[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23727-23732]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVISTS DEBT RELIEF ACT OF 2008

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 3197) to amend title 11, United States Code, to exempt 
for a limited period, from the application of the means-test 
presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of reserve 
components of the Armed Forces and members of the National Guard who, 
after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a 
homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

                                S. 3197

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Guard and 
     Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

       Section 707(b)(2)(D) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in clauses (i) and (ii)--
       (A) by indenting the left margin of such clauses 2 ems to 
     the right, and
       (B) by redesignating such clauses as subclauses (I) and 
     (II), respectively,
       (2) by striking ``testing, if the debtor is a disabled 
     veteran'' and inserting the following:

     ``testing--
       ``(i) if the debtor is a disabled veteran'',
       (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or'', and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) with respect to the debtor, while the debtor is--
       ``(I) on, and during the 540-day period beginning 
     immediately after the debtor is released from, a period of 
     active duty (as defined in section 101(d)(1) of title 10) of 
     not less than 90 days; or
       ``(II) performing, and during the 540-day period beginning 
     immediately after the debtor is no longer performing, a 
     homeland defense activity (as defined in section 901(1) of 
     title 32) performed for a period of not less than 90 days;

     if after September 11, 2001, the debtor while a member of a 
     reserve component of the Armed Forces or a member of the 
     National Guard, was called to such active duty or performed 
     such homeland defense activity.''.

     SEC. 3. GAO STUDY.

       (a) Comptroller General Study.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the effective date of this Act, the Comptroller General 
     shall complete and transmit to the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, 
     a study of the use and the effects of the provisions of law 
     amended (and as amended) by this Act. Such study shall 
     address, at a minimum--
       (1) whether and to what degree members of reserve 
     components of the Armed Forces and members of the National 
     Guard avail themselves of the benefits of such provisions,
       (2) whether and to what degree such members are debtors in 
     cases under title 11 of the United States Code that are 
     substantially related to service that qualifies such members 
     for the benefits of such provisions,
       (3) whether and to what degree such members are debtors in 
     cases under such title that are materially related to such 
     service, and
       (4) the effects that the use by such members of section 
     707(b)(2)(D) of such title, as amended by this Act, has on 
     the bankruptcy system, creditors, and the debt-incurrence 
     practices of such members.
       (b) Factors.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
       (1) a case shall be considered to be substantially related 
     to the service of a member of a reserve component of the 
     Armed Forces or a member of the National Guard that qualifies 
     such member for the benefits of the provisions of law amended 
     (and as amended) by this Act if more than 33 percent of the 
     aggregate amount of the debts in such case is incurred as a 
     direct or indirect result of such service,
       (2) a case shall be considered to be materially related to 
     the service of a member of a reserve component of the Armed 
     Forces or a member of the National Guard that qualifies such 
     member for the benefits of such provisions if more than 10 
     percent of the aggregate amount of the debts in such case is 
     incurred as a direct or indirect result of such service, and
       (3) the term ``effects'' means--
       (A) with respect to the bankruptcy system and creditors--
       (i) the number of cases under title 11 of the United States 
     Code in which members of reserve components of the Armed 
     Forces and members of the National Guard avail themselves of 
     the benefits of such provisions,
       (ii) the aggregate amount of debt in such cases,
       (iii) the aggregate amount of debt of such members 
     discharged in cases under chapter 7 of such title,
       (iv) the aggregate amount of debt of such members in cases 
     under chapter 7 of such title as of the time such cases are 
     converted to cases under chapter 13 of such title,
       (v) the amount of resources expended by the bankruptcy 
     courts and by the bankruptcy trustees, stated separately, in 
     cases under title 11 of the United States Code in which such 
     members avail themselves of the benefits of such provisions, 
     and
       (vi) whether and to what extent there is any indicia of 
     abuse or potential abuse of such provisions, and
       (B) with respect to debt-incurrence practices--
       (i) any increase in the average levels of debt incurred by 
     such members before, during, or after such service,
       (ii) any indicia of changes in debt-incurrence practices 
     adopted by such members in anticipation of benefitting from 
     such provisions in any potential case under such title; and
       (iii) any indicia of abuse or potential abuse of such 
     provisions reflected in the debt-incurrence of such members.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this 
     Act shall apply only with respect to cases commenced under 
     title 11 of the United States Code in the 3-year period 
     beginning on the effective date of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on S. 3197.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The consumer bankruptcy overhaul signed into law 3 years ago adds a 
means test that presumes a debtor is abusing the law if he or she has 
income

