Congressional Record
United States
of America
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE
106
th
CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
b This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., b 1407 is 2:07 p.m.
Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.
.
H2639
Vol. 145
WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1999
No. 64
House of Representatives
The House met at 10 a.m.
The Chaplain, Reverend James David Ford, D.D., offered the following pray-er:
We recognize, O God, that we are buf-feted by the sound of so many words that come our way, words of advice and counsel, words that express joy or sad-ness and words that recommend ac-tions or promote ideas. We pause this moment to hear Your still small voice that beckons us to do what is good, to be what is good, that encourages us in the way of truth and points us to a healthy and whole understanding of our lives. May we take Your words of justice and peace, of righteousness and integrity and transpose those good words into deeds of caring and concern for others. This is our earnest prayer. Amen.
f
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Chair has exam-ined the Journal of the last day’s pro-ceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour-nal stands approved.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, pursu-ant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker’s approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Chair’s approval of the Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes ap-peared to have it.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I ob-ject 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. Pursuant to clause 8 rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. SCHAFFER) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. SCHAFFER led the Pledge of Al-legiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Repub-lic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
f
NEVADANS STAND READY TO AS-SIST THEIR NEIGHBORS VICTIM-IZED BY POWERFUL TORNADOES IN OKLAHOMA, KANSAS, AND TEXAS
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay my condolences to the people and the families that suf-fered from the powerful tornadoes in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas in the last few days. The thoughts and pray-ers of all Nevadans are with the vic-tims of this tragedy. Fire, police and emergency services and the National Guard’s personnel worked alongside of heroic neighbors in working through the night to help people affected by this tragic act of Mother Nature.
Mr. Speaker, it will take some time to rebuild the damage to the houses, and homes, and buildings and the fami-lies. The Federal Government will now do its part in assisting with this effort, helping to rebuild the communities and the lives of those who were affected by these devastating tornadoes.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Presi-dent’s announcement to declare these States national disaster areas, allow-ing the Federal Government to offer speedy financial aid and support.
Mr. Speaker, I and the State of Ne-vada also stand ready to assist our friends and families as a Nation, and
we must join together and persevere in this tragedy.
f
THE NEED FOR BANKRUPTCY REFORM
(Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on bankruptcy reform, and I rise today to urge all Members to support this bill. The bill ultimately is about personal responsibility. It is about holding peo-ple accountable for their own actions.
Worse, the current bankruptcy situa-tion puts us in a posisitua-tion where others are held accountable for those actions. They are the ones that have to bear the price of other people’s choices. Worst, it basically spreads out from the mid-dle class to the poorest of the poor. Those are the ones that have to pay more for retail items and for a variety of items because some people run up obligations that they either have no in-tention of meeting or do not meet.
Also, small businesses are particu-larly devastated by bankruptcies. In many small businesses, one or two cli-ents not paying can be the difference between being in business and out of business, and when they go bankrupt and do not pay, those small businesses suffer.
This bill does not eliminate bank-ruptcy, it is out there as an option, but it makes changes to hold people ac-countable and responsible for their own financial decisions to make sure that, if they can pay, they do pay. We should not have a situation where people can declare bankruptcy, run out on their obligations to others, drive up costs for everybody else and still live a life bet-ter than 95 percent of the rest of the world.
SO LONG, JOHN
(Mr. HEFLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. HEFLEY. First it was Jordan, then it was Gretzky, now it is Elway.
On Sunday afternoon, the whole State of Colorado turned on their tele-vision sets to watch a press conference. The man whose name has become syn-onymous with the Denver Broncos, John Elway, announced his retirement from football.
The statistics books will show that John Elway had 16 great seasons as a Denver Bronco. He had 148 victories and 47 come-from-behind wins, both National Football League records. He passed for over 50,000 yards, rushed for another 3,000 and played in 234 games, and through it all he only missed 15 ca-reer starts. Not the least of his achievements, he led the Broncos to five Superbowls and two Superbowl wins.
What the stat books will not show us is what John Elway has meant to the State of Colorado. He gave us joy and excitement every week. His career be-came a true profile in courage of perse-verance and was a testimony to all that dreams can really come true.
Most importantly, in a time when Colorado and this Nation is in such desperate need of role models, John Elway was that, too.
John, from the State of Colorado and from a grateful Nation and from this Bronco fan:
‘‘Thank you.’’
f
REASONS TO CELEBRATE WIC’S 25TH ANNIVERSARY
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words today about the WIC program, a program dedicated to improving the nutrition and health care needs of low-income women, in-fants and children.
WIC is celebrating 25 years of service, Mr. Speaker. The value of these 25 years is illustrated by a few key facts expressed in terms of dollars.
Every dollar spent on pregnant women in WIC produces between $1.92 and $4.21 in Medicaid savings for newborns and their mothers. Medicaid costs were reduced on average by $12,000 to $15,000 per infant for every low-birth-weight birth prevented be-cause the mother was involved in the WIC program during her pregnancy.
There is a lot more, Mr. Speaker, in terms of dollars saved and common sense, but there is a more important savings, a human savings. WIC children get a better start in life, they do better in school, and they lead healthier lives. All this translates into an overall bet-ter quality of life, and that is the real reason for celebrating WIC’s 25th anni-versary.
INFORMATION, PLEASE (Mr. EWING asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, this week we will be voting on the supplemental appropriation to provide funds for the Kosovo operation. Unfortunately, the administration has done little to in-form Members of Congress. It is strange that people like former Sen-ator Bob Dole, former Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick have been more vocal, more available to Members of Congress to explain their position on the need for U.S. involvement than we have received from this administra-tion.
I am yet not convinced of the wisdom of this operation or what the national interest is for Americans. I question, too, whether we need to be paying 90 percent or 85 percent or even 70 percent of the cost. Remember, in other oper-ations such as this our allies have in-deed contributed.
