Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from CBO and a report of CBO.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, no, I do not.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I object on the ground that the Record will show, if the Clerk will read the Record, that the gentleman had gone on to another subject, had already started talking about something else, and did not, did not object on the ground that a quorum is not present until the Speaker asked him, do you not want to object that a quorum was not present? The vote was already over and cannot be continued at this point. I make a point of order.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, business intervened. Before he objected to the vote, he started saying he asked 30 minutes for speaking time, et cetera. We had already progressed. He did not object to the vote.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, business intervened. Speech intervened. He did not ask for the vote or object to the quorum until the Chair asked about it. I object to this. He had gone on, all right.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have been complaining for months that this bill was being rushed through without proper consideration. We asked that this bill not be voted on in committee until we got a CBO score, until they told us how much this bill would cost the Federal Government and the taxpayers, until we found out how much this bill would cost in unfunded mandates on the private sector. Yesterday, we received the CBO score which told us that this bill will impose a cost on the Federal Government of $214 million at least. Interestingly enough, the committee report that was filed by the Committee on the Judiciary, filed hastily without proper study, said there was no fiscal impact on the Federal Government. The CBO report said there was at least a $214 million fiscal impact on the Federal Government. About an hour ago, just in the nick of time, we received the CBO report on unfunded mandates in the private sector. Let me read from that report. It says, ``Certain provisions in H.R. 3150 that incorporate means testing in the bankruptcy system would impose new private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act with costs that exceed the statutory threshold of $100 million in 1996 annually adjusted for inflation.'' It goes on to list what some of those costs are. Then in the next page, page 2 of the report from CBO, we read, ``CBO estimates that the direct cost of the private sector of complying with mandates in H.R. 3150 would exceed the statutory threshold in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in each of the first 5 years that new mandates were effective.'' It goes into what those costs would be. Then it says the following. ``Some estimates of increased costs for attorneys and private trustees in Chapter 7 filings have been several hundred dollars per case. Chapter 13 filings have ranged from several hundred dollars to over a thousand dollars per case per year. More than 1.3 million bankruptcy filings occurred in 1997. Because reliable national data on the cost of the bankruptcy system are lacking, CBO does not have sufficient information to place a reasonable upper bound on its estimate.'' So we do not know what the upper bound is, but we can say the following: Several hundred dollars per case at a minimum to a thousand dollars per case at a maximum, at 1.3 million cases, that means a minimum cost to the private sector of $260 million and a probable maximum cost of $1.3 billion in unfunded mandates to the private sector. Who pays for this? We are told that Americans are losing large sums of money because deadbeats are deadbeating, not paying their debts; and we have to crack down on this bill and make them pay their debts. This will take $290 million minimum, $1.3 billion maximum out of the sum of money from which people can pay their debts. So the creditors will be out between $260 million and $1.3 billion by the administrative burdens of this bill. Mr. Speaker, in 1995, with great fanfare as part of the Contract with America, the Republican majority in this House passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Bill, a bill that said, and I remember all the rhetoric on the floor and I am sure my friend from Colorado remembers it too, Congress should not be in the business of imposing unfunded mandates on private sector businesses and individuals. We should not do it. That is why the act says you can raise a point of order against a bill that imposes such mandates as this one does. It imposes such costs on innocent individuals, in this case, on creditors in the private sector. That is why the bill provides for a vote on the point of order. The idea, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, was that if we are going to impose a mandate that we are not going to pay for, we ought to stand up and vote for it and say so. I am putting everybody on notice, if my colleagues vote against the point of order, they are voting for two things. They are voting that contrary to the act, it is fine for Congress to place $1.3 billion unfunded mandates on creditors in the private sector. I voted against the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. But anybody who voted for that act and is in this Chamber today, who votes against this point of order, is saying either that he was not being honest when he voted for that bill or that he changed his mind since then. People are entitled to change their minds. But that is what we are saying, either that my colleagues never believed in the purpose of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or that they no longer believe in the purpose of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. I never believed in it. I voted against the bill. I am going to vote for the point of order, because I think we ought to uphold the law. That is what is involved here. CBO tells us that this bill will impose a cost of $260 million to $1.3 billion on the private sector in unfunded mandates. According to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act that the majority Republican passed, that is something that Congress should never, never, never, ever do. So I anticipate that most of our friends on that side of the aisle will vote in favor of that order. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 462. Section 425 of that same act, as added by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, states that a point of order against legislation which, one, imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of $50 million annually against State or local governments or, two, does not publish prior to floor consideration a CBO estimate of any unfunded mandates in excess of $50 million annually for State and local entities or in excess of $100 million annually for the private sector. Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Committee on Rules may not waive this point of order. On page 2, lines 13 through 15 of House Resolution 462, all points of order are waived against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. Therefore, I make a point of order that this rule may not be considered pursuant to section 426 as added by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, it is okay to go to the next amendment then, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am told that I need to move that the House rise now.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that offer from the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I think it is a good idea, and we should go on to the next amendment now with the understanding that when the gentleman from Massachusetts arrives at the conclusion of the amendment that we are now discussing, that we move that the House rises.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas). My parliamentary inquiry is if we go on to the next amendment now, and 10 or 15 or 20 minutes from now when the gentleman from Massachusetts arrives, if a motion to rise is made, we can then entertain that amendment in the House?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, is not the normal practice to, in this case, to have three people controlling time?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) mentioned, this bill has been rushed to the floor beyond all prudence, and unfortunately we have not been permitted most of the important amendments. The House leadership decided that the one thing this bill did not need was close scrutiny or open debate, so they choose not to allow debate in the most important amendments offered by the minority. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says the Committee on Rules was fair. We gave the Committee on Rules, we told them we had 12 priority amendments. One of those 12 was made in order. The American people are being cheated because they will not get the open debate and open votes on issues affecting the finances of millions of American families that they deserve. Have credit card companies been lending recklessly? The data indicates they have. In fact, every American family's mailbox tells the same story. How many pre-approved credit card solicitations have my colleagues thrown out last week? We had an amendment to eliminate the claims of any lender who knowingly pushed the debtor over 40 percent of his annual income in unsecured debt. That goes on all the time. It undermines the carefully made loans of other creditors. Yet these lenders want the taxpayers to help them share in the corrections with responsible collectors. That is not right, but we will not be allowed to debate that today. We have the amendment that would have eliminated the claims for debt incurred at ATM machines inside gambling casinos. Trying to lend thousand of dollars to gambling addicts in casinos at 18 to 22 percent interest is simply immoral. We know it destroys families and causes bankruptcies and leads to other responsible lenders not being paid. Yet although the amendment had the support of the Republican chairman of the subcommittee of appropriations, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) who has been a leader on this issue, we will not be allowed to debate this amendment today. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) had a series of amendments to deal with unscrupulous practices by some lenders, but the sponsors of this bill, for all their talk of personal responsibility, do not want to debate irresponsible lending practices so we will not have an opportunity to debate those amendments. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) had an amendment to protect the hard-earned benefits paid to our veterans, and the Social Security benefits of retirees are paid for but we cannot talk about that on the floor today. We will not get a chance to debate the amendments sponsored by my colleague from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and myself along with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) to protect child support collections from the terrible effects of this bill because the majority is afraid to have these issues come before the American people. Instead we will get another sham amendment crafted by the promoters of this legislation which will again pretend to fix the problem, the same problem they had first denied existed, then proclaim to have fixed in committee and will now try to fix again. But we will not be able to debate any real solution. I did have an amendment made in order which implements changes recommended by the National Bankruptcy Conference of the Small Business Administration. The bill threatens to force thousands of small or medium-sized businesses into liquidation, out of business, bury the jobs, because they will be buried under a mountain of paperwork and bureaucratic rules and deadlines that will not apply to big business, only to small business. No, this bill's special ruse is small business. It will cost jobs and destroy the dreams of small business people. How much time do we get to debate the future of small business in country? Five minutes on each side. That is all the Republicans think small businesses deserve before Congress buries the small businesses. But do not worry. The next time the majority wants to kill an environmental protection law, they will tell us they are doing it to save small business. Before we believe them we should remember what they did today. I regret that we have not been able to work in a more bipartisan basis. I was pleased by the progress of negotiations which the staff conducted over several weeks which seem to be yielding a reasonable and principled compromise. But unfortunately that good work will not see the light of day. One day we were told suddenly the negotiations were off and everything we had talked about was off the table. We are getting yesterday's news, the same wish list from the credit card companies. They have spent a bundle lobbying this one. As my colleagues know, the New York