reform, Mr. Speaker, if the statistics will show that bankruptcy 
filings are going down.
  The reason why this legislation has even come to the forefront and 
took so long is because there was some crisis that the proponents of 
this bill viewed that they were having. There is no crisis and the 
leaders in the industry, the bankruptcy judges, the bankruptcy 
trustees, say there is no need for reform. The bankruptcy commission 
never settled on a response or an answer that is incorporated in this 
bill. The bankruptcy commission never came forward on the means test, 
and that is what is in this bill.
  This motion to instruct should be passed, Mr. Speaker, and I support 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I come before you today to oppose this motion. It 
includes the highly controversial bankruptcy bill that was introduced 
by Senator Lott during September. This bill, has not improved the very 
harsh provisions in the bill.
  The motion simply eliminates essential provisions for minimum wage 
and tax break provisions that were agreed upon after a hard fight by 
Democrats.
  This drastic move, by the Republican leadership flies in the face of 
the months of negotiations by both parties to put forth legislation 
that would provide adequate protection to the American people. In the 
time it took to slip this new bill in to the Senate Bill Clerk's 
Office, one member of the United States Senate cast aside and buried 
all the time we spent ensuring that certain protections were in place 
to assist hard working class and lower income people. This is 
regrettable.
  I oppose this motion and introduction of this bill which has made a 
farce of the political process.
  The greatest challenge before us in the bankruptcy reform efforts 
here in Congress is solving the widely recognized inadequacies of the 
law in the area of consumer bankruptcy. As it has always been in 
Congress, the key to this process, is, of course, successfully 
balancing the priorities of creditors, who desire to general reduction 
in the amount of debtor filing fraud, and debtors, who desire fair and 
simple access to bankruptcy protections when they need them.
  We must come to a point of consensus on how to approach the problems 
of consumer-

[[Page 22256]]