Why have we not sought their con-tributions? Why have we not had more information? Why do we not know the true need for our involvement in Kosovo?
f
RUSSIA OPPOSES NATO, SUP-PORTS MILOSEVIC, DUMPS STEEL ILLEGALLY INTO THE UNITED STATES AND STILL EX-PECTS US TO LOAN THEM AN-OTHER $23 BILLION
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, Uncle Sam and the International Monetary Fund have loaned Russia billions and billions of dollars, and with each loan Russia promised to repay. Guess what? Russia says, and I quote, they cannot repay their loans this year, next year, not even in 10 years.
How is that to fund the KGB, Con-gress?
Russia says though, and I quote, Rus-sia still expects America to loan them another $23 billion to carry on with their reforms.
Beam me up here. I say, ‘‘Expect this.’’
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the facts that Russia opposes NATO, supports Milosevic and dumps steel illegally in the United States of America.
f
WE MUST NOT FUND THIS SENSELESS BOMBING (Mr. PAUL asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how many innocent civilians must die before we stop bombing Serbia? We rightfully cherish the lives of our three service-men and rejoice in their return, but
how many Serbs will never rejoice be-cause of all the death and destruction we have rained down upon them by cas-ually dismissing as necessary mistakes of war a war that is not real to us yet only too real to those who are need-lessly killed.
Serb victims are people, too, who love their families and hate the war, yet become the victims of this ill-con-ceived policy of NATO aggression. It is a strange argument, indeed, that the capture of our three soldiers was illegal and yet our bombing of civilians is not. Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no mat-ter how noble the explanation. It only makes things worse.
The goal of peace and harmony can never be achieved by bombs and intimi-dation. That goal can only be achieved by honest friendship and trade when permissible and neutrality when armed conflict prevents it. We must not fund this senseless bombing.
f
TEACHERS LIKE DAVE SANDERS, SHANNON WRIGHT AND CHRISTA MACAULIFFE ARE AMERICAN HE-ROES
(Ms. SANCHEZ asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her re-marks.)
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to salute America’s educators during Teacher Appreciation Week. It is essential in these trying times at our schools that we pay tribute to the pro-fessionals who give so much to their work with our communities’ children.
Every day 3 million American teach-ers go to work. They arrive early in the morning and often stay late at night. Their dedication under supremely dif-ficult circumstances cannot be ade-quately described, but through all this hard work they open a world of oppor-tunity for our children and bring end-less possibilities to our communities and to the future of our country. Every day they work their miracles in the classrooms. We entrust them with our most precious resource, our young peo-ple.
Tragically, Mr. Speaker, some pay the ultimate sacrifice. Teachers like Dave Sanders of Littleton, Colorado, or Shannon Wright of Jonesboro, Arkan-sas, and astronaut Christa MacAuliffe are American heroes. We salute their memory and their colleagues this week.
f
THIS IS TEACHER APPRECIATION WEEK
(Mr. SCHAFFER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, this is Teacher Appreciation Week. Almost every Member of this body can think of a special teacher who has touched his life in ways that have never been for-gotten, can never be repaid and can
only be appreciated by those who have benefited from such good fortune.
There are special teachers with ex-traordinary talents in every kind of school in America, in rich and poor, urban and rural, public and private. Great teachers give something of them-selves that we take with us for the rest of our lives. It is one of the most re-warding aspects of being a teacher.
But great teachers do not get the rec-ognition they deserve. Their contribu-tions are so great, they ought to have an entire week devoted to their achievement, and so they have. This is their week, and I join with my col-leagues in paying tribute to the won-derful gifts teachers have brought to all of us during their teaching careers. Teaching is a noble profession, and it is an honor for me to salute all those great teachers who are proud to have made teaching their passion and their life’s work.
f
WIC—MORE THAN JUST FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN, IT IS GOOD FOR AMERICA
(Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate 25 years of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Pro-gram for Women, Infants and Children, what is widely known as WIC. WIC is not just a program that makes a lot of sense, it saves millions of dollars, too. Every WIC dollar spent for pregnant women results in the savings to the Medicaid program of anywhere between $2 and $4. Well-fed mothers and chil-dren are healthier people. Chilchil-dren who eat a nutritious diet grow up to be stronger, better-adjusted adults. WIC allows high-risk young families to properly feed their children during their critical months of growth and de-velopment. WIC helps to assure normal childhood growth, reduces early child-hood anemia, increases immunization rates, improves access to pediatric health care and prepares children for learning.
b1015
What more can we ask for? It truly proves the maxim that an ounce of pre-vention is worth a pound of cure. WIC, it is a good program for America.
f
HOLBROOKE’S HONORARIA (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw my colleagues’ attention to what President Clinton promised would be the most ethical administra-tion in the history of our Naadministra-tion.
The Washington Times lead story today details how special envoy to the President, Richard Holbrooke, in the middle of critical negotiations with Yugoslav President Milosevic in 1998,
broke off those talks to deliver two speeches in which he was paid $40,000.
Now, there is a pesky Federal ethics rule that says for government employ-ees, including unpaid presidential ap-pointees, they are barred from accept-ing side compensation that relates to the employee’s official duties.
Quote, just as his talks reached what Mr. Holbrooke said was a dangerous moment, he flew to Athens to give a speech about Kosovo, picking up $16,000 in payment. A few months later, Mr. Holbrooke did the same thing, aban-doning diplomatic efforts in the middle of an air-strike deadline to deliver a speech in New York for $24,000.
Mr. President, honestly, based upon past comments, he would be the perfect candidate to be Ambassador to the United Nations.
f
CONGRATULATIONS TO WIC ON 25 YEARS
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her re-marks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, chil-dren are 25 percent of this country’s population but they are 10,000 percent of our future. There is no better way to invest in our future than to make sure that every child gets good nutrition and health care, right from the very start. That is what the WIC program does, and that is what they have been doing for 25 years.
At WIC clinics, low income, at-risk pregnant women get healthy foods, nu-trition, education and access to health services. The outcome is strong, healthy babies. WIC stays with the new mother after her baby is born, helping to form good eating habits, health hab-its and a lifetime of good habhab-its. For every $1.00 we spend on WIC, we save $3.50 in future costs for medical care, income support and special education.
