[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 22398-22399]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              BANKRUPTCY TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2010

  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the 
Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6198) to amend title 11 of the 
United States Code to make technical corrections; and for related 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       On page 3, strike lines 1 through 5 and insert the 
     following: ``and
       ``(F) in paragraph (51D), by inserting `of the filing' 
     after `date' the 1st place it appears,''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Chu) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
McHenry) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.


                             General Leave

  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CHU. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on November 19, the Senate passed an amended version of 
H.R. 6198, the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010. H.R. 6198

[[Page 22399]]

makes a series of purely technical corrections in response to certain 
drafting errors resulting from the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse 
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.
  The Senate amendment simply removes from the bill a provision that 
corrected a misnumbered paragraph.
  It is our understanding that some believe that this provision, which 
corrects a clear error in bankruptcy law, may possibly cause confusion 
with respect to other laws that currently contain cross-references to 
the incorrectly numbered paragraph. While some might question the need 
for the Senate amendment, we are willing to accommodate the concern.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to concur in the Senate amendment 
to H.R. 6198.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Bankruptcy Technical 
Corrections Act of 2010, as amended by the Senate.
  The House passed the original version of the bill in late September 
to make purely technical changes to the Bankruptcy Code. Then, as now, 
these changes are not intended to make any change to substantive 
bankruptcy law.

                              {time}  1250

  Instead, these changes clean up the text of the Bankruptcy Code to 
make it easier to use by lawyers and judges.
  The Senate amendment strikes one provision of the House bill which 
would have renumbered the section of the Bankruptcy Code that defines 
the term ``timeshare plan.'' Rather than define ``timeshare plan'' in 
their own State codes, many State legislatures have chosen to 
incorporate the Federal definition by reference into their State law. 
The Senate amendment reflects a concern that changing the section 
number of the Bankruptcy Code definition would have resulted in 
inaccurate cross references in numerous State codes.
  The necessity of the Senate amendment highlights the perils that 
result when States legislate by reference to provisions of Federal law. 
The States are sovereign in our system of constitutional federalism and 
they should exercise an independent duty to legislate without respect 
to mutable Federal laws.
  The House bill, as amended, will clear up some existing confusion in 
the bankruptcy community regarding provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. 
It is important that Federal law be technically sound so that the 
intent of Congress is clear and judges do not use technical loopholes 
to practice judicial activism.
  In particular, it is important that the Bankruptcy Code be 
technically sound because of the volume of bankruptcy filings during 
this recession. As America continues to struggle with high 
unemployment, bearish capital markets, and massive deficits, the 
Bankruptcy Code is playing an increasingly important role in our 
Nation's financial health. Unfortunately, that is the case.
  As my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee stated when the House 
first considered this bill, it is important that the Congressional 
Record reflect the bipartisan acknowledgment that this bill does not, 
and is not, intended to enact any substantive change to the Bankruptcy 
Code. Lawyers and judges who practice bankruptcy law should not 
understand any provision of this bill to confer, modify, or delete any 
substantive bankruptcy right. Similarly, no inference should be drawn 
from the absence in this bill of a technical amendment to any other 
part of the Bankruptcy Code.
  With this understanding, I support the bankruptcy technical 
amendments bill as amended by the Senate, and I share that with my 
Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) that the House suspend the rules 
and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 6198.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________