[[Page 23728]]

that exceeds a modest threshold, and thereby forces the debtor into a 
multiyear repayment plan.
  This bill, S. 3197, excepts qualifying National Guard and Reserve 
members from that presumption of abuse. We have the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) to thank for this.
  With half a million members of the National Guard and Reserve called 
to Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11, many serving multiple tours of 
duty, the financial toll on their families has been severe.

                              {time}  1230

  It's estimated that up to 26 percent of National Guard members 
deployed experience money problems as a direct result. And so the 
measure before us makes an exception-to-the-means test presumption of 
abuse for National Guard and Reserve members who serve 90 days since 
September 11, 2001, and for a year and a half after they leave service. 
I'm heartened to know that we now have the opportunity to provide this 
modest but important relief to these brave men and women in the 
service.
  I also commend Ranking Member Lamar Smith of Texas who has helped 
make this a bipartisan endeavor.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'm happy that the House is able to complete today the Congress' 
consideration of this bipartisan legislation. As we have stated at 
every turn, Republicans strongly support the mission and appreciate the 
sacrifice of our dedicated Reservists and Guardsmen. We continue to 
agree that Reservists and Guardsmen who are plunged into bankruptcy by 
the demands of their service should be given a helping hand under the 
Bankruptcy Code.
  Earlier this session, Judiciary Committee Republicans labored long 
and hard to achieve a workable compromise that would help these willing 
warriors. The merger issue for us was simple--that the bill respond to 
bankruptcies attributable to a Reservist's or Guardsman's service. The 
Senate has returned a bill to us that preserves the balance that we 
struck. The Senate has added one amendment, but it is technical in 
nature and was sought by the Administrative Office of the United States 
courts.
  I urge all Members to support the passage of this legislation, and I 
look forward to the bill's implementation as law. I also look forward 
to the results 2 years from now of the GAO study contained in the bill. 
This study will tell us for sure whether Reservists and Guardsmen are 
using the relief granted by the bill when it is their service that 
leads to bankruptcy--not other factors. With this study in hand, when 
the bill reaches its 3-year sunset, we will know for sure whether it's 
being abused in cases lacking the necessary link to service. If it is 
being abused, we will be able to address that abuse at the time that 
reauthorization is considered.
  In light of these considerations, I'm pleased to support passage of 
the bill.
  I would also like to thank others who have worked on this bill, in 
particular Congressman Rohrabacher from California. I made, as the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law that 
has oversight of the Bankruptcy Act, a promise that we would reconsider 
this bill that was done some years ago. Mr. Rohrabacher has done an 
amazing job, given leadership and determination to bring this bill to 
where it is today and, by doing so, has redeemed my promise and his and 
that of many other people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the Chair of the 
California delegation, Zoe Lofgren, for as much time as she needs.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It is obviously 
important that we make sure that any of our armed servicemembers who 
have suffered a financial loss because of their service have access to 
relief through the bankruptcy courts. That's the least we can do to 
assist these fine men and women.
  But I rise also to say that there are other things that are not yet 
before us in the bankruptcy arena that we, I believe, are gaining some 
bipartisan support for.
  Many of us have expressed concern that lacking in the recovery 