Talk about a good investment in our future, talk about WIC. Congratula-tions, WIC, on this anniversary of 25 years, and thanks for strengthening America’s future.
f
THE POLICY OF NOT USING FOOD AS A WEAPON IS GOOD POLICY (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, there is no more fundamental need of human beings than the need for food and medicine. For years, our country has had a policy of imposing unilateral economic sanctions on nations of the world with which we disagree, nations like Iran and Libya and North Korea and many others.
If one is a farmer in America, this policy has hurt American agricultural exports, especially if other nations of the world do not impose such sanctions and are free to trade with such enemy nations.
Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 212, a bill which lifts sanctions on food and medicine so that we can sell our commodities to these nations, subject to the President reinstating those sanctions if doing so is in the national security interest.
Last week, the President, by admin-istrative order, lifted sanctions on food and medicine to Iran, Libya and Sudan. This can result in the likely sale of $500 million in wheat sales to American ag-riculture. The policy of not using food as a weapon is good policy, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 212.
f
BRAIN TUMOR AWARENESS WEEK (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is Brain Tumor Awareness Week. Each year 100,000 people in the United States will be diagnosed with a primary or metastatic brain tumor. Brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer death for children under 19, and the third leading cause of cancer death for young adults ages 20 to 39.
Brain tumors attack the essence of the individual. They attack the control center for thought, emotion and move-ment. There are over 100 different types of brain tumors, making effec-tive treatment very complicated. Cur-rently, there is no cure for most malig-nant brain tumors. Only 37 percent of men and 52 percent of women survive 5 years following the diagnosis of a pri-mary benign or malignant brain tumor. Congress needs to appropriate in-creased funding for the National Insti-tutes of Health and advocate for a strong investment in brain tumor re-search. We also need Federal legisla-tion that gives patients access to clin-ical trials and other therapies that are not approved yet by the Food and Drug Administration. I urge more research for brain tumors and more funding for the NIH.
f
SUPPORT BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT AND ITS EMPHASIS ON PER-SONAL RESPONSIBILITY
(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to be con-sidering bankruptcy reform legislation, and I rise in strong support of it. In 1998 we had studies that showed that at least $3 billion was written off in bank-ruptcy by wealthy debtors who could have afforded to pay it back.
More and more wealthy Americans are using the bankruptcy system to buy a throwaway lifestyle that they cannot afford, then expecting hard-working Americans who pay their bills each month to pick up the tab. That is not right, and Congress needs to do something about it.
I also want to address some informa-tion that I think is not true by some of the opponents of this legislation, deal-ing with child support payments. Under the current system, child sup-port and alimony payments rank sev-enth on the list of priority payments in a bankruptcy proceeding, behind such things as attorney fees; seventh.
This legislation moves those critical family obligations up to the top of the list. Women and children come first under H.R. 833, the bankruptcy protec-tion reform bill that we are going to be considering today. It is time to require personal responsibility. Support H.R. 833.
f
RIVERSIDE NATIONAL CEMETERY, THE IDEAL LOCATION FOR THE NATIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR MEMORIAL
(Mr. CALVERT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the 3,417 men and women who have placed their lives on the line for their country, have taken risks above and beyond the call of duty and, because of their extraordinary bravery and action during crisis, have been awarded the Medal of Honor.
Yesterday I introduced the National Medal of Honor Memorial Act. This bill designates the memorial being built at the Riverside National Cemetery as a national memorial. Since this will be the only publicly accessible memorial honoring all 3,417 recipients of the Medal of Honor at a single location, I think it is only fitting to identify it as a national memorial.
Riverside National Cemetery is the ideal location for this memorial. There are two Medal of Honor recipients bur-ied there; 102 recipients are originally from the State of California. At its ca-pacity, the cemetery will inter ap-proximately 1,400,000 persons, making it the largest national cemetery in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the strong support from my colleagues. Seventy of my colleagues have decided to be original cosponsors of this; 100 percent of the California delegation, and the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. I look forward to its passage.
f
PAYDAY BORROWER PROTECTION ACT OF 1999
(Mr. RUSH asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, today I am here to introduce the Payday Borrower Protection Act of 1999.
Payday loan companies are springing up all over the country. Payday loan companies are cannibalistic. They are akin to loansharking. These companies provide short-term loans with
min-imum credit checks to consumers who are in desperate need of cash.
The interest on these loans are un-conscionably high, usually running from 261 percent to 913 percent annu-ally. It is not uncommon for a con-sumer to have borrowed, say, $100 and within a year to be forced to repay $900 to a payday loan company.
My bill regulates and imposes some rational criteria on these loans. My bill caps annual interest fees at 36 percent and prohibits any payday lender from refinancing or rolling over any loans. My bill also sets a minimum national standard for State payday loan laws.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Payday Borrower Protection Act of 1999.
f
WITH THE PROSPECT OF MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR BUDGET SUR-PLUSES, WE SHOULD PASS A TAX CUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, Congress faces the prospect of multitrillion dol-lar surpluses, budget surpluses, over the next 15 years. That is good news. As one might expect, the response to this good news has been sharply di-vided.
Liberals, and President Clinton, have come forward with new Washington spending programs. Republicans, on the other hand, have called for saving Social Security, cutting taxes and pay-ing down the national debt.
It is almost the law of nature that money left in Washington will be spent. Therefore, I think we should pass a tax cut as soon as possible, be-fore the big spenders here in Wash-ington get their hands on it.
Let us hope that Congress and the President get it right. Work together and save Social Security, cut taxes and pay down the national debt. It is very, very important for America’s future to do that.
f
SALUTE TO WIC ON 25TH ANNIVERSARY
(Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of one of our Nation’s most valuable programs, Women, In-fants and Children, more popularly known as WIC.
The WIC program has been serving women and children across America for 25 years. The valuable service provided by WIC includes nutritional coun-seling, the supply of supplemental nu-tritional foods to children and an ex-cellent health referral system.
WIC continues to be effective in im-proving the health of pregnant women, new mothers and infants. Studies show that WIC participants are more likely
to have full term pregnancy, lower medical costs, higher birth weight ba-bies and lower infant mortality rates.