debtor abuse. The main problems in this area are, (1) inaccurate debtor 
statements of their assets in official filings, (2) multiple bankruptcy 
petitions in a short span of time in order to gain an automatic stay or 
immediate protection from indebtedness, (3) too few Chapter 13 
participants, and (4) too few Chapter 13 plans are completed, 
particularly in regard to debtor obligations to unsecured creditors.
  Mr. Speaker, imagine a debtor sitting at desk, money in one hand and 
financial obligations in the other. On the other side of this desk is a 
line of individuals waiting for payment. In this line there are 
creditors standing along side their attorneys, mothers holding the 
hands of their small children and students with books. The debtor 
begins to pay his creditors pursuant to law. As he begins to make 
payments he realizes that his available financial resources are 
limited--secured creditors are paid first. As he turns to make payment 
for his familiar obligations, the unsecured creditors move forward with 
their counsel and request payment or a lawsuit. Who will advocate for 
our children, America's largest indigent group? Who will speak for the 
recipients of alimony and support payments?
  Let me start by stating that I am for bankruptcy reform that is 
equitable and fair to all interested parties. I am for bankruptcy 
reform that recognizes the financial interest at stake for the debtor, 
his family and his creditors. Reform that will give a debtor a fresh 
start--the new start bankruptcy has historically given to an individual 
that is financially unable to pay his debts.
  The United States Constitution Article I, Section 8, grants Congress 
the power to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies 
throughout the United States. In January 1999 I took the Congressional 
Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It was an obligation 
that I took freely and without any reservation. As a Member of 
Congress, I am bound to uphold the Constitution.
  My duty to uphold the Constitution is not a theoretical duty but a 
real duty; it is a duty that compels me to voice my opposition to 
attempt by Republicans to usurp the process. It is a duty that compels 
me to protect children, women and honest debtors. It is a duty that 
obligates me to oppose any legislation that will upset the delicate 
balance that has evolved over the years between creditors and honest 
debtors.
  Regrettably this bill--will not give an honest debtor--a fresh start. 
In fact, it will create a modern day debtors' prison. Through the use 
of reaffirmation agreements and the shackling mandatory provisions of 
this bill--innocent women and children will be hurt. Alimony and 
support payments will be subordinated to the interest of creditors.
  Children do not have the financial resources to hire an advocate to 
collect their support payments. Most women do not have the financial 
resources to hire an attorney to collect alimony payments. Who will 
advocate for our children--Who will speak for the recipients of alimony 
payments?
  I am concerned about the potential adverse impact that this bill will 
have on America's families. This bill is not the product of a 
deliberative process, it is the off-spring of a rubber stamp bankruptcy 
reform factory--manufactured to curb financial abuse yet its provisions 
have not been tested. It may give rise to financial over-reaching by 
dishonest, unscrupulous creditors.
  Debtors with the financial ability to pay their obligations should be 
required to satisfy these debts. Certainly, I am not suggesting that 
the bankruptcy code should provide a shield for individuals interested 
in defrauding creditors. Financial responsibility and integrity is a 
noble cause; however, a debtor's familiar obligations should not be 
held hostage in an effort to obtain these goals.
  This bill redirects a significant portion of a debtor's income to 
banks and credit card companies without providing a mechanism to 
protect alimony and child support payments. Who will advocate for our 
children--Who will speak for the recipients of alimony payments?
  This bill creates broader categories of non-dischargeable debt. These 
new non-dischargeable debt obligations will lower the potential for 
women and children to receive necessary support payments for their 
existence. Women and children will be in direct competition for the 
limited resources of the discharged debtor. Who will advocate for our 
children--Who will speak for the recipients of alimony payments?
  This bill is a catastrophic threat to our families who rely on 
support payments. Needs based bankruptcy utilizes an artificial 
mathematical formula, the ``means test,'' that has its genesis in a 
discretionary equation as determined by the Internal Revenue Service 
collection standards.
  More importantly, this bill, mandates that the bankruptcy court 
presume abuse exists if the debtor's current monthly income is not less 
than 25 percent of the debtor's nonpriority unsecured claims. A debtor 
can rebut this presumption of abuse by demonstrating and establishing 
``extraordinary circumstances'' that require additional expenses or 
adjustment of income.
  This problematic formula will ignore or understate the real day to 
day expenses and financial circumstances of an honest debtor. 
Bankruptcy legislation must take into account the specific needs of the 
debtor, his financial obligations and that individual's ability to pay 
creditors. This bill unacceptable because it authorizes and compels the 
bankruptcy court to convert a properly filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy into 
a Chapter 13 pursuant to an arbitrary and capricious procedure that is 
harsh and extreme.
  Our bankruptcy system may be irreparably damaged as a result of 
attempting to promote financial responsibility through a ``means 
test.'' The National Bankruptcy Review Commission rejected the means 
test formula because it will not accomplish its goal--curbing abuse of 
the bankruptcy system. The ``means test'' is a mean test because it 
penalizes honest debtors and their families. The ``means test'' 
promotes a cookie-cutter mentality to an individualized problem. Who 
will advocate for our children--Who will speak for the recipients of 
alimony payments?
  Bankruptcy reform must provide assurances for honest debtors that 
their decision to file Chapter 7 will be respected and thoroughly 
reviewed before applying a bright-line artificial mathematical test 
that will thrust the petition into Chapter 13.
  This bill severely restricts the availability of debtors to seek 
protection utilizing State exemption laws. Since 1939, the Texas 
Constitution, Article 16, section 50, subsection (a), has provided 
debtors with a homestead exemption against creditors' claims. It 
states, ``[T]he homestead of a family, or of a single adult person, 
shall be, and is hereby protected from forced sale, for the payment of 
all debts.''
  Without application to bankruptcy law--this constitutional provision 
would have little utility for honest debtors. Whatever happened to the 
concept that a man's home is his castle? In Texas, we believe in this 
principle and we are opposed to any legislation that threatens the 
viability of this protection.
  Mr. Speaker, the entire Texas Delegation has signed a letter 
expressing concern over the proposed monetary protection limit on the 
amount of an individual's homestead. At this time, I would like to 
introduce a copy of this letter into the Record.
  Additionally, this bill will create exemptions that are inconsistent 
with the overall intent and spirit of bankruptcy. Furthermore, honest 
debtors will be reluctant to file for financial protection because of 
fear.
  We must protect women and children. Over sixty percent of bankruptcy 
petitioners have been unemployed within a two-year span prior to 
seeking assistance from the bankruptcy court. Approximately two out of 
every three petitioners are recently divorced. According to the 
Consumer Bankruptcy Project, an estimated 300,000 bankruptcy cases 
involved child support and alimony orders.
  Under the existence bankruptcy structure, particularly in Chapter 7, 
alimony and child support payments survive. Consequently, alimony and 
child support recipients are almost guaranteed payment because the 
debtor can discharge other non-secured financial obligations in order 
to make familiar payments.
  We must protect women and children. If we deny access to Chapter 7 to 
individuals who need this form of protection--debtors who fail to 
complete the required repayment plan will return to Chapter 7 with a 
diminished capacity to repay their non-dischargeable debt--including 
child support and alimony payments. The 1970 Bankruptcy Commission 
concluded ``forced participation by a debtor in a plan requiring 
contributions out of future income has little prospect for success. 
Hence it should not be adopted as a feature of the bankruptcy system.''
  We must protect America's families. Most individuals who file 
petitions in the bankruptcy courts are usually experiencing turbulent 
times. Financial hardship is a serious matter that deserves legislative 
reform that is the product of a deliberative process.
  We must protect America's families! This bill, is an extreme bill 
undertaken at the direction of special interest groups. We must protect 
working-class families. We must work to find a viable solution that 
deters abuse of the bankruptcy system while preserving the fresh start 
for discharged debtors.
  We must protect America's families! It is ironic that the consumer 
lending industry actively solicits unsuspecting consumers through