package that we will be voting on tomorrow is any provision that deals 
with the primary mortgage, mortgage on a primary residence, that might 
be one of many tools to deal with the underlying crisis that has 
created this worldwide economic instability.
  I would have preferred that such a measure be in the recovery 
package, but it is not essential that the measure be part of the 
package. It is possible to move such a measure separately.
  We were here earlier in the week. I complimented my colleague from 
Utah saying that it was unlikely we would be on the floor together 
again because he is not returning, but here we are. And I would just 
like to compliment him for the hard work and discussions that he has 
put in behind the scenes over the last several weeks to see if 
disagreements can be resolved and if parties can come together in the 
interest of the country. I can't say that we have accomplished that 
yet, but I think that we have an opportunity, and I actually am quite 
optimistic that we will be successful in that effort that would be very 
important for our country.
  I see the gentleman standing there. I wonder if I could yield to him, 
if he wishes to make a comment.
  Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentlelady.
  The American people are enraged by this bailout, or rescue as we're 
now calling it, and I think justifiably so. And they ought to be 
enraged that the real cause here--or the real cause of what I think 
should be the rage is that this has been done in a way that has been 
mandated, directed, expected that we would respond without much 
involvement. The rage of the American people reminds me of a bull often 
goes after the cape rather than goring the toreador. And what we need 
to do here, I think--I hope the American people recognize the 
opportunity to demand a transparent government.
  There was no reason why the administration couldn't have made its 
three-page proposal available not as a legislative demand but as an 
outline of what the discussions should have been. There is no reason 
why we here in Congress have not done an open rule and had a debate on 
this. We could easily have taken this measure, debated it openly, 
amended it, adjusted it, and done things that make some sense.
  Now the problem as I see the bailout--and the gentlelady and I have 
talked about this at some length--is that it pumps liquidity into banks 
and takes paper. That paper we hope is good. We hope it will be more 
valuable than what we have spent on it.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I wonder, I did yield, but we have 
other speakers. So I wonder if--and we can have this further 
discussion--but whether on the mortgage, primary residence mortgage 
issue, you think there is further opportunity to make progress between 
Republicans and Democrats, conservatives, and nonconservatives?
  Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentlelady. We have plenty of time on my 
side. If the gentlelady would like to yield back temporarily, I would 
be happy to use my time to talk about that point.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I will do so because I don't want to 
take advantage of the chairman's yielding me unlimited time when there 
are other speakers.
  But I would just say in the discussions that we have had that have 
been very honest and very practical--and I think totally bipartisan, I 
would even say nonpartisan--trying to find common ground in the 
interest of the American people in this. I have a sense of optimism 
that we can do something important on the mortgage bankruptcy issue 
aside from this recovery package that is coming.
  Having said that, I will yield back to the chairman of the committee, 
and perhaps Mr. Cannon will use some of his time to further explore 
this.
  Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentlelady, and if she wishes to remain, 
perhaps we can have a colloquy at some point.
  Let me make a couple of points. We have had a long and intense 
discussion