On this anniversary of 25 years, I sa-lute WIC for providing such out-standing service. We must all remem-ber a healthy start is a great start.
f
ANTIPOVERTY PROGRAMS FOR SENIORS RESULT IN POVERTY FOR FUTURE AMERICAN WORK-ERS
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speak-er, I see a lot of students in our gallery today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to re-port that our Social Security task force meeting yesterday that examined the consequences of doing nothing with Social Security resulted in the head-line that antipoverty programs for sen-iors result in poverty for future Amer-ican workers. We need to stop spending the Social Security Trust Fund for other government programs.
Our taxes today are higher than they have ever been in most of our history, even through World War II. We have heard a lot of good government spend-ing programs from the speakers this morning that would mean raiding the Social Security Trust Fund or increas-ing taxes.
I just plead with my colleagues that if there are other good programs, they need to be justified on the basis of in-creasing taxes to pay for those pro-grams or cutting other government spending to pay for those programs, but stop raiding the Social Security trust fund. We are already facing a $71⁄2
trillion unfunded liability to maintain Social Security. We can’t afford to con-tinue to make the situation worse.
f
CONSTRUCTIVE OWNERSHIP TRANSACTIONS
(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legis-lation to shut down a tax avoidance scheme available only to a few wealthy and sophisticated investors. Under cur-rent law, if one invests in a hedge fund they pay tax every year and those prof-its are taxed at a higher short-term capital gains rate, but if one places that same money in a derivative wrapped around a hedge fund, they pay tax only at the end of the contract and are taxed at a lower long-term capital gains rate.
My bill states that if an investor in-directly owns a financial asset like a hedge fund through a derivative, he cannot get more long-term capital gain than if he owned the investment di-rectly. In addition, there is an interest charge to offset the additional benefit of deferral.
b1030
This tax shelter is not available to average workers or even to average in-vestors. It is available only to the very wealthy, so that they can avoid paying taxes.
It is important to shut down these tax shelters as we uncover them. Oth-erwise, we undermine the faith people have in our voluntary tax system. The Committee on Ways and Means is look-ing at tax shelters this year. This should be the number one issue on our list.
f
A FOCUS ON CHILDREN (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we focus on our children. I am delighted to con-gratulate the WIC program on its 25th anniversary, a program that has pro-vided nourishment for women and chil-dren and infants, a program that has helped so many to be able to have the basic nourishment that allows them to go to schools and then be educated. Our children are our greatest asset.
Then I would like to note that this is Asthma Awareness Day and Month. I hope that we realize the importance of more research to help cure asthma. So many of our children and, yes, so many of our citizens are impacted by that.
Likewise, Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite and acknowledge that the Congressional Children’s Caucus will be holding a hearing this afternoon at 2154 Rayburn on the crisis of school vio-lence, how do we help our children. We want solutions and not accusations.
We hope to develop a mental health system for children, where children can be referred and helped and rehabili-tated, because in fact they are our pre-cious resource. We will be listening to children today, we will be listening to mental health experts on the crisis of school violence and how do we help our children. We hope the children will come and let us hear them today.
Mr. Speaker, today is a special day for sev-eral reasons. Today is the 25th Anniversary of the WIC Program and it is also Asthma Awareness Day. Also today, the Congres-sional Children’s Caucus, which I am the chair, will have a hearing today on the psy-chology of school violence. I hope My Col-leagues will join me for the hearing.
The WIC Program, or the Women, Infant and Children’s Supplemental Nutrition Pro-gram, has been providing nutrition education and diet counseling since 1972. It is a feder-ally funded program designed for low-income pregnant women, mothers and their children who face nutritional risk.
WIC helps mothers make infant feeding choices and provides breastfeeding support, children’s growth checkups and referrals for other health services. WIC also gives mothers one-on-one instructions for making healthy meals for their families.
Families on WIC receive monthly supplies for food like milk, eggs, cereal and juice. This
is an important program for mothers and chil-dren in need, and I am happy to salute them today on their 25th Anniversary.
Today is also Asthma Awareness Day. Asthma is a serious condition that causes dif-ficulty in breathing and it affects children and adults. An estimated 4.8 million children under 18 have asthma and many more have undiagnosed asthma.
Asthma is the leading chronic illness in chil-dren and it is the leading cause of school ab-senteeism. Hospitalizations due to asthma are disproportionately high for inner-city children, particularly for children of color. Each year, 600 children die from asthma and 150,000 are hospitalized.
Today, there will be screenings for asthma and allergies and I urge everyone to get test-ed. As it is now allergy season, this is the time to find out how serious your allergies may be and also how to relieve your symptoms.
Finally, today there will be a hearing spon-sored by the Congressional Children’s Caucus on the issue of school violence. We have a panel of mental health experts who will dis-cuss the need for mental health services in schools. We will also have a panel of students who will discuss their fears about violence in school. I look foward to seeing many of you there.
f
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MIL
-LERof Florida). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the pending business is the question of agreeing to the Speaker’s approval of the Journal of the last day’s proceedings.