[[Page 22257]]

the mail with terms of easy credit, buy now--pay later rhetoric. After 
addicting debtors to this ``financial crack'' lenders are advocating 
for reform. Of course debtors are responsible for financial obligations 
that they incur; however, lenders must assume responsibility for their 
actions in creating the precarious financial crisis we are discussing.
  In the 105th Congress, I served as a member of the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative law and as a conferee on H.R. 3150, the 
precursor to the bill being unconsidered under the motion today. Last 
year, I signed onto the dissenting views of the accompanied report from 
the committee. The dissents' conclusion is appropriate in this context:
  For nearly 100 years, Congress has carefully considered the 
bankruptcy laws and legislated on a deliberate and bipartisan basis. In 
the past, Congress has elected also to carefully preserve an insolvency 
system, that provides for a fresh start for honest, hard-working 
debtors, protects ongoing businesses and jobs, and balances the rights 
of and between debtors and creditors.
  Because this motion departs from these historical principles, I will 
vote in opposition to this legislation.
  Another problem that deserves attention by Congress is the area of 
creditor abuse. The lending mechanisms that currently affords credit to 
consumers with low to moderate incomes have been faulty and have been 
marked for restructuring, but no improvement has come. We can not risk 
the creation of a ``two-tier'' credit system in this country that 
generally ignores the interests of individuals at lower income levels.
  I am disappointed that the Republican Leadership has chosen to take 
two steps backwards for every step forward, however, we, in the 
Democratic party will press forward and work together to find the best 
way to accomplish these goals for the greater benefit of all of the 
parties involved in this process.
  Finally, I oppose the motion to go to conference however, if the 
motion passes I support the Nadler motion to instruct to insure an open 
conference meeting that complies with the rules of the House.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank the other side for allowing me to speak briefly.
  I want to put this debate in the context I think we are missing. We 
are talking about process, and what I would like to achieve, along 
with, I think, most Members of this body, is results. The process we 
have chosen is legal, it is legitimate, and it follows the rules of 
this body. I would like to focus Members' attention on the fact that 
the bankruptcy reform bill passed 313 to 108, and in the Senate it was 
83 to 14.
  The reason we are here in the last hours of Congress having to use 
the process that we have chosen is because a handful of people who want 
to defeat the will of both bodies have chosen to make it difficult if 
not impossible without this route. I would associate myself with the 
comments of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). I think the will 
of the Congress is being expressed in the vehicle we have chosen.
  Bankruptcy reform is long overdue in this country to protect people, 
women and children, to make sure their obligations owed to them are 
there. This bankruptcy bill protects those who are in need to make sure 
their payments come before anybody else gets their payments. The bill 
seeks to reform a system that has been outdated and needs to be brought 
up to the 21st century standards to make sure that people avail 
themselves of bankruptcy protection in a fair way and that the business 
community gets a fair shake.
  So I would just say to my colleagues on the other side who are 
talking about process, we are here in the last hours of this Congress 
to do as much good for the American people as we can. This bill was 
passed 313 to 108 in the House, 83 to 14 in the Senate. The vehicle 
chosen here was chosen because a few people made us do this.
  What we have chosen to do here, Mr. Speaker, is legal and follows the 
rules of the body, and I would ask all of my colleagues who support 
bankruptcy reform to come to our aid here in the last hours of the 
Congress and let us do something good for the American consumer and the 
American business community.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I would like to engage the subcommittee chairman in a 
colloquy, if I might.
  The previous speaker just mentioned that the House passed the bill 
313, or whatever, by a wide margin. The House also adopted language 
that allowed States to opt out of the cap on the exemption of 
homestead. This is something that the Federal Government has allowed 
the States to determine since the founding of the country.
  What I would ask the distinguished chairman is whether or not the 
conference report, which we do not know, have not seen, that someone 
has written somewhere, overrides the will of the House that 
overwhelmingly passed the manager's amendment that included this opt 
out? Does this conference report override State law and State 
constitution with respect to homestead?
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. I cannot predict what the final language will be in the 
conference by reason of the deliberations of the conference that has 
yet to take place. It is my intent to press for the States' rights on 
homestead exemption to remain.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to 
instruct and remind them that all it says is that we instruct the 
conferees that meetings of the conference committee be open to the 
public and to the media; to be held in rooms selected to maximize the 
capacity for attendance, that is, in big rooms; and that members of the 
conference committee be allowed to offer and debate amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I trust that that is a noncontroversial motion to 
instruct; and if in fact I recall correctly, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, said he agreed with this 
motion.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding me this time, and my comments will go to the underlying bill.
  Let me just make the observation that we have had three votes on this 
measure, and it has passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. I 
think the time for reform really is now.
  The fact this bill will stop abusers while protecting those who need 
it most is important. I think for too many wealthy Americans bankruptcy 
is becoming the first stop rather than the last resort, and more and 
more higher-income people are choosing bankruptcy as a financial 
planning tool, sheltering substantial wealth, while sticking the 
consumers and responsible borrowers with the tab. That is part of what 
this is about. They wipe out billions of dollars worth of wealth by 
doing this. Even one case of bankruptcy fraud or abuse is too many. It 
takes 33 Americans to pay for one bankruptcy of convenience.
  My point is we must restore personal responsibility to our bankruptcy 
code. We have a trend here that is continuing. Despite economic growth, 
despite low unemployment, despite rising disposable personal income an 
exorbitant number of personal bankruptcies are filed every year, many 
by individuals who have the ability to pay down some or all of their 
debt. In fact, over the past decade, the number of personal 
bankruptcies have doubled, and this year more people are projected to 
declare bankruptcy than will graduate from college.