[[Page 23729]]

about what we can do to help solve, not the problem of the banks with 
their toxic loans which we hope we will buy at a reasonable price in a 
reverse auction, but what we do on the other side of this problem, 
which is homeowners who can't afford the loans that they got on 
property that was often misappraised or appraised fraudulently and 
therefore left in a box without being able to pay, with mortgages that 
are resetting at higher interest rates, sometimes with higher balances 
because of the way the mortgages were arranged.
  So how do we help Americans stay in their homes in a reasonable 
fashion? And we've talked about bankruptcy as one way to do that.
  Now in the bill that we did not pass here in the House recently, the 
Secretary had wide authority. I'm expecting that authority to be 
continued; and what I would hope is that the Secretary will not just 
put $700 billion into paper which may or may not be useful, but also 
something like $50 billion or $100 billion into funds that are intended 
to help people stay in their homes by creating the opportunity to buy 
mortgages at a discount, then renegotiate those mortgages with the 
people who are in those homes or others, and thereby avoid the downward 
spiral of housing costs.
  I don't know that we're going to be able to do much with bankruptcy 
if this bill that passed the Senate passes the House today, I don't 
know that we're going to be able to deal with it. But I think that we 
ought to demand as the House that the Secretary recognize that this is 
not just a matter of buying paper and saving banks, but it's rather a 
matter of keeping a downward spiral on housing prices from continuing 
so that Americans can maintain the value on their homes, can keep their 
homes, and we can get this economic crisis behind us and perhaps even 
save some money.
  I recognize the gentlelady is standing there. I would be happy to 
yield to her.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Thank you for yielding.
  I would just note that in fact in the rescue package there is a 
provision requiring the Secretary to renegotiate loans and that will 
actually, I think, be of tremendous value in dealing with the 
foreclosure crisis that we face when the government owns the whole 
mortgage, all of the mortgage. But because securities are being 
purchased because the credit markets are frozen, we won't necessarily 
own all of the mortgages in every case. And half of the subprimes have 
second and third mortgages that will be able to defeat any effort to 
renegotiate.
  So I think that moving a narrowly crafted, for-subprime-only primary 
residence mortgage measure either later in this Congress or early next 
might be something that could avoid the $2.1 trillion in mortgages that 
are set to reset and certainly are at risk of default in the next 18 
months.
  I am just stating here today, I think we have an opportunity to 
accomplish that working across the aisle and working across ideological 
barriers because really we're all in the same place. We want Americans 
to be safe and secure in their homes. If they are able to meet their 
obligations, we should go the extra mile to allow them to do that.
  I just want to say once again how much I have appreciated working 
with you, Congressman Cannon, over these years. And I said this earlier 
this week, but if you look at your voting record, you've got one of the 
most conservative voting records in this Congress, and as I mentioned, 
I do not. But that has never prevented us from working together to find 
solutions for the American people.
  I really think you're a remarkable legislator, someone whom I respect 
a great deal, and I thank you for your service to our country.
  Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady. The nice 
thing about being clear in your principles is that it's possible to 
negotiate and come up with compromises that work. It's been a pleasure 
to work with the gentlelady and also the chairman of the full committee 
