Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and there is one provision that I do support, one out of all of the provisions that I support in the McCollum amendment, and that is the one that designates an Assistant United States Attorney to focus in on the issue of guns. However, I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), what he fails to do in the amendment is to provide an authorization for the funding for the additional Assistant United States Attorney. Myself and the former attorney general of the State of Arizona, who now serves in this body, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) had that amendment before, before the Committee on Rules, and it was not ruled in order, and I would hope that the gentleman would consider unanimous consent to adopt that amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, today, on Capitol Hill, Ms. Pam Hunt of Pine Oaks Village in Harwich, MA, was honored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the National Elderly Housing Manager of the Year. I would like to ask my House and Senate colleagues to join in honoring her exemplary efforts to provide a safe, community-based environment for the older residents of Pine Oaks Village. Ms. Hunt was recognized not only for ensuring that the daily needs of her residents are met, but also for her dedication in making Pine Oaks Village the place its residents call home. She has helped secure a Federal grant to enhance social services at Pine Oaks Village, encouraged residents to develop and direct their own programs, such as art shows, gardening, bridge, and quilting, organized holiday parties, and produced a monthly newsletter for her residents. Ms. Hunt makes consistent strides to improve the quality of life of her elderly residents. Here in Congress, we are debating Social Security and Medicare reform, reauthorization of the Older Americans Act and other important issues affecting our Nation's senior citizens. It is comforting to know that while the needs of seniors are often overlooked by some--they are not forgotten at Pine Oaks Village.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, this is a very dangerous amendment. This sends a message to the antidemocratic forces in Haiti that America is ready to disengage. This coupled with a hole that was placed by the majority in terms of human rights observers. This amendment should be defeated and it should be defeated overwhelmingly.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, it would not have changed my vote on the rule, but it certainly takes a bill from being very bad to simply bad.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to hear that.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to state for the Record when the gentleman speaks that a litigant in a suit when punitive damages are awarded under the provisions of this bill does not receive those punitive damages, that it goes to a special fund. Now, if I am misstating the language of the bill, maybe the gentleman can educate me.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I will not consume all that time, but I felt it necessary to respond to the primary sponsor for whom I have great respect, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), when he talks about small businesses. I would like to point out just one particular aspect of this proposal that will hurt small businesses. This goes to the issue of economic loss. If a small business under the provisions of this bill should incur a disruption in the course of its business because of the negligence of another party because of the Y2K bug issue, that small business will not be entitled to losses such as lost profits, such as business interruption and other such consequential damages. I am not talking about frivolous lawsuits here. I am talking about lawsuits that are meritorious. What this bill will do will disadvantage small businesses, because they do not in many cases have the financial wherewithal to take on the giants. Clearly the damages that they will be seeking is because their business will be hurt, in many cases will be devastated, and in many cases might very well end up in bankruptcy. So maybe the NFIB is scoring this, but I suggest a careful reading of this language will show that this bill harms small business as well as the consumer. In addition, for those that have meritorious claims, we have changed the standard, we have changed the burden of proof on small businesses in their attempt to recover their legitimate and valid remedies. We have changed it from a mere preponderance of the evidence to now a totally different standard, one that is more akin to the criminal law. It is just a short way from beyond a reasonable doubt, and, that is, clear and convincing evidence. Let me suggest that the substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia and the gentlewoman from California and the ranking member will address the issues that they are concerned about.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, well, here we go again, crafting public policy without a clue as to why or what we are really doing; and the American people should be aware of it. Just last week, we passed a bankruptcy reform bill based on dubious assertions by the credit card industry that the bill would result in lower costs to consumers. One industry-funded study said that the bill would save the average household over $400 per year; and this figure found its way into every witness statement and ``Dear Colleague'' letter, as though it were an established fact. It was also routinely cited in press accounts, even after the study was flatly contradicted by a chorus of consumer advocates and bankruptcy experts, even after the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office were unable to substantiate the figure, even after every witness at a subcommittee hearing admitted that corporate cost savings would not be passed on to consumers in the form of lower interest rates. And today we are at it again. We are considering legislation that would exempt large businesses from any liability for Year 2000 failures for which they are, in fact, responsible. And, once again, we are presented with a headline-grabbing assertion, ``pass this legislation or American companies will face $1 trillion in litigation costs.'' Well, $1 trillion is serious money, Mr. Chairman. But where is the evidence? Where does that estimate come from? I asked that question repeatedly in committee; and I never received an answer, never. But, later on, I asked one of our witnesses who looked into the matter; and I want to read into the Record his account of where that number came from. The one-trillion-dollar figure emanated from the testimony of Ann Coffou, Managing Director of Giga Information Group, before the U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee on March 20, 1997, during which Ms. Coffou estimated that the Year 2000 litigation costs could perhaps top $1 trillion. Ms. Coffou's estimate was later cited at a Year 2000 conference hosted by Lloyds of London and immediately became attributable to the Lloyds organization rather than the Giga Group. Obviously, those who want to use the trillion-dollar estimate for their own legislative purposes prefer to cite Lloyds of London rather than the Giga Group as the source of this estimate. There has been no scientific study and there is no basis other than guesswork as to the cost of litigation. This so-called trillion-dollar estimate by the Giga Group is totally unfounded but once it achieved the attribution to Lloyds of London, the figure became gospel and is now quoted in the media and legislative hearings as if this unscientific guess by this small Y2K group should be afforded the dignity of scientific data. A guess, Mr. Chairman. That is what this legislation is based on, a guess, a guess that has acquired the status of an accepted fact through nothing more than repetition. Now, I know this is old fashioned, but before we proceed to confer blanket immunity on those who fail to act responsibly, I think we should have something more than a guess. And before we deprive consumers and small businesses of compensation for the losses they will sustain if their computers do not work, I think we should have something more than a guess. And before we override centuries of common law, both at the State and Federal level, both substantive and procedural, I think we should have something more than a guess. We are told that this bill is necessary to encourage businesses to take the necessary steps to avert or minimize the Year 2000 problem. The Lofgren-Boucher-Conyers substitute does just that. Yet the underlying bill, by removing the threat of liability, discourages and undermines the incentive that companies have to do so to bring their problems into compliance. And it is the American people who will be left holding the bag on January 1. The bill discourages compliance. It benefits the large multinational corporations, to the detriment of small business and the individual consumer. This bill ought not to pass, and I urge support for the substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the committee.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I just want to set the record straight. I think that my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) unintentionally misstated the position of the administration in this regard, because back on April 13, which is certainly not several days ago, in her testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary Assistant Attorney General for Policy Development, Eleanor Acheson, was very, very clear. Let me read from her statement. ``We are committed to working with the committee to formulate mutually agreeable principles that would form the basis for a needed, targeted, responsible, and balanced approach to Y2K litigation reform.'' So this is not a fig leaf. In fact, it was this testimony that prompted the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to come in with this substitute which I would submit is balanced and reasonable, and answers the problem without denying due process to small businesses and many, many Americans.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding me 30 seconds. Let us be very, very clear, and I know that most members of the committee were aware of this, but for the rest of our colleagues: During one of our hearings there was a panel of nine witnesses, including representatives of the credit card industry and minority witnesses. I asked a question and polled each of them, and all nine unanimously stated that this bill would not lower interest rates. So that is a red herring, I suggest. The bill should be defeated.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Nadler-Conyers- Meehan-Berman substitute. I am particularly pleased to see that the substitute incorporates a series of consumer credit disclosure provisions which Mr. LaFalce and I had attempted to offer as a free-standing amendment in an effort to bring some balance to this legislation. We all know there are some individuals who abuse the bankruptcy system. And we all agree that people who let their financial affairs get out of control should take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. But responsibility is a two-way street. And instead of encouraging responsible use of credit cards and reduction of credit card debt, the credit card lenders who have promoted this legislation have done all they can to induce consumers to take on ever-increasing amounts of debt. They have increased interest rates and fees on current accounts-- often providing inadequate or misleading disclosures. They have imposed penalties on responsible debtors who pay off their card balances without incurring interest charges. They have engaged in relentless marketing efforts that target students with no credit histories and consumers already heavily in debt. We cannot deal with the rise in consumer bankruptcies if we ignore the causes. And there is a strong correlation between the bankruptcy rate and these kinds of irresponsible lending practices. If we are to fix the problem, we must demand greater responsibility not only from debtors but from creditors as well. The substitute would do this by disallowing claims in bankruptcy arising from various reckless lending practices. Those practices include the failure to provide complete and conspicuous disclosure of credit terms--including low temporary ``teaser'' rates; the imposition of unjustifiable penalties and fees against cardholders who pay their monthly balances on time or who do not engage in account transactions that result in finance charges; the issuance of credit cards to minors without the signature of a parent or guardian or proof of independent means of repayment; the failure to highlight due dates and penalties for late payments in monthly billing statements, and to inform cardholders of the consequences of paying only the minimum due each month; and the failure to permit consumers to respond to interest rate increases by canceling their credit cards and paying off their balances under the old rate. These are reasonable measures that would help sever the link between irresponsible credit card lending and the rise in bankruptcy filings. That is what needs to occur, Mr. Chairman, and I urge support for the substitute.