Times today says $40 million. I am not so naive as to think middle-class families on the brink can compete with a $40 million lobbying effort by the Nation's biggest banks and credit card companies. Mr. Speaker, this is no way to rewrite the code. It is simply legislative malpractice. I believe this bill is not ready and the record is incomplete. Mr. Speaker, I know how to count, and I know the majority has the votes to pass this embarrassment today. The minority will do what we ought to do, point out the weaknesses in the bill and suggest corrections. But I am under no illusions about the outcome. All I can observe is that this is a pretty shameful way to celebrate the centennial of the Bankruptcy Act, and that if, God forbid through some foolishness this bill makes it into law, we will hear a year or 2 from now the cries of the thousands and thousands of small businesses and middle-income and low-income people who will be buried by this bill, and then we will have to start undoing the handiwork we do today.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, I do not doubt for a moment the integrity and the word of the gentleman from Illinois, the chairman of the committee. I am sure that he did exactly what he committed to do and asked the Committee on Rules for an open rule. I assume he asked that the priority amendments that we asked for be made in order. I just regret that he was not more influential, perhaps, with the Committee on Rules and that they did not make more than one out of the 12 amendments that we had a priority on in order. I do not doubt for a moment nor would I ever cast aspersion on the integrity or the good word of the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this amendment, which should really be referred to as the Religious Coercion Amendment, is an assault on the first freedom which has been protected for 200 years by the First Amendment. I am amazed at some of my conservative colleagues who do not trust the government to protect the environment or to build new schools in our communities or to regulate the railroads, but are perfectly willing to turn over to government bureaucrats the power to do everything short of actually declaring a State religion, or to involve those bureaucrats in shaping the moral and religious lives of our children. Many supporters of this constitutional amendment have been irate at the way some schools teach American history, but they are perfectly willing to delegate to those same schools the right to guide a child's religious education. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, makes a radical departure from our current constitutional framework. The First Amendment now prohibits any ``law respecting an establishment of religion.'' The rewrite we have before us today would narrow that to prevent government only from establishing any official religion. Anything short of establishing an official church which favors one religion, that of the majority, over all others, would be allowed under this amendment. The amendment says, ``The people's right to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed.'' ``The people's right,'' that is a collective term, not an individual right; a radical departure from our constitutional tradition. What does it mean? It means that the people, ``the people,'' the majority, either by referendum or through council action or action of a local legislative body, a town council, a school board, a city council, could mandate that particular religious symbols, Presbyterian in one area, Catholic in an area, Muslim in a third, Centurian in a fourth, must be prominently placed in every schoolroom, in every courtroom, and that every litigant must do his case in front of that religious symbolism, even if it offends his conscience, and every child in every classroom, likewise. We can see evidence in the world today of the terrible harm which comes in the government meddling in religious affairs, of allowing some in the community to use the government to further their religious goals.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this amendment should really be labeled the religious coercion amendment, or the establishment of religion amendment, because it does so. It establishes religion according to the tenets of the majority in a given local area in three ways: First of all, it says it is a school prayer amendment, a coercive school prayer amendment. Someone once said that there is plenty of prayer in the public schools; that as long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in the public schools. Of course, that sounds funny, but it recognizes reality. Children are free to pray at any time they want in the schools. What nobody is free to do is to have organized prayer in a coercive manner, to coerce someone to pray or to have to separate himself or herself from the group and say, ``I am different and I do not want to join in your prayer.'' That is coercive prayer. This amendment would permit that. That is what the Supreme Court does not, and properly does not, permit. Secondly, this is far more than a coercive prayer amendment in two ways. This amendment says the people's right to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools, should not be infringed. What does that mean? The people, collectively, through their local city council or school district board or legislature, the people's right to put a cross or a Star of David or a crescent or a centaurea symbol above the judge's bench in the courtroom or in the school, will not be infringed. If you are a member of the minority and a member of a jury and you do not want to be on the jury in front of a religious symbol that is not yours, too bad. If you are a member of the minority in that town, if you are a Catholic and they have a Protestant symbol, or vice versa, and you do not want to be in the school room with that, too bad. Because the right of the people, the majority, to bring their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions into public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Finally, what does it say? It says neither the United States nor any State shall deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion. What does that mean? What that means is that you cannot deny access to a benefit on account of religion. Let us assume we establish, as we have, a hot lunch program for poor people, and let us assume that a church wants to be the agent for distribution of the hot lunch program and submits a grant proposal. That is fine. But let us assume that that church, as a condition of giving out the hot lunches, wants to subject the people to proselytizing, to a religious sermon or to a prayer first. Right now, they cannot do that. You are entitled to the hot lunch if you qualify. But we cannot deny to the church the benefit of distributing the hot lunches on account of religion, so now we can have religious tests for getting benefits from government. The church cannot be denied the right to religiously proselytize in order to get the benefit of participating in the government program. This, Mr. Speaker, is a coercive reestablishment of religion amendment, and I submit it is extraordinarily ill-advised.