who is also here with us, Mr. Conyers. It's not possible to be farther 
apart on the political spectrum than I think Mr. Conyers and I are, but 
we have had a very pleasant, and I think profitable, working 
relationship on many issues where because of his clear principles, and 
I hope my clear principles, we've been able to reach compromise.
  Going back to what the gentlelady was saying, I fervently hope that I 
will not be part of any further negotiations on bankruptcy. I hope that 
we solve this problem today or tomorrow, I suppose, and then make the 
American people more safe by us being out of town and then letting the 
next year's crop of people come back and deal with the issue.
  Let me just reiterate a couple of things the gentlelady has said. 
$2.1 trillion of subprime and Alt-A loans are in trouble. If we don't 
do something about that, those loans, as they fail--to the degree that 
they fail, and many are likely to fail--are likely to draw down to 
create a suction that will pull down the prices of all the other houses 
in America, creating chaos in our market.
  It's imperative that the Secretary recognize his authority under, I 
think, the current language, and make it clear that he intends to do 
something not just about the paper because, as the gentlelady has 
pointed out, we don't own all of the fractions of the interests in 
these mortgages, and therefore we don't have the ability, by pumping 
money into paper, to solve the underlying problem. You have to do that 
in another way. And certainly where you have a second or a third, there 
is no ability by the Treasury, under the current program, to deal with 
that suction on prices.

                              {time}  1245

  So I am hoping that the Secretary of the Treasury will today make it 
clear that he intends to use part of this bailout money for which he 
has I think the discretion. I think it is important that he be clear 
that he has that discretion, that he intends to use the money that way 
so we can create a floor not just under the banks but also under the 
prices of our homes.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the author of this bill, Jan 
Schakowsky, who is a sterling member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, as much time as she may consume.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and for his 
support on this legislation.
  I rise to proudly support S. 3197, the National Guard and Reservists 
Debt Relief Act. This legislation is the Senate companion to H.R. 4044, 
legislation that I authored, along with my friend and colleague, 
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, which passed the House unanimously on 
June 23. S. 3197 was introduced by my very good friend and colleague 
from Illinois, Senator Dick Durbin.
  Since 9/11, more than 460,000 Reservists and Guardsmen have been 
called to active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women have 
left their families and their jobs to selflessly serve their country, 
often with little or no notice to get their finances in order. Many 
servicemembers are small business owners who have to put their 
businesses on hold while they serve their country, and some are forced 
to sacrifice those businesses altogether. And, of course, some may face 
losing their homes when they return because of their financial 
distress.
  Many servicemembers face unexpected extended tours of 15 months or 
longer, leaving them with almost no way to prepare financially.
  S. 3197 would simply allow National Guard and Reservists to file for 
bankruptcy without the burden of the means test that assesses their 
eligibility for bankruptcy protection. H.R. 4044 allows members of the 
National Guard and Reservists to file for chapter 7 bankruptcy without 
the added paperwork burden and obstacles of the means test.
  This is why: when veterans face the means test, it has a particularly 
adverse impact on them. That is because the combat pay of soldiers in 
Iraq or Afghanistan is often higher than their salaries at home, and 
they have fewer