[[Page 22258]]

  Now, this reform helps women and children. Under provisions in the 
bankruptcy reform conference report, child support and alimony take 
priority, take priority over all other debts, making it now easier for 
single mothers to collect child support payments from fathers who would 
rather walk away from their responsibilities by filing for bankruptcy. 
Fixing the bankruptcy code and strengthening child support and alimony 
enforcement go hand in hand in reinforcing personal responsibility.
  Let me say that the enormous enhancements to support in terms of this 
collection remedy make this worthy of support. And those words come 
from the National Districts Attorney's Association in their support for 
this measure. Bankruptcy reform enjoys strong bipartisan support.
  I will just remind my colleagues of the fact that this legislation 
was agreed to by both Chambers and would help prevent those who can 
afford to repay some of their debt from pushing it off on to other 
hard-working Americans. Once again, I remind my colleagues that the 
House passed this reform by a margin of 313 to 108 here and by a margin 
of 83 to 14 in the Senate.
  The time for reform is now. Let us move the measure.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. 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 398, 
nays 1, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 526]

                               YEAS--398

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                                NAYS--1

       
     Souder
       

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Burr
     Campbell
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Danner
     DeLauro
     Eshoo
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Goodlatte
     Hayes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Klink
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Pastor
     Spratt
     Stark
     Talent
     Watt (NC)
     Wise
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. SOUDER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. COBURN, DOOLEY of California and CONDIT changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Without objection, the Chair 
appoints the following conferees:
  Messrs. Hyde, Gekas, Armey, Conyers and Nadler.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________