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the honorable gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), my friend, for originally introducing this legislation. I also thank the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), for bringing this legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, given the spirited debates we have been having on our subcommittee and on the full committee on certain other bankruptcy legislation the gentleman is sponsoring, I am glad we have been able to work together to develop this bill and to bring it to the floor as bipartisan legislation today. This bipartisan legislation would protect religious and other charitable institutions that receive donations from individuals who later declare bankruptcy, and would permit debtors in bankruptcy to continue to make donations to such organizations of up to 15 percent of their gross annual income. This bill is needed to address a problem that originated with the Supreme Court's decision in 1990 in Employment Division versus Smith, which said that the government may impose substantial burdens on an individual's free exercise rights so long as the government does so in a manner that is facially neutral toward religion. Congress attempted to correct this decision in 1993 by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA. The Court of Appeals in the Eighth Circuit ruled in 1996 that RFRA protected tithed donations to a charitable organization from creditors in bankruptcy proceedings. The following year, last year, the Supreme Court unfortunately struck down RFRA in City of Boerne versus Florez, and later, in accordance with its decision in Boerne that RFRA was unconstitutional, vacated and remanded the Eighth Circuit decision. Since the Supreme Court decision struck down RFRA only with respect to State laws, however, it is uncertain today whether RFRA remains good law as applied to Federal statutes such as the Bankruptcy Code. While the Supreme Court may ultimately decide this question, I see no reason to wait for a decision when a simple and straightforward remedy is at hand as to the tithing problem. This legislation would protect religious and charitable donations in bankruptcy proceedings by clarifying that they are not ``fraudulent transfers" within the meaning of the statute. As modified by the Senate language, the legislation also deals with the problem of State fraud statutes which might otherwise, under some circumstances, be used to undercut the Federal protection which I trust we will institute today. So this legislation takes care of that potential problem. Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) in a colloquy to confirm my understanding of the legislative intent with respect to section 3(a) of this bill which adds a new section 548(a)(2)(A) to title 11 of the U.S. Code. This section provides a safe harbor for qualified contributions of up to 15 percent of the debtor's gross annual income for the year in which such contributions were made. Under the new section 548(a)(2)(B), if the debtor's aggregate donations exceed 15 percent, the debtor would have to establish that the transfer was consistent with his or her prior pattern of charitable giving in order for that donation to be protected. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) to confirm my understanding as set forth in the committee report that the intent of this provision is to protect qualified contributions of up to 15 percent of the debtor's gross annual income in the aggregate for the year in which the contribution was made, and that we do not intend this language to allow multiple contributions to a given organization or to more than one organization which in the aggregate exceed 15 percent of the debtor's gross annual income to be protected. Would the gentleman confirm whether this is his understanding as well?

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I simply wanted to make a number of observations on this bill. One, this bill does afford to religious institutions and to nonreligious charitable institutions the same protection. If someone in good faith gives a charitable contribution, whether to a church or the American Cancer Society, the trustee in bankruptcy, if the person subsequently declares bankruptcy, should not go into the church or to the Cancer Society or the Lung Society, whatever it may be, and try to get them to repay the money. That is what this bill does. It sets up those protections. The second thing I want to say, in light of what I said earlier about the history of this bill, the religious liberty protections, is that some of us in this House are very strong advocates of separation of church and State. I will be opposing the so-called Istook amendment on the floor later in the week. We do believe very strongly in the separation of church and State, but we also believe that government should not be hostile to religion and government should be accommodating to people with religious beliefs and also to people with charitable intentions, and this legislation is very much in that direction. I think no matter what position someone may take on some of the other legislation such as the Istook amendment, we can all unite in supporting this type of legislation which does not breach the will of separation of church and State but says that the freedom to contribute money to the church or to the synagogue or the mosque or to the nonreligious charitable institution should not be violated and that government should not be hostile to these institutions. Again, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania and my colleague from California for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. I urge all my colleagues to vote for it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.