[[Page 23730]]

expenses overseas, if any. The problem is when they return home, these 
individuals return to face lower incomes and higher expenses, and 
because the means test factors in a person's income and expenses for 
the 6-month period preceding the bankruptcy filing, a veteran's income 
is artificially inflated and their expenses seem disproportionately 
low. As a result, they risk failing the means test and facing chapter 
11 or 13.
  This bill is narrowly drafted to apply to servicemembers who have 
served in the Armed Forces for more than 90 days since 9/11 and would 
grant them an exemption from the test for up to a year and a half after 
they return home. The legislation also requires a GAO report that will 
help us quantify the hardships our veterans face when they return home 
by tracking how many apply for bankruptcy protection.
  With unemployment at the highest levels in 7 years and the credit 
crisis and recession squeezing the budgets of families across the 
country, we must give these returning heroes any relief we can. 
Eighteen percent of veterans recently back from tours of duty are 
unemployed. Twenty-five percent of those who have been able to find 
work earn less than $22,000 a year. There are currently 1,500 veterans 
of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who are homeless. And thousands of 
veterans return from the war with physical and mental injuries which 
make returning to work difficult or impossible. We should all be 
outraged at those statistics.
  Simply put, the men and women who have risked their lives to protect 
us deserve protection from us in return. These selfless individuals 
should not face harsh bankruptcy procedure if they are in financial 
distress when they return home. When the changes to the bankruptcy law 
were made in 2005, Congress exempted disabled veterans from the means 
test. It is time to include the Guard and Reserves as well.
  The legislation that we're considering once again today is virtually 
identical to the one we passed unanimously, with minor, five-word, 
technical, clarifying corrections added during consideration in the 
Senate Judiciary Committee; and like H.R. 4044, the bill passed the 
Senate with unanimous support. I urge its support in the House once 
again today so we can send it to the President for his signature.
  I'd like to thank Chairman Conyers, again, for working with me to 
pass this legislation, as well as Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez 
for her commitment to this bill. And I want to thank the staff on both 
sides of the aisle who helped, particularly my legislative director, 
Daniel Penchina. And, again, I thank my colleague, Congressman 
Rohrabacher, who has been a formidable and effective partner in moving 
this legislation through the House this year.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that the gentleman from 
Utah has 11 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan has 8 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I noted earlier that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) had worked diligently on this bill, and I 
talked about his intelligence and determination and the fact that he 
has redeemed his promise and mine by bringing this bill to the floor 
today. I would like to yield as much time to him as he may consume.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3197.
  I am pleased that we are finally about to provide this benefit to our 
veterans, but I am troubled that it has taken us so long to do so. On 
April 14, 2005, the House considered S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse 
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which was a much-needed 
and very responsible reform. Then in the minority, my colleague Ms. 
Schakowsky introduced a motion to recommit so that the bill would allow 
a targeted exemption from our stricter means test for those National 
Guard and Reservists who had been called up after 9/11.
  At the time of the floor debate, I was told by the Republican floor 
manager that the Schakowsky motion was redundant, that there was 
already such protection for our National Guard and Reservists under the 
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Because of this, I voted against the 
motion, and it failed on a party-line vote, 200 yeas to 229 nays.
  I soon found out, however, that I and other Republican Members had 
been misinformed, apparently to prevent the then-minority from having 
any legislative success. When I found out there was no adequate 
protection for our returning Reservists and Guardsmen, I pledged to 
work with my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky, to make it right.
  Subsequently, I introduced legislation to amend the bankruptcy law. 
This measure, of course, isn't costing any--well, maybe it costs a few, 
but probably not any Federal dollars--new Federal dollars. There is no 
big spending involved in this. There is no massive appropriation 
needed. All it is is a consideration for these people who have risked 
their lives for us and are coming home. But my party couldn't get 
itself to provide consideration for our homecoming heroes, even though 
there wasn't a major cost involved. Thus my legislation didn't ever get 
to the floor.
  In the meantime, party control of the House changed, and Ms. 
Schakowsky and I have been working diligently to get this legislation 
to the floor and get it passed into law. The Senate passed the bill by 
unanimous consent on Tuesday, and we are now considering this bill 
under suspension, which means it's pretty well recognized that this has 
widespread support, and it should have been voted on and accepted a 
long time ago.
  S. 3197, introduced by Senator Durbin in the Senate, has bettered the 
bill in several ways. Often, it will take several months for a 
servicemember to gain an understanding of his or her financial 
situation after returning home. So this bill expands the time of 
eligibility to a year and a half after the servicemember has been 
released from active duty.
  And because more information is needed, this bill requires the 
Comptroller General to study and report to Congress on the number of 
Reservists in the Armed Forces and National Guard members who will be 
using this exemption and the number of servicemembers who are 
substantially or materially involved in bankruptcy cases because of 
their service.
  I encourage my colleagues who voted ``no'' on the motion to recommit 
3 years ago to vote in favor of this legislation today. This bill is 
not a wedge to reopen the bankruptcy rules. Rather, it is a narrow, 
targeted change modeled after existing exemptions for disabled veterans 
who are America's heroes. This is targeted at those American heroes 
throughout our country who are called up for deployment and are now 
returning home.
  This bill will ensure that America's heroes throughout our country, 
who have often been called up for deployment, and these deployments 
have been far longer than they ever initially thought they would ever 
be called up for, this bill is intended that they will not pay a high 
personal cost for their absence and their willingness to step forward 
and defend our country.
  As my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky, put it, these servicemembers have 
put their lives and livelihood on the line for us, and we owe them a 
great debt. This is one way that we can show our deep appreciation for 
the service that these people have given to us, protecting our families 
and the service they've provided our country.
  Now is the time for us to repay that debt in a very bipartisan way, 
which should have been in play on this floor in this House all along; 
and when it wasn't 3 years ago, Ms. Schakowsky and I have finally made 
up for that bit of partisanship at the expense of our homecoming heroes 
that happened over 3 years ago.
  So, today, I ask my colleagues to join Ms. Schakowsky and myself. I 
thank all of those involved who helped us along the way, and I ask my 
colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 8 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.

