THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

When one takes a look at the Democrat leadership and their interest to recapture the majority and gridlock this

[Page: H9831]  GPO's PDF

   I went in 18 different congressional districts over the last few weeks. The minimum amount that the union goons had spent against our vulnerable candidates was a million dollars each. But yet my colleagues on the other side, because their campaign coffers are filled by the union bosses, will they do that? Absolutely not.

   So when my colleagues talk about campaign finance reform and their extreme rhetoric, no, we will not support those kinds of things.

   The Patients' Bill of Rights was mentioned that the Democrats push. It would be so easy for this House to come together. Instead, in an election year, they choose to try to make it a partisan issue. The Patients' Bill of Rights not only has unlimited lawsuits, but unlimited amounts with the intention of killing HMOs. If one kills an HMO, what is left, only a Hillary Clinton government type of health care plan. If one demonizes insurance companies, what is left for prescription drugs? A government-controlled health care system. They say, well, it is under Medicare, but yet the cost would be driven up instead of having insurance.

   I had pneumonia last year. My wife is a teacher. I used her insurance. I went down and needed augmentin, and I went to the prescription place, and I got augmentin for a much reduced price. That is an insurance company, but which my colleagues tend to demonize and talk about their patients' bill of rights.

   The second aspect of that, they then, the liberal trial lawyers who also fill their campaign coffers, then go down and sue the small businesses with unlimited lawsuits, the people that hire in good faith those HMOs or those organizations to provide health care for their workers. Absolutely not, we are not going to go along with the liberal Democrat leadership agenda.

   One takes a look in NFIB and the Chamber of Commerce who produce the jobs in this country they fight it.

   Talk about education. Talk about school construction. Why do my colleagues think they want school construction to come out of the Federal Government instead of local, because all Federal monies go down and have to go at the prevailing Davis-Bacon union wage . Again, quote the union boss wage which costs 35 percent more money to build our schools.

   Does one think that my colleagues, if we had a bill that said, hey, we will support your construction bill, waive Davis Bacon and the Union wage , and let us put 35 percent more in building schools, but does one think they would do that, no, because it upsets the unions and the money going to their campaign coffers.

   It makes me sick on this house floor. Like I said, I had not planned on even speaking on this. In 1993, did you have a minimum wage increase? You had the White House, House and the Senate. Absolutely not.

   What did you do? You tried to government control health care, you increased the tax on Social Security, you stole every dime, your leadership took every dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund. AL GORE was the deciding vote on that.

   Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California taking time to discuss this with us.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Addison, Michigan (Mr. SMITH).

   (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I think this legislation is very important and it is so important that we move ahead and send it to the President. I became interested and concerned with bankruptcy laws when I became chairman of the Michigan Senate Agricultural Committee back in the early 1980s.

   Farmers came to me with their frustrations and I note those were tough times for farmers. Farmers came to me with their frustration that they were not allowed to reorganize. They were forced to sell their equipment and then told, well, if you can find a way to pay your way out of this, fine. With out their equipment it didn't work.

   I met with my congressman, wrote many others and it was in 1986 that we first came up with chapter 12 to allow special considerations for farmers. In 1992 and 1993, when my son Brad Smith became a law clerk with Judge Edith Jones in Houston, Texas with the Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. I become more aware of problems with the federal law, talking to my son Brad and Judge Jones. If bankruptcy is to easy lenders raise interest rates for everybody else. Because thru bankruptcy it was too easy for many to get out of paying what they owed somebody else other borrowers are charged more to cover the unpaid bills.

   So there must be a balance. One wants to be fair, but on the other hand, one does not want to punish everybody to make it too easy so a few people can declare bankruptcy and not pay what they owe.

   I have two bills that I introduced that are now incorporated in this bankruptcy law. One is the child support payments that are owed to local units of government. They have been dischargeable. Now, under my amendment and this legislation they are not.

