F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution as a way to further increase awareness of sexual assault and recognize the important contributions of victims in various groups that combat sexual assault. The police, forensic workers, and prosecutors should be praised for their hard work and dedication to this fight. Through recent advances in DNA technology, law enforcement agencies have developed the potential to identify the rapists in tens of thousands of unsolved rape cases. The work of these individuals to prosecute sexual assault cases and incarcerating the offenders makes all of us safer. We must also recognize the work of victims, national and community organizations, private sector supporters, and the media in this area. These groups helped to increase public awareness and provide support for individuals affected by this dramatic experience. Public awareness is