[[Page 23731]]


  Mr. CONYERS. I yield now 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Ohio, a Member not always heard on the floor, Dennis Kucinich.
  Will the gentleman yield to me briefly?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I certainly will.
  Mr. CONYERS. We keep saying that the gentleman from Utah is on the 
floor for the last time, but the last time always becomes one more 
time.
  I want him specifically remembered for the cooperation and leadership 
he gave in the committee and on the floor in terms of broadband 
legislation, the credit card interchange consideration, the very 
complex issues of immigration, on literally all of the civil liberties 
issues that have come before us, and Internet gambling. He's given us 
his attention and helpfulness. We appreciate it so very, very much, 
Chris.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman for his generosity with the time, 
and thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of 
S. 3197, which will help those who served this country save their home 
and save what they work a lifetime for.
  It is very poignant that we could come to this bill at this moment, 
when we understand the importance of helping those who have served this 
country save their homes.

                              {time}  1300

  Because, actually, it does lead to that larger question because we 
are all in tune now with the fact that millions of Americans--including 
those who serve this country--through no fault of their own are finding 
their homes at risk, millions of Americans. And unfortunately, despite 
the best efforts of people on both sides of the aisle, the House will 
have delivered to it a bill from the Senate that does not directly 
address that question. Because unless this country takes a controlling 
interest, unless the Secretary of the Treasury would take a controlling 
interest in these mortgage-backed securities so they can negotiate on 
behalf of the homeowners to reduce their exposure to losing their home, 
this bill will be for naught.
  Let's keep in mind that a central premise of the American Dream is 
owning a home. We understand that for our soldiers, and we should do 
something here. And we also need to understand that all over this 
country there are people who are watching these debates and wondering, 
are we going to do something to help them save their home? Because 
that's what we ought to be doing. And the way that we can do it, Mr. 
Chairman, is that instead of taking a strategy that assumes that the 
trickle is going to get down from the top by giving $700 billion to 
Wall Street, we instead focus on creating a solution for the homeowners 
and know that then the money will begin to percolate up to the banks 
and back to Wall Street instead of assuming the government gives the 
money to Wall Street, goes to the banks, and it gets to the people. Not 
under the bill that the Senate is sending over here.
  So, while we want to do everything we can for our soldiers--and we 
should--we need to understand that looming here is one of the biggest 
challenges we've seen in American history to the concept of 
homeownership: Home is core, home is central, home relates to 
everything that we're all about. But home is in jeopardy here in the 
United States of America. Millions of mortgages are headed towards 
default. Millions of Americans are in danger of losing their home. And 
this Wall Street bailout, unfortunately, does not address it.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I sent a letter over to our Speaker yesterday 
pointing this out to her, telling her that we need to create a change 
that will enable the Secretary of the Treasury to focus in on this and 
to give him the ability to get a controlling interest in these 
mortgage-backed securities because, as has been pointed out by my 
colleagues, we don't have that right now. And unless you address that, 
all this is going to be for naught. You might see the market go up for 
a day if the House passes the bill, but you know what's going to 
happen: You're still going to see millions of Americans losing their 
homes.
  Mr. CANNON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Of course I would yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANNON. Thank you.
  We're now at a point where we're going to be voting very quickly on 
this bill. I think you heard the colloquy between the gentlelady from 
California and myself. I'm wondering if the gentleman can be satisfied 
if the Secretary takes a position publicly that he is going to use some 
of this bailout money under the discretion that he's given in the bill 
to do what I suggested earlier, which is, to put money into funds that 
would buy mortgages and keep people in their homes. Is that the kind of 
thing that we can do--
  Mr. KUCINICH. Taking back my time, the bill has language which might 
be discretionary, but we in the House understand the difference between 
something that's discretionary and mandatory. And we also know that the 
way the bill is structured, unless you have a controlling interest in 
these mortgage pools, there's no way you can do anything because then 
you have to talk with 20, 30 other interests in order to be able to 
come to resolution. That's not going to happen.
  So we need to be real about this; and, unfortunately, that isn't 
always the case in our Congress. And when we get real about it and 
connect to people's aspirations to save their homes with a real solid 
legislative structure to deliver on that, then the American people and 
then our economy can celebrate the wisdom of the Congress. Right now, 
that jury is still out.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANNON. Recognizing the gentleman's limited time, we have I think 
more time on our side, and I would be happy to yield some to Mr. 
Conyers if he would like more.
  Would the gentleman yield for a colloquy on this issue?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I would.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman at 
this point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 
2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. CANNON. The problem we're facing, or course, is the urgency of 
what's going on. And the gentleman has heard my concern with the 
failure of the administration to have this aired transparently; but 
that said, we do have some urgency. If the Secretary is very clear in 
what he says, can we move forward, as opposed to, say, amending the 
Senate's bill--which will come over to us--and then sending it back to 
the Senate for further votes. Personally, I don't think that that is 
likely to happen; it's your leadership that will control the Rules 
Committee. But I suspect that we're not going to get the perfect here 
with the good, that is, a commitment by the Secretary that is clear and 
open and patent.
  Would that serve to resolve the gentleman's concerns?
  Mr. KUCINICH. To my good friend from Utah, the clarity of the 
Secretary will not trump the language of the legislation. And the 
language of the legislation does not permit him to be able to have an 
effective role in saving people's homes. It talks about encouraging, it 
talks about ``may do,'' but it is not mandatory. And he doesn't have 
the additional power because there is no mechanism in there to give us 
a controlling interest so that we can actually create a fix.
  I yield to the gentlelady from California.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. If I may, I think the Secretary has 
the authority to acquire all mortgages. We fear that he may not. I 
frankly think if the Secretary--or his successor, starting in January--
were to make that a priority, we would solve more of this problem than 
if it was just done in the natural course of events. I personally 
believe we need another remedy that I pledge to try and move separately 
from this package having to do with the bankruptcy primary residence 
mortgage issue that we have discussed at tremendous length.