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we have heard much about personal responsibility during the course of this debate. We have heard over and over again from members of the credit card industry that individuals must be held accountable for their behavior and that no longer is there any stigma attached to bankruptcy. No one disagrees with the principles of personal accountability and personal responsibility. The problem is that the rhetoric does not withstand scrutiny in terms of the evidence supporting a linkage, to establish a link between the increase in personal bankruptcy filings and the change we are told has taken place in people's attitudes about bankruptcy simply does not exist. On the eve of the committee markup I finally received from the Congressional Budget Office a draft of a report which I and other minority members of the committee requested more than a year ago. It concludes, and I quote: At this point, we do not have a clear idea of the benefit of a needs-based bankruptcy requirement. It further concludes, and again I am quoting: Available research on the behavior of personal filings over time does not paint a clear picture of whether filings respond to incentives in the bankruptcy law. In other words, we know very little about the likely consequences of what we are doing here today. Yet we are proceeding as if the evidence was clear and compelling. But do not be misled. This bill will not reduce the number of bankruptcy filings. Colleagues will not see a substantial difference in terms of the 1.4 million annual filings. But there is an issue of responsibility, corporate responsibility, and I submit that if we insist on responsible lending by the credit card industry, we will reduce the number of bankruptcy filings. Because while we do not know the cause of the increase in bankruptcy filings, no one, no one can legitimately dispute that irresponsible lending practices are at the very least a contributing factor. Instead of encouraging responsible use of credit cards and reduction of credit card debt, many credit card lenders have encouraged card holders to take on an increasing amount of debts when they can ill afford it. They have increased interest rates, they have increased fees on current accounts, they have imposed penalties on consumers who pay off credit card balances without incurring any interest charges, and we have all experienced, everyone has experienced, the aggressive marketing tactics of the credit card industry. Last year alone they sent out more than 4 billion, that is 4 billion, solicitations, many of them to students with no credit history whatsoever and consumers already in debt. The first exhibit to my right shows one of those solicitations which went to my own college-aged daughter. It is what is known as a live loan. I do not know why it is a live loan, but it is called a live loan, which invited her to cash a negotiable check for $2,875 at 18.9 percent interest. The offer said: Use the money for whatever you like. No limits, no restrictions, no questions asked-- and I am quoting from the solicitation. If my colleagues question the link between these kinds of aggressive marketing practices and the rising bankruptcy rate, I invite them to examine the second exhibit to my right. The first panel displays a credit card offer by First Consumers National Bank, a nationally chartered credit card bank owned by Spiegel and Eddie Bauer. It says, and I am quoting: If you filed a bankruptcy, you can get a fresh start with this First Consumers National Bank Visa Card today. Your filed bankruptcy, your filed bankruptcy, qualifies you. No need to wait for bankruptcy discharge. That is a quotation. The second panel also shows a letter sent to bankruptcy attorneys, and I think it is the third panel, it is the third panel. The third panel shows a letter to bankruptcy attorneys by a Minnesota company that calls itself American Bankruptcy Service. The letter seeks to enlist these attorneys as distributors. Must be like an Amway, an Amway of bankruptcy services who will market the fresh start card to their clients. It actually goes so far as to offer them a commission. For each credit card issued, it promises they will receive $10, 10 bucks if they can get out there and peddle that card. Now a balanced bankruptcy bill would address this kind of egregious conduct. It would demand responsible behavior not only of debtors but of credit card lenders themselves and particularly those creditors whose own reckless lending practices have done so much to drive people into bankruptcy. But this is not a balanced bill. H.R. 833 does nothing, nothing to encourage corporate responsibility. In fact, it would reward irresponsible lending by enhancing the position of credit card companies relative to other creditors. It would create a vast new system of means testing that would be implemented at taxpayer expense. In effect, the bill would turn the bankruptcy system into a public funded with our tax dollars collection agency to increase the profitability of the credit card industry. And what would this all cost the taxpayer? According to the CBO, last year's bill would have cost $214 million over a 5-year period, but that does not include some $225 million in administrative costs required to cover the additional duties assigned to the U.S. trustees under H.R. 833. In other words, almost a half a billion dollars so that the credit card industry can enhance their bottom line. This bill is nothing more than a public subsidy for the credit card industry, Mr. Chairman, and it deserves to be defeated.

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 planning 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 expensive homes in one of the handful of States such as Texas or Florida with an unlimited homestead exemption, declare bankruptcy and continue to enjoy a life of luxury while their creditors get little or nothing. If we are truly serious 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 fairness and rationality of the bankruptcy system into disrepute. That is why the National Bankruptcy Review Commission urged Congress to place a uniform national cap on the amount of equity that could be claimed under the homestead exemption. At subcommittee I offered an amendment to cap the exemption at $250,000. My amendment was adopted by an overwhelming vote but it was not allowed to stand. When the full committee 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 homestead 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 established 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 uniform enforcement of a Federal statutory scheme. That is like legislating a Federal income tax and leaving it to the State legislatures to determine what will count as a business deduction. 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 financial means. This is unfair, Madam Speaker, and it is poor public policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me be really clear. This is not a civil war that has been raging. This is nothing more than state violence and state terrorism against a class of citizens who are unarmed, for the purpose of forming a pure enclave, a mini-state, if you will. I daresay the statement that this is a civil war does a disservice to what occurred before the ascendancy of Milosevic. There were 1.9 million Albanians and about 200,000 Serbs. As again Senator Dole testified before the House Committee on International Relations, they had been living peacefully together until Milosevic stirred things up. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), a respected member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find considerable irony in the question of what is our national interest in Kosovo, for I thought we unequivocally answered that question with American blood and American tax dollars. If we have no national interest in Kosovo, why did we lose so many lives in Europe in two World Wars? If we have no national interest in Kosovo, why did we spend billions of tax dollars on the reconstruction of Europe through the Marshall Plan in the aftermath of World War II? It seems that we have forgotten that the Balkans are an integral part of Europe, and that Kosovo, as President Bush first enunciated, is critical to the peace and stability in the Balkans. Senator Dole got it right when he testified before the Committee on International Relations advocating our engagement and involvement in Kosovo. I am quoting Senator Dole: ``It is in America's interest to have a stable, democratic and prosperous Europe.'' As did Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, who served so well as our U.N. Ambassador under President Reagan. She stated at that same hearing, and again I am quoting: ``I think that peace and security and the human rights of the people in the region and the future of NATO and a democratic, peaceful, prosperous Europe are all in the balance in Kosovo.'' We should be proud that it was the United States that helped nurture prosperity and democratic institutions in Europe in the latter part of this century, for that investment truly changed the course of history and has not just benefited Europe, but our Nation and our people. The prosperity that we have enjoyed in this decade can be partially traced to the reality of a Europe increasingly democratic in terms of its political institutions, with economies based on free market principles. We are joined at the hip, let us be clear about that, but it is to our mutual advantage. An expanded European Union represents a future of unprecedented peace and prosperity for a continent that has been ravaged by war throughout recorded history, and the genocidal ethnic cleansing of Milosevic is perhaps the final challenge, hopefully, to achieving that vision. So when we ask what our national interest is in Kosovo, it is not simply Kosovo, it is more, much more. It is about Europe and beyond Europe. In the so-called Christmas warning of 1992, it was President Bush that warned Milosevic if he attacked Kosovo, that the U.S. would support a military intervention, if necessary. Early in his administration, President Clinton confirmed the Bush warning. It was the conclusion of both administrations that conflict in Kosovo would destabilize the entire region and potentially threaten all of Europe. It would indeed be tragic at this point in time to have defeated fascism in the 1930s and the 1940s, to have prevailed over communism in the 1980s, only to lose the peace at the end of the century. We may do just that by a unilateral withdrawal at this point in time. I submit that the action would be irresponsible. Dictators worldwide would cheer. Milosevic would have won. We will have crafted a much more frightening and troubled future. The Kosovar Albanians would be condemned to permanent exile or death and genocide. Again, Senator Dole was particularly eloquent when he spoke to what was occurring in Kosovo and to the evils of genocide. Again, let me quote the Senator: ``Now I don't know how many people it takes before you call it genocide. And I'm reminded of the book, `The Greatest Generation,' by Tom Brokaw, and I'm proud to be a part of that generation, and one of the things we failed to do in that generation was to nip genocide in the bud. It happened, we let it happen, and we stood back and we did nothing.'' Let us not sometime in the future reflect back on this day with the same regrets expressed so eloquently by Senator Dole. An earlier speaker, my friend from Ohio, on the floor stated, ``Let's give peace a chance.'' I respect him. I respect that sentiment. However, let me conclude by saying, let us not give genocide a chance. Let us not give genocide a chance. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To my colleagues on the other side, I just want to provide a statement made by the former Secretary of State, Mr. Kissinger, who testified and expressed his reservations about this policy. But now that we have initiated this policy, let me quote from Mr. Kissinger who made this statement this past Thursday: ``What we need to do now is maintain the principle that ethnic cleansing does not pay, and therefore, those refugees must be given the right to return. Secondly, if all of NATO is defeated by Serbia, and that is what occurs if you have unilateral withdrawal, what will this mean for the Gulf, for North Korea, and for any other area where rogue States are held in check by American and, in some cases, NATO military power? That is the issue now.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), a most distinguished member of the House Committee on International Relations and a long-term Member of this body.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that as a result of the atrocities and the crimes against humanity committed by Slobodan Milosevic, there are over 300,000 men, women and children that are dead in the former Yugoslavia now. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), my friend and colleague.