   The other, of course, is making section 12 of the bankruptcy law permanent. In tailoring chapter 12 to meet the economic realities of family farming, this bill has eliminated many of the barriers that family farmers have faced when seeking to reorganize successfully under either chapter 11 or chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

   For example, chapter 12 is more streamlined. It is less complicated. It is directed towards family farmers, not the giants, not the corporation, but family farmers. It provides that they can reorganize in such a way that they do not have to sell their tractors, their plows and their corn planter. It gives them a chance to get back on their feet. Chapter 12 provisions no longer exist in current law. Farmers are not allowed to use these provisions, because they have expired.

   This bill, this legislation makes chapter 12 permanent. I hope we move ahead and support this rule and the bill.

   Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have indicated this would be the remaining speakers that we have in line with the agreement that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and I had, and I would like to let him know we have now finished our speakers.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the committee, and then we are prepared to close.

   Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. SMITH), would he join me in pushing legislation to pass a freestanding bill to make chapter 12 permanent should this bill not succeed in the Senate as most expect? Right now, chapter 12 is being held hostage to this bill.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. SMITH).

   Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS) to repeat the question.

   Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Michigan join me in supporting legislation in a freestanding bill to make chapter 12 permanent should this bill not succeed in the Senate as most expect that it will?

   Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Yes, Mr. Speaker. But I certainly hope the other provisions that are so important, such as the discharge of those debts owed in child support, et cetera, somehow need to be corrected. But, yes, I have introduced such a bill. It is very important to farmers. I would hope we would pass the provisions in this bill.

[Time: 12:30]

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply state once again, as I indicated in my opening statement, that I intend to vote for this rule and I intend to vote for the bill. We would have preferred that it come up under a regular

[Page: H9832]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

   Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to tell my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. FROST), that I appreciate his support. I too would ask Members to vote for this rule.

   Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

   The previous question was ordered.

   The resolution was agreed to.

   A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

   Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 624, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes.

   The Clerk read the title of the bill.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SIMPSON). Pursuant to House Resolution 624, the conference report is considered as having been read.

   (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of October 11, 2000 at page H 9723.)

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GEKAS) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS) each will control 30 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GEKAS).

   Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   It is important, for the purpose of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and for the purpose of reenlightening the Members of the House as to the purpose of the mammoth effort that we expended over the last 3 years and more to bring about needed, necessary and cogent bankruptcy reform, to outline the two main theses that apply and on which we banked our experience and our intent to bring about bankruptcy reform. They are worthy of repetition and rerepetition. And every ounce of prevention that we can add to this debate about all those who oppose the concepts that we are employing we repeat and will repeat time and time again.

   Everyone and anyone who becomes so flooded with and burdened with and overextended by reason of obligations for a variety of reasons, whether it be divorce or drinking or gambling or overextension of credit in its many different forms, whatever the reason might be that someone became hopelessly indebted and found no reason to do anything except to file bankruptcy, that person, who is so overburdened will find at the hands of the bankruptcy system a fresh start. We guarantee that. That is one of the purposes of bankruptcy from its first usage back in colonial days. The fresh start will be available to every American who needs it.

   But by the same token, we cannot permit people to use the bankruptcy system as a mechanism for financial planning for themselves. If we take an objective look at someone's resources, their status in society, their earning power, their status in the financial system of which our economy is a part, if we, upon examination, determine, through the bankruptcy system that we put in place, that there is an ability on the part of this individual to repay some of the debt, albeit not all of it, and not immediately, but over a period of years, then we should compel that individual, through a sympathetic system of transferring that obligation or set of obligations from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13, we should allow that individual to work his way out of that debt. We do not demand that he pay every penny back, but that he return some of the money to the general wheel that keeps our economy going.

   It is unfair for such an individual, who could repay, to be absolved of any obligation and then lay his burden at the footstep of every other consumer and taxpayer in the country. Because our country is so wealthy, it is difficult to portray how one bankruptcy that loses in a stream of commerce just $10,000 truly matters. One might say, well, what is that? But that $10,000 of debt unpaid has to be made up somehow in the general economy. And who makes it up? The consumer, the seeker of credit, the purchaser of large items, like automobiles, homes, et cetera.