The question is on the Speaker’s ap-proval of the Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I ob-ject 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. Evi-dently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-sent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—yeas 359, nays 41, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 108] YEAS—359 Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Archer Armey Bachus Baird Baker Baldacci Baldwin Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (NE) Barrett (WI) Bartlett Bass Bateman Bentsen Bereuter Berkley Berry Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Blagojevich Bliley Blumenauer Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonior Bono Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Campbell Canady Cannon Capps Capuano Cardin Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth Clayton Clement Coble Coburn Collins Combest Condit Conyers Cook Cooksey Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crowley Cummings Cunningham Danner Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis (VA) Deal DeGette Delahunt DeLauro DeLay DeMint Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Doolittle Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Eshoo Etheridge Evans Everett Ewing Fletcher Foley Forbes Fossella Fowler Frank (MA) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frost Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gekas Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Gonzalez Goode Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Green (TX) Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hansen Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Herger Hill (IN) Hill (MT) Hilleary Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Hoekstra Holden Hooley Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Inslee Isakson Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Jenkins John Johnson (CT) Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kasich Kelly Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind (WI) King (NY) Kingston Kleczka Knollenberg Kolbe Kuykendall LaFalce LaHood Lampson Lantos Largent Larson Latham LaTourette Lazio Leach Levin Lewis (CA) Linder Lipinski Lofgren Lowey Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Manzullo Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McCrery McHugh McInnis McIntosh McIntyre McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Metcalf Mica Millender-McDonald Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Minge Mink Moakley Mollohan Moore Moran (VA) Morella Murtha Myrick Nadler Napolitano Neal Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Obey Olver Ortiz Ose Owens Oxley Packard Pallone Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Pease Pelosi Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Phelps Pickering Pitts Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Quinn Radanovich Rahall Regula Reyes Reynolds Riley Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rothman Roukema Roybal-Allard Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Salmon Sanchez Sandlin Sanford Sawyer Saxton Schakowsky Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherman Sherwood Shimkus Shows Shuster Sisisky Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Souder Spence Spratt Stabenow Stark Stearns Stenholm Strickland Stump Sununu Talent Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Tauzin Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thornberry Thune Thurman Toomey Towns Traficant Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Velazquez Vento Walden Walsh Wamp Watt (NC) Waxman Weiner Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Wexler Weygand Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wise Wolf Woolsey
NAYS—41 Aderholt Borski Clay Clyburn Costello DeFazio English Filner Ford Gephardt Gibbons Gutknecht Hastings (FL) Hefley Hilliard Holt Johnson, E. B. Klink Kucinich Lee Lewis (GA) LoBiondo McDermott McGovern Miller, George Moran (KS) Oberstar Pickett Ramstad Rush Sabo Schaffer Stupak Sweeney Taylor (MS) Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Visclosky Waters Weller Wu NOT VOTING—33 Barton Becerra Berman Bishop Brown (CA) Carson Cubin Dickey Engel Farr Fattah Granger Green (WI) Greenwood Gutierrez Hutchinson Hyde Istook Lewis (KY) Rangel Sanders Scarborough Scott Simpson Slaughter Smith (NJ) Tiahrt Tierney Watkins Watts (OK) Wynn Young (AK) Young (FL) b1052
So the Journal was approved.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
f
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 833, BANKRUPTCY RE-FORM ACT OF 1999
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by di-rection of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 158 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:
H. RES. 158
Resolved, That at any time after the adop-tion of this resoluadop-tion the Speaker may, pur-suant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 833) to amend title 11 of the United States Code, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 302 or section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equal-ly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Com-mittee on the Judiciary. After general de-bate the bill shall be considered for amend-ment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a sub-stitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accom-panying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time speci-fied in the report equally divided and con-trolled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the
amendments printed in the report are waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Com-mittee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for elec-tronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without in-tervening business, provided that the min-imum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 min-utes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amend-ments thereto to final passage without inter-vening motion except one motion to recom-mit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MIL
-LER of Florida). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. SESSIONS) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for pur-poses of debate only, I yield the cus-tomary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. FROST), pending which I yield myself such time as I may con-sume. During consideration of this res-olution, all time yielded is for the pur-pose of debate only.
H. Res. 158 is a fair, structured rule providing 1 hour of general debate di-vided equally between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act which prohibits consideration of legislation which exceeds a committee’s allocation of new spending authority, or section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act which prohibits consideration of legis-lation that would cause the total level of new budget authority or outlays in the most recent budget resolution to be exceeded or cause revenues to be less.
b 1100
The rule provides that it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the na-ture of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a sub-stitute and amendments thereto.
The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the res-olution. The rule provides that amend-ments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. These amend-ments shall be considered as read and be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and con-trolled by the proponent and opponent. They shall not be subject to amend-ment and shall not be subject to a
de-mand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to post-pone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 min-utes on a proposed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instruc-tions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 833, the Bank-ruptcy Reform Act of 1999, will fun-damentally reform the existing bank-ruptcy system into a needs-based sys-tem. I am proud of the tireless efforts of the House Committee on the Judici-ary to address this issue and ensure that our bankruptcy laws operate fair-ly, efficientfair-ly, and free of abuse.
This should not be a controversial issue because Congress has spoken on this issue before. Both the House and the Senate overwhelmingly approved bankruptcy reform legislation last year on a bipartisan basis. Although the measure fell short in the waning days of the 105th Congress because the Senate failed to act on the conference report, the House voted by a veto-proof majority of 300 to 125 to pass very simi-lar legislation last year.
There is great need for this bill now. A record 1.42 million personal bank-ruptcy filings were recorded in 1998. This is a stunning increase of 500 per-cent since 1980. Despite an unprece-dented time of economic prosperity, unemployment, and rising disposable income, personal bankruptcies are ris-ing, costing over $40 billion in the past year.
Without serious reform of our bank-ruptcy laws, these trends promise to grow each year, costing businesses and consumers even more in the form of losses and higher costs of credit.
As we debate and vote today, we should keep in mind two important te-nets of bankruptcy reform.
First, the bankruptcy system should provide the amount of debt relief need-ed that an individual neneed-eds, no more and no less. Second, bankruptcy should be a last resort and not a first response to a financial crisis.
As a businessman with over 16 years’ experience in the private sector and be-cause of many conversations that I have had with leaders, consumers and others who are associated with loan de-faults, I am well aware of the problems that are associated with the abuse of our bankruptcy laws.
A record 1.4 million personal bank-ruptcies were filed last year. That is one out of every 75 households in America. The debts that remained un-paid as a result of those bankruptcies each year cost American families that do pay their bills on time $550 a year in the form of higher cost for credit, goods and services.
Unfortunately, much of the debt that was eventually passed on to the con-sumers last year was debt that bank-ruptcy filers could have avoided by
simply repaying those bills because they had the ability. That is why it is so important to pass real bankruptcy reform.
Opponents of this bill have tried to divert the discussion away from the merits of the bill and claim that it would make it more difficult for di-vorced women to obtain child support and alimony payments. However, noth-ing could be further from the truth. This bankruptcy reform protects the fi-nancial security of women and children by giving them a higher priority than under current law.
The legislation closes loopholes that allow some debtors to use the current system to delay or even evade child support and alimony payments. The bill recognizes that no obligation is more important than that of a parent to his or her children.
Currently, child support payments are the seventh priority, behind such things as attorney’s fees. Make no mis-take about this, H.R. 833 puts women and children first, at the head of the list. We should provide greater protec-tion to families who are owed child support, and this bill will do just that. The bill also address other problems, including needs-based bankruptcy. The heart of this legislation is a needs-based formula that separates filers into Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 based upon their ability to pay. While many fami-lies may face job loss, divorce or med-ical bills, and therefore legitimately need the protection provided by the Bankruptcy Code, research has shown that some Chapter 7 filers actually have the capacity to repay some of what they owe.
The formula directs into Chapter 13 those filers who earn more than the na-tional median income which is roughly $51,000 for a family of four, if they can pay all secured debt and at least 20 per-cent of unsecured non-priority debt.
This bill recognizes the need for con-sumer education and protection. It in-cludes education provisions that will ensure that debtors are made aware of their options before they file for ruptcy, including alternatives to bank-ruptcy such as credit counseling. And the bill cracks down on ‘‘bankruptcy mills,’’ law firms and other entities that push debtors into bankruptcy without fully explaining the con-sequences.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the bal-ance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, as an original co-sponsor of H.R. 833, I am pleased that this legislation has come to the floor in a timely manner. However, given the fact that this bill as well as the De-fense Supplemental are the only major pieces of business this week, I do think that the Republican leadership should have afforded more Members the oppor-tunity to offer amendments to this im-portant and far-reaching legislation.
Madam Speaker, reform of the bank-ruptcy system in this country is indeed a major initiative. In this decade, the number of personal bankruptcy filings has skyrocketed, more than doubling in the past 8 years and increasing by an astonishing 400 percent since 1980.
Last year, more than 1.43 million Americans filed for personal bank-ruptcy. This is indeed an alarming trend, and it is especially alarming in light of the fact that the U.S. economy is booming and personal incomes are rising.
While there are certainly more indi-viduals among these numbers who are seeking Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief as a last resort, there are also many in this number who are using the bank-ruptcy system to escape debts they are capable of paying.
As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) said yesterday in the Committee on Rules, this bill is an attempt to achieve an appropriate balance be-tween debtor and creditor rights. By establishing needs-based bankruptcy standards, this legislation seeks to en-sure that those who need a fresh start will be given one but that those con-sumers who can afford to repay their debts from future income must do so.
While similar legislation was passed overwhelmingly by the House last year, there is still controversy sur-rounding this bill. The Committee on the Judiciary held 5 days of hearings and markup on this bill and took 28 re-corded votes on amendments. In addi-tion, 37 amendments were filed with the Committee on Rules.
Yet, this rule only makes in order 11 amendments, including a manager’s amendment and an amendment in the nature of a substitute to be offered by the ranking member of the Sub-committee on Commercial and Admin-istrative Law, the gentleman from New York (Mr. NADLER).
The Nadler substitute retains much of the work of the committee but dif-fers significantly from H.R. 833 by granting local judicial discretion in the determination about whether a debtor appropriately belongs in Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The Nadler substitute eliminates the provisions in the committee bill which establish new grounds for making credit card debt non-dischargeable and offers signifi-cantly different child support and ali-mony payment provisions.
Now, before my Republican col-leagues jump in and say that this rule provide for 4 and 1⁄2hours of debate on
amendments, including 1 hour on the Nadler substitute, as well as 1 hour of general debate in addition to this hour on the rule, let me note for the record two of the amendments which the Re-publican majority voted to exclude from consideration: first, an amend-ment offered by the subcommittee ranking member which would have sig-nificantly altered the bill’s treatment of child support payments; and, second, an amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. DELAHUNT), a
mem-ber of the Committee on the Judiciary, relating to claims on credit card debt in those cases where the debtor had not been informed of the terms of the ac-count agreement.
These are not insignificant amend-ments, Madam Speaker, and I believe the House should have the opportunity to discuss these issues. As such, I would urge Members to vote no on the previous question so that these two amendments might be added to the list of amendments that the House will consider today. I cannot buy the argu-ment that just because the House will have 6 hours and some odd minutes of debate on this bill, we do not have time to consider additional amendments.
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Texas (Mr. SESSIONS) has noted that the bill does contain a provision which would allow States to opt out of the homestead exemption cap imposed by the bill. I realize this is a matter of some controversy; but, for the State of Texas, this is an issue of major and fundamental importance. This matter is far from resolved, but I am pleased that two amendments relating to the effective date of the cap, which were imposed by my colleague from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN), were included in the manager’s amendment.
Madam Speaker, while it is impor-tant that the House proceed to the con-sideration of this important legislative proposal early in the session, it is still early enough for the House to have a complete debate on this matter. I am a strong supporter of this bill, as are many of my colleagues here in this body. Consideration of a few additional amendments would have only added time to this debate, time which would have given the House the opportunity to fully air the issues that affect con-sumers across the country.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the bal-ance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. PRYCE).
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yield-ing me this time.
I rise in support of this fair and bal-anced rule, which governs consider-ation of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999.
This rule is very generous to the mi-nority. Madam Speaker, out of 11 amendments the House will have the opportunity to debate and vote upon today, seven are offered by Democrats, one is bipartisan, and only three are of-fered by Republicans. All told, the House will have 61⁄
2 hours to debate
their bill, which is very similar to leg-islation that passed the House last year by an overwhelming margin of 300 to 125.
Madam Speaker, bankruptcy law is nothing if not complex, but the goals of bankruptcy reform are fairly simple and straightforward. Today, we are seeking to restore the values of per-sonal responsibility and integrity to an abused bankruptcy system.
The unfortunate fact is that bank-ruptcy is no longer a rare occurrence among many American consumers who today are becoming dangerously com-fortable with the concept of credit and debt.
Last year, more than 1.4 million bankruptcy cases were filed. That is a 500 percent increase since 1980. And the case load is growing, even as our coun-try enjoys economic prosperity and low unemployment.
Madam Speaker, we all understand that sometimes unforeseen cir-cumstances, often out of our control, can lead to the financial ruin of an in-dividual, a family or a business. Our bankruptcy laws are designed to help the truly needy, honest citizen when he finds himself in an impossible situa-tion. We all see a societal good in that. That is one of the things that makes this Nation great.
However, when intelligent citizens ignore basic common sense by spending outside of their means, we need to es-tablish a reasonable level of account-ability and demand some personal re-sponsibility to protect those who have extended credit to them in good faith. That is not to say that creditors do not have some lessons to make about poor decision-making and high-risk lending; and there are some steps we take to urge responsible behavior among creditors.
b1115
Madam Speaker, through this legisla-tion we are asking individuals who apply for bankruptcy if at all possible to repay their debts to the extent that they are able. The bill sets up a needs-based mechanism to determine how much debtors can reasonably be ex-pected to pay.
This needs-based approach, based on current IRS standards, strengthens ex-isting law to weed out abusers of the system who want all their debts dis-missed but actually have the means to pay some of them. These individuals will be directed to a repayment plan so their creditors can collect at least some of what they are owed.
This is a fair approach that will not excuse reckless spending but offers needed relief for those who are in a hopeless situation and need a fresh start to get back on their feet. And I am happy to say that the bill puts ali-mony and child support at the very top of the list. This bill recognizes that a parent’s financial responsibility to his or her child takes priority above all other obligations, and I am pleased to report that Ohio’s Attorney General supports the child support provisions of the bill, as do many other attorneys general throughout this Nation who are on the front lines, in the trenches, of child support enforcement and col-lection.
Decreasing the number of bank-ruptcies in America requires more than new standards to guide repayments. We also must address the factors that lead to bad spending decisions in the first
place. This act helps to educate con-sumers by requiring credit card compa-nies to disclose the long-term costs of paying only the minimum balance each month.
The bill also directs the Federal Re-serve Board to study whether con-sumers indeed have adequate informa-tion about the consequences of bor-rowing beyond their means. Further, the bill will direct the General Ac-counting Office to examine whether ex-tending credit to college students is contributing to a large extent to the bankruptcy rate.
By combining these consumer protec-tions with requirements that demand personal responsibility, the Bank-ruptcy Reform Act strikes a balance between the rights of debtors and creditors. At the same time this bill keeps the safety net in place for honest individuals who are in a hole of debt that they cannot climb out of without a helping hand.
Madam Speaker, I urge my col-leagues to support this fair rule and the underlying legislation which will restore some integrity to our bank-ruptcy laws.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mas-sachusetts (Mr. DELAHUNT).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Those who support the so-called means test principle and other provisions of this bill say they wish to end the use of the Bankruptcy Code as a financial plan-ning tool for those who would scam the system. Yet they have denied the House the opportunity to end once and for all the most flagrant and notorious abuse of the Bankruptcy Code.
The bill would subject middle-income debtors to elaborate new restrictions. Yet it leaves in place a loophole that allows wealthy debtors to buy expen-sive homes in one of the handful of States such as Texas or Florida with an unlimited homestead exemption, de-clare bankruptcy and continue to enjoy a life of luxury while their creditors get little or nothing. If we are truly se-rious about curtailing abuse of the bankruptcy system, this is the place to start:
With the owner of the failed Ohio S&L who paid off only a fraction of $300 million in bankruptcy claims while keeping his multimillion dollar ranch in Florida. Or with the convicted Wall Street financier who filed bankruptcy while owing billions of dollars in debts and fines but still kept his $3 million beach front mansion. Or the movie actor, Burt Reynolds, who was more than $10 million in debt but kept his $2.5 million home while his creditors received 20 cents on the dollar.
Now, I do not suggest that these abuses happen every day. But every time they occur, they bring the fair-ness and rationality of the bankruptcy system into disrepute. That is why the National Bankruptcy Review Commis-sion urged Congress to place a uniform national cap on the amount of equity
that could be claimed under the home-stead exemption.
At subcommittee I offered an amend-ment to cap the exemption at $250,000. My amendment was adopted by an overwhelming vote but it was not al-lowed to stand. When the full com-mittee took up the bill, the provision was amended to permit individual States to opt out, in effect returning us to the current law.
Supporters of the opt-out provision argued that a Federal cap on the home-stead exemption would violate States rights. This is certainly ironic, Madam Speaker, because by setting the cap at $250,000, we had expressly left in place the lower thresholds in effect in every one of the 45 States that have estab-lished a cap of their own. In other words, those 45 States, in effect, will be subsidizing deadbeats in the remaining five States if this bill passes.
To say the Congress should set no cap at all is to say we must stand by while a handful of States undermine the uni-form enforcement of a Federal statu-tory scheme. That is like legislating a Federal income tax and leaving it to the State legislatures to determine what will count as a business deduc-tion.
By refusing to fix this problem, the authors of this bill have revealed the double standards by which they have gone about these so-called reforms. They ask us to perpetuate the current inequities in the treatment of debtors who live in different States, and they ask us to create new inequities in the treatment of debtors of different finan-cial means.
This is unfair, Madam Speaker, and it is poor public policy. I urge my col-leagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. CHABOT), a member of the Committee on the Ju-diciary.
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, despite some of the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, H.R. 833 is a pro-consumer piece of leg-islation. That is, pro-responsible con-sumer. H.R. 833 protects individuals and businesses from having to pick up the tab for irresponsible debtors, some of whom are capable of paying off a sig-nificant portion of their debts.
This legislation establishes a clear causal link between a debtor’s ability to pay and the availability of Chapter 7 bankruptcy remedies. In other words, it makes those who can afford to pay their debts pay.
There are, of course, some people who truly have a legitimate need to declare bankruptcy. At times, hardworking people come up against extraordinary circumstances. Family illness, dis-ability, or the loss of spouse may ne-cessitate the need to seek relief. H.R. 833 protects these individuals.
Too frequently, however, people who have the financial ability or earnings potential to repay their debts are seek-ing an easy way out. While this may
prove convenient for the debtor, it is not fair to their friends and neighbors who are stuck with their bills. The av-erage American family pays $550 per year in a bad debt tax in the form of higher prices and increased interest rates to cover the economic cost asso-ciated with excessive bankruptcy fil-ings.