[[Page 23732]]


  Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, and thanking the gentlelady and the 
gentleman, I would say that the legislation doesn't fix the problem; 
that is the central point. It doesn't empower the Secretary to be able 
to get controlling interest of the mortgage-backed securities. And that 
is the central flaw of the policies that we're pursuing. And millions 
of Americans who are in danger of losing their homes are not going to 
be helped.
  I want to conclude by thanking Mr. Cannon for his service to the 
United States Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah has 3\1/2\ minutes 
left. The gentleman from Michigan has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Kucinich, if you would like to continue, we don't 
disagree, and I think by having a further colloquy, I think we actually 
can come to an understanding.
  As I understand your concern, the Secretary does not have the 
ability--or it would be difficult for him to buy up all the 
fractionated interests in any given mortgage, and therefore, he is 
incapable, in his current position--unless he does something remarkable 
and spends more money than we intend him to spend, he can't provide 
relief on individual mortgages.
  What I'm suggesting the Secretary has the authority to do is to put 
money into private funds that can then go to the servicing agent of a 
nonperforming loan, where the person is in an anti-deficiency State, or 
otherwise can walk away from that loan without recourse to the bank. At 
that point, the servicing agent has the ability to sell a mortgage, or 
a package of mortgages. In that event, what I suggest is that if the 
Secretary will pump some significant resources into the private sector 
to buy mortgages from servicing agents, and from banks and others, in a 
market where we are having deterioration of prices, that would tend, 
dramatically, to solve the problem. It goes a long way toward, I think, 
the gentleman's concerns.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. If the gentleman would yield, as we 
both know, because we were on the same conference call with one of the 
foremost authorities in the United States on this subject, the 
expectation is, in the natural course of events, that about 20 percent 
of the acquisition of securities would result in owning all of the 
rights in order to do a negotiation.
  So when you look at the entire package, it's not what we want, but 
it's not nothing either. I mean, if you could actually renegotiate 20 
percent of the reset, it would have a market impact. What you're 
suggesting, I think, makes sense. And I think, also, that the bill 
that's coming back would allow the Secretary to actually do what you 
have suggested because there is that discretion in the measure.
  If we did what you've suggested, if the experts are correct that we 
will have 20 percent of all ownership to renegotiate as provided for in 
the bill, we're still going to need an additional tool which we're not 
going to get in this bill, but to do a narrow carve-out for the 
subprime markets to be able to--for judicial intervention for those 
areas that we cannot get the rights for.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, let me just say the gentlelady is 
absolutely accurate in her portrayal of the problem. Let me just 
clarify one thing, because a lot of people listening to us today don't 
understand what a reset is.
  You have mortgages that are at a fixed rate which will then pop up to 
a market rate in the future. It is that pop up that is a problem. If 
you have a mortgagee who is behind in his payments, he may be able to 
stay in the mortgage when it goes up, but he may not be able to afford 
it. If he's behind, he can't refinance. He's stuck in a world where he 
can't get out of that mortgage, and the market will drive him. And the 
bank that wants him to renegotiate can't do it because of the 
fractionated ownership of that mortgage.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. If the gentleman would yield.
  If I may, I'm glad you did that explanation. And for people listening 
who don't have a subprime, it's going to affect them as well. Because 
if you have a prime mortgage but every neighbor in your entire 
neighborhood has had their property values collapse, your property 
value is also going to collapse. So this is everybody.
  Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady because she 
has made exactly the point. What we're trying to do here is avoid the 
collapsing values of houses.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. And that's all I need.
  When you look at the difference in the debate here, hear these words, 
``we may save the world ``or ``we shall save the world''; ``we may save 
people's homes'' or ``we shall save their homes.'' I want a bill that 
says ``we shall save their homes.'' And that's not what the bill is 
that we're being sent by the Senate.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Indianapolis, Indiana, Mr. Andre Carson.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds.
  Mr. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today in support to H.R. 
7221 in honor of my late grandmother, Congresswoman Julia Carson.
  My grandmother was a huge proponent of increasing homeless assistance 
to displaced families. Last year, she introduced the Homeless Emergency 
and Rapid Transition to Housing Act. She introduced this bill for 
children and families in need of assistance. This bill sought to 
implement more effective strategies for preventing homelessness and 
increasing emergency assistance for families in need.
  This bill before us today reflects a compromise between my 
grandmother's legislation and the Senate legislation. While I wish we 
could have gone farther in expanding the definition of homeless, this 
bill will provide critical assistance to families and children 
neglected by current law.
  I urge support of this bill and commend Congresswoman Waters, 
Congresswoman Moore, Congressman Davis, Congresswoman Biggert, 
Congressman Conyers and their staffs for their hard work on this 
legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the Senate bill, S. 3197.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________