   So this is not an issue that is out there in the ether someplace, that has no connection with everyday living in our communities and the struggles of every family. This touches the heart of the pocketbook of every family. To dismiss it as being a giveaway to somebody or other, or that benefits only one segment of society, one must take a look at individual cases of bankruptcy.

   I defy anyone to comment or to assert that our bankruptcy reform crashes down on the poor or the low-income people, when the very threshold upon which the bankruptcy system begins under our reform measure exceeds the median income. Therefore, people under the median income, in whatever quarter in our country, if it is below that standard, there is almost an automatic fresh start accorded that individual when he or she files bankruptcy.

   That is a magnanimous view of the low-income stratum of our society. And we say that when that individual from that stratum does find himself or herself overburdened, we are going to help. That fresh start will be available. So I reject contentions that this is a bill biased towards any segment of our society. Rather it is biased, if it is biased at all, towards rectitude, towards balancing the equation in the economy in which we find ourselves.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this measure imposes indiscriminate means tests to determine the eligibility for bankruptcy relief and the amount a bankruptcy filer is required to pay a creditor. This test does not account for such items as child care payments, most health care costs, and the costs of caring for individuals unable to care for themselves. Further, families will be required to go through a series of means tests to justify their medical bills and other expenses. These standards are so extreme that they have been rejected by the Internal Revenue Service.

   So when the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), says that the two themes of this bill is to give people a fresh start and then to have, number two, some accountability for those who can and should pay, this bill flunks the test right from the beginning on both counts. It does not allow for a fresh start, and the accountability is so extreme that we are using standards that even the Internal Revenue Service rejected.

   The proposal is highly damaging to a single mother's access to the bankruptcy system. It would treat an individual's credit card debt on the same level of obligation as there is to paying child support or alimony. So, therefore, I would argue that it does not make accountability an important consideration because, as again we see the awesome power of the creditor lobby, they have now elevated credit card obligations to the same level as those for child support or alimony. Now, how that meets theme two is beyond my understanding.

   So, therefore, a mother who relies on payments to feed or clothe her children would be competing from the same pool of money as a major credit card company. Thanks a lot, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. That really makes accountability a strong theme in this so-called reform measure.

   Next, the business provisions of the proposal will impose harsh time deadlines, massive new legal and paperwork burdens on businesses, real estate concerns and, by design, will lead to premature liquidation and job loss. So much for theme one of the so-called reform and fresh start of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Thanks a lot. By leading to premature bankruptcy or liquidation and job loss, we are giving folks a fresh start. Well, my colleagues, there is the awesome power of the creditor lobby working again.

   Instead of giving businesses a fresh start and a chance to reorganize, this would cripple an organization and defeat the true purpose of a bankruptcy process, even the one that we have now. At the same time, the conference report addresses the alleged rampant bankruptcy abuse by debtors. It gives

[Page: H9833]  GPO's PDF

   By the way, are bankruptcy filings going up or down? Is there any Member in this body that does not know that they are going down? We have tables to show that the decrease in bankruptcy filings, personal bankruptcy, in the period ending June 30 of this year, ran 8.29 percent below the year earlier levels, and per capita personal bankruptcy rates ran 9.15 percent below the year earlier levels.

   So as the bankruptcy courts themselves tell us, the bankruptcy filings are down, not up, according to their figures. So what are we doing here? Well, I think we are genuflecting to the awesome power, as the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary says, the awesome power of the creditor lobby. So what we have, due to deregulation of credit cards and the resulting deluge of credit card solicitations, is that customer debt has skyrocketed to more than $1.3 trillion.

   But what attention do we give to the lending lobby, the lending industry, which has encouraged this? Is there anyone that does not get one or two a week or a month of credit cards that say this card is operative, it is for you; if you need it, use it? They send them to students in colleges in their dorms. They are being flooded with them. So our response to this irresponsible activity of the creditor industry is to say that we are going to make it tough by making it harder to get started again, and then hold at the same level the family's need for their support of children. We are going to elevate the credit card obligation to the same as the ones of people who have families in need.

[Time: 12:45]

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents