John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the following is a letter which clarifies what will happen to child support obligations if this bill passes. It answers the myth that this bill will not harm children. National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, June 7, 2000. Hon. Robert Menendez, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Menendez: The undersigned organizations are long-time advocates for women and children, including economically vulnerable single parents and their families. We are writing in response to your May 24 letter to your colleagues which criticizes the recent TIME magazine article on bankruptcy and asserts that the pending bankruptcy bill would help children obtain child support. We must respectfully, but emphatically, disagree. The bill would give many creditors, including credit card companies, finance companies, auto lenders and others, greater claims to a debtor's limited resources than they have under current law. This would intensify the competition for scarce resources between children owed child support and sophisticated commercial creditors both during and after bankruptcy. Your letter characterizes as a ``myth'' the statement in the TIME Magazine article that: ``The proposed legislation would treat a bankrupt man's credit card debt the same as his obligation to pay child support.'' However, the effect of several provisions of the bill, taken together, would indeed have this result. As the National Association of Attorneys General, commenting on a similar, earlier version of the bankruptcy bill warned, it: Would encourage credit card companies to treat all debts as secured even though the resale value of the personal property charged on such cards would rarely approach the amount of the debt and even though the interest rates charged for such debt are set in recognition of the fact that such debts are essentially unsecured; and As a consequence, could allow credit card debt to be elevated to the same or a higher level than domestic support claims and make it far more difficult to ensure that debtors will be able to satisfy their obligations to their spouses and children. (Emphasis added) (Resolution of the National Association of Attorneys General, March, 1999) Your letter states the following ``fact'': Bankruptcy reform moves child support to the number one priority position in bankruptcy proceedings. Currently it is priority number seven, behind things like attorney fees! Just as important, the reform bill ends the ``automatic stay'' provision, which currently allows bankruptcy filers to avoid paying child support while their cases are pending--and which gives filers and their attorneys an incentive to drag out the process. Finally, the bill prevents a debtor from discharging their debt under Chapter 13 until all child support payments are made. Unfortunately, the child support provisions that you mention in your letter would not solve the serious problems the rest of the bill would create for children in need of support. Moving child support from seventh to first priority sounds good, but is virtually meaningless. This order of priorities only applies in Chapter 7, among unsecured creditors, during the bankruptcy proceeding. Even today, fewer than five percent of consumer debtors in Chapter 7 have any assets to distribute to priority unsecured creditors after secured debtors receive the value of their collateral. Under the bill, there would be even less for priority unsecured creditors in Chapter 7 cases. Only the poorest debtors will have access to Chapter 7 under the means test, and the claims of secured creditors, who are paid before even ``priority'' unsecured creditors, will be increased. Thus, in effect, children owed support will have ``first priority'' to nothing. And, once the Chapter 7 proceeding is over, these priorities have no effect. Under current law, child support and alimony obligations are among the few debts that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. However, under the bill, many more debts, including credit card debts, will survive bankruptcy and compete for the debtor's resources. In Chapter 13, current law already requires child support owed to families to be paid in full. (The major change in this section of the bill would be an increase in the rights of States to be paid in Chapter 13 for child support that was assigned to them as reimbursement for public assistance.) However, other provisions of the bill would make it less likely that children would actually receive all the child support they are due in Chapter 13. For example, the bill would require debtors in Chapter 13 to pay many other creditors in full--including credit card companies claiming security interests in property of little or no value. The bill may say that debtors must pay all these debts in full; but if there is not enough money to go around, it simply will make it less likely that children will get the support they need during the Chapter 13 proceeding, much less afterward. Under current law, the ``automatic stay'' does not allow bankruptcy filers to avoid paying child support while their cases are pending; relief from automatic stay for child support enforcement is routinely granted, and some jurisdictions do not even require the filing of a motion. The elimination of the automatic stay would simplify the process of collecting child support during bankruptcy in some cases. However, the potential benefit of this provision is outweighed by the hundreds of pages of other provisions that increase the rights of commercial creditors, during and after bankruptcy, at the expense of children. Our organizations are committed to making sure that children get the support they need and deserve. We have opposed this Bankruptcy Reform Act because it will reduce the ability of parents to pay their most important debt--their debt to their children. Sincerely, ACES (Association for Children for Enforcement of Support) American Association of University Women Business & Professional Women/USA (BPW/USA) International Women's Insolvency & Restructuring Confederation (IWIRC) National Association of Commissions for Women National Center for Youth Law National Organization for Women National Partnership for Women & Families National Women's Law Center NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund The Woman Activist Fund, Inc. Women Employed Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will have a motion to recommit the entire conference report to the committee of conference to insist that according to the motion to instruct conferees that we have at least one meeting of the conference committee as required by House rule XXVIII, clause 6. I intend to do that. What we have found in the course of the study of this bankruptcy anti-reform measure are three myths. One is that it is a pro-consumer bill. It clearly is not. Two, that it will permit a fresh start for people that are brought into bankruptcy. It actually precludes a start as efficacious as the one that already exists in the existing bankruptcy law. It is a move backwards from fresh start. The myth of a fair accountability has been destroyed completely in the course of this discussion. In other words, this is a one-sided measure that is guaranteed to empower the creditors' lobby in a fine new way. Of course, the reality of where this bill is going is known to many of the Members on the Committee on the Judiciary, perhaps not a lot of other Members in the body. That is to say that it is going to again be subject to some delaying tactics in the Senate and that the President has promised to veto on this measure. So I think that that would be an appropriate conclusion to this measure and give us a chance in the next Congress to begin again. The bill fails to address the unlimited homestead cap, which is currently enjoyed by Texas and Florida, even though there is a 2-year wait before it kicks in. It imposes a nominal cap on homestead exemptions, but it is so filled with loopholes as to be next to meaningless. Anyone who lives in a State for more than 2 years will be able to thumb their noses at their creditors and remain in their multimillion dollar mansions, and this goes contrary to a provision that we had that would have cured this. So this measure before us in the form of a conference report, shot through with all kinds of process defects, is mean-spirited, will have a negative impact on the most vulnerable elements of our society and so is appropriately opposed by the United Automobile Workers, the AFL-CIO, AFCSME, a raft of consumer organizations, women and family organizations. I think it is very clear that we should now vote against this measure, and I hope that many of the Members who supported the bill in an earlier vote will reconsider and vote no when this conference report comes for a vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 next to no attention to the lending industry. 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. And so the conference report fails in yet another respect. It fails to require credit card companies to fully disclose the total amount of time it takes an individual to complete payment on a credit card balance if only the minimum is paid. The conference report also omits an important Senate provision that would prevent protesters found guilty of violence and of harassment at abortion clinics from declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying court judgments. And so, without such a provision, I say to the subcommittee chairman, we are allowing the abortion bombers to intimidate, maim and kill women without suffering any adverse financial consequence. And so, Mr. Speaker, I obviously oppose the conference reports before us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time to me, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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. Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as more and more Members begin to examine this, I think the awesome power of the credit lobby is becoming very, very clear. We are making a bill that makes bankruptcy worse. So for the chairman of the subcommittee to be telling us that, because we oppose this bill, we want to go back to the existing circumstance is inaccurate at least for my part. What we want is a better set of provisions than the ones that exist now, and this bill does not contain them.

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. 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. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for the purpose of explaining what we have before us at this time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve my right to object, did I understand the gentleman from Texas to say that he wanted to rename the bankruptcy bill in honor of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and someone else, Senator Grassley?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, this is something that he thinks would help the bill, or help American history, or help those who are concerned with bankruptcy law? What are we doing?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve my reservation of objection, I have a number of questions that I will forego, but I want to say this. I think this is an appropriate disposition of this measure. I will not recall the way I have described this bill. Mr. Speaker, if any of that is accurate and my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, still wants to have the bill named in his honor, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the committee (Mr. Dixon) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here to find out if anybody ever got the letter that me and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) sent to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) about the fact that criminal matters fall under title 18 of the U.S. Code and is within the total jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Did anybody ever find out about that letter? Well, we were trying to get some jurisdiction for this part of the bill that deals with making it a felony for a Government employee to disclose any and all information that the Government says is classified. The history of this provision, I say to members of the committee, is that it was dropped quietly into a Senate version and has never had hearings in the House or the Senate, no hearings on a provision that has the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. And we did not even get a response from the letter that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary sent the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss). And so, why are we doing this? There are a number of theories about this. Members may find out by examining what would have happened had this been the law for the last 30 years: One, the scope of the government's activities in Vietnam through the Pentagon papers would have resulted in prosecutions. Two, the CIA's complicity in the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile. Three, the Nixon administration's support of Pakistan in its 1971 war with India. Four, the revelations about spying at U.S. laboratories. Five, China's alleged military involvement with Pakistan and North Korea. Six, basic information regarding the size of the CIA's annual budget. See, the reason that we are doing it this sneaky way is because it will scare the bejesus out of whistle blowers and they will be able to be criminally punished by not sending this through the Committee on the Judiciary. I am not saying that Judiciary might not have passed this out. We do our share of things that I do not agree with, either. But this super sneaky way of trying to do it does not reflect any credit on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I resent this very much the way you have dismissed the Committee on the Judiciary. I think this is a travesty. And, by the way, The New York Times, The Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Austin American Statesman and other papers have all exposed this for what it is. I am shocked that this radical departure of the way we legislate would be applauded on the floor, tremendous congratulations for a bipartisan effort. Well, everything bipartisan is not always right, and here is a perfect example of it.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, tonight is a night that many people in Detroit look forward to all year long. Tonight is the Season ``Home Opener'' in Hockeytown. The Detroit Red Wings open their 75th season, tonight at Joe Louis Arena. The Red Wings, in their 75 years in Detroit, have become more than just a sports team in our hometown, they are a part of the community. There is a reason that Detroit is known as Hockeytown, and it isn't simply our love for the team. Hockey is a part of our lives in Detroit. Many Detroiters remember their first pickup games played on a neighborhood pond with their childhood friends. Our children, with the invention of rollerblades, now play street hockey year round in our neighborhood streets and driveways, or anywhere else they can find a smooth surface. It's not simply our climate, which is conducive to hockey, nor is it our proximity to Canada, the origin of the game, it's partly our attitude, and part our love for the game. But a large part of the reason we are known as Hockeytown is the fact that the Red Wings have helped shape Detroit for the past 75 years. The Red Wings began in the early 1920's with a group of investors led by Detroiter Charles Hughes. He convinced the Detroit Athletic Club to create a new team for the National Hockey League. They began playing in Olympia Stadium in 1927, and played there until 1979, when they moved to Joe Louis Arena on Detroit's waterfront. The Detroit Red Wings are known in the NHL, as part of an elite group, ``The Original 6''. The ``Original 6'' were the 6 teams in the NHL that played during World War II, when men and finances were devoted to the War effort. Being a part of the ``Original 6'' has brought much pride and prestige to the Red Wings. Through their 75 years in Detroit they have earned 9 Stanley Cups, and numerous League Championships. We were most fortunate this last decade to have had a dynasty in Detroit, winning two Stanley Cups and capturing the President's Trophy for winning most games in a season twice, setting a new NHL record, in 1995. We have had winning seasons and losing seasons, but through it all we have been fortunate to have the Red Wings as a part of our community and I want to thank the Red Wings, and their owner, Mr. Mike Illitch, for their commitment to Detroit. I want to congratulate them for 75 years in our great city, and I want to wish them luck this year in their quest for the cup. Go Wings!

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on the Judiciary here. Could I ask if he would kindly join with us in pledging to affirm and carry out the details of the motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for some closure on this matter. Okay. The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) does not care to comment on this matter.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the answer is yes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is yet another blatant example of the misuse of the legislative process by the Republican majority. Last week, it was used in the Violence Against Women Act as an excuse to pass special interests legislation benefiting the alcohol wholesalers. Today, we are attempting to use the State Department bill as a ruse to pass special interests bankruptcy provisions. Now what is wrong with the bill? The proposal attempts to oppose an indiscriminate means test to determine eligibility for bankruptcy relief. It is highly damaging to a single mother's access to the bankruptcy system. The business provisions of the proposal will impose harsh time deadlines and massive new legal and paperwork requirements. And so I want to say to my colleagues that the bankruptcy referees who have tried to consult with us are shocked that we would move such legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to give it their support.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).