I am so concerned about the shifting of financial obligations from neighbor to neighbor that I introduced language at the subcommittee level that will re-lieve at least some of the burden for the 42 million Americans who live in our Nation’s cooperatives and con-dominiums and homeowner associa-tions. With all too much regularity, bankrupt individuals have been aban-doning their homes to avoid paying their share of community assessments. Vacant or occupied, the unit continues to receive a wide spectrum of benefits that enhance the inherent value of the property while neighbors are left to pick up the tab through an increase in association fees.
Nationally, consumer bankruptcies reached a record 1.4 million filings in 1997 and are projected to be even higher this year. What makes these numbers significant and particularly alarming is the fact that this trend began in 1994, during a time of solid economic growth, low inflation and low unem-ployment.
The primary culprit for this dramatic increase is a system that allows con-sumers to evade personal responsibility for their debts too easily. People who make above the national median in-come and can afford to pay off a sig-nificant portion of their debt should not be allowed to file under Chapter 7 bankruptcy. This bill puts those indi-viduals where they belong, in Chapter 13, where they will be given a generous 5 years to establish a fair repayment plan and get their financial house in order.
Opponents of H.R. 833 are offering a substitute today that will do little or nothing to curb the abuses prevalent in our current system. For instance, the substitute would strike from the bill key provisions that prevent debtors from loading up on credit card debt just before declaring bankruptcy and obtaining a complete discharge of that debt upon filing. These opponents actu-ally think that individuals should not be held responsible for taking huge cash advances and purchasing luxury goods just prior to filing bankruptcy. Unfortunately, this practice has be-come far too common as more and more individuals have begun using bankruptcy as a financial planning tool.
Madam Speaker, I fully support H.R. 833 and urge my colleagues to do the same and vote ‘‘yes’’ for fair and bal-anced bankruptcy reform.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. NADLER).
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re-marks.)
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. Al-though for the second Congress in a row, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, has promised to seek the most open rule possible, this cer-tainly is not it. Of the 37 amendments filed, only 11 were made in order. Of those only four, including the Hyde-Conyers bipartisan amendment, can be said to come from Members who have expressed problems with the bill. Four out of 37.
We will not have a real debate on consumer protection or on requiring creditor as well as debtor responsi-bility because the Delahunt-LaFalce amendment was not made in order. We will not have a real debate on child and family support—which this bill mur-ders—because my amendment, which was written with the help of the Na-tional Women’s Law Center and which would have placed debts to the family higher than debts to the government, and would have prevented the govern-ment from blocking a Chapter 13 reor-ganization plan if it provided for pay-ments to family and other creditors but not payment in full in arrears to the government, was not made in order.
We cannot debate those issues. We will not be allowed to vote on whether people who terrorize and murder women and their doctors should be al-lowed to discharge their civil debts as a result of such terrorist actions. Their civil penalties, should they be able to discharge their penalties in bank-ruptcy? We had such an amendment, but evidently clinic bombers and peo-ple who harass women seeking health care services and who violate the law to push their political agenda have more influence at the Committee on Rules than the bipartisan supporters of this amendment. The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. MORELLA) and I had asked that in a bill which makes drunk boating debts nondischargeable, we could at least have a vote on mak-ing debts of clinic bombers non-dischargeable.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. DELAHUNT) spoke of the fact that this bill allows the homestead exemption in essence to continue, in some States unlimited. I think it is unfair but that is what the bill does.
But we will not have a vote on my amendment that would have said, well, if you are going to allow States to have an unlimited homestead exemption for the rich, how about requiring that you have at least a limited homestead ex-emption for the poor? In my own State of New York, the homestead exemption is $9,500. Try to buy a house for $9,500.
b 1130
The Federal homestead exemption is 16,150, not exactly princely, but we are not going to have a debate or a vote on the amendment that would have said, ‘‘If you’re going to allow millionaires
to have unlimited homestead exemp-tions in some States, at least require that all States allow the use of the Federal minimum homestead exemp-tion of $16,000.’’
We have to be fair to the rich, but we cannot be fair to the middle income and the poor.
Madam Speaker, this bill hurts fami-lies, it hurts businesses, it will increase costs to the system, and it is opposed by most of the Nation’s bankruptcy ex-perts.
We will not have a vote on the amendment to stop the provisions of this bill from killing small businesses. That amendment was not made in order.
Many small businesses today, Madam Speaker, go bankrupt, they go into a Chapter 11 reorganization, they are en-titled to try to be protected from their debts for a while while they work things out, and then they are saved, and they get on with it, they pay their debts, and a business and jobs are saved.
Some businesses do not make it. They are liquidated.
This bill puts so many new restric-tions and burdens on small businesses, not big businesses, small businesses in bankruptcy proceedings, that we are told by the Small Business Administra-tion and by others that it will result in a lot of small businesses that could have been saved going bankrupt.
We had an amendment in committee defeated on a party line vote, an amendment in the committee that said that if the judge makes a finding of fact that imposing those restrictions would cost five or more jobs, the judge would have the discretion not to have these new restrictions on the small business so that the jobs could be saved and the business could be saved. That was voted down. The Committee on Rules thinks we should not have a chance to debate and vote on that pro-vision on the floor.
Should tractors and other farm im-plements in a family farm going bank-rupt, should those tractors and farm implements be saved to help keep the farm in running order, or must they be surrendered to the government for pay-ment of back taxes?
Madam Speaker, we are not going to have a vote or a discussion of that ei-ther because, apparently, the Com-mittee on Rules does not think saving family farms is important, or allowing the farmer in bankruptcy to keep his tractor, or his hoe, or whatever else it may be.
The government’s claim comes first, and to heck with the farmers.
This bill, as I said, hurts families, it hurts small businesses, it hurts farm-ers, it hurts child support collectors, it hurts children, it will increase costs to the system, and it is opposed by most of the Nation’s bankruptcy experts. The administration will veto the bill unless it is moderated, and we should support the administration’s efforts to negotiate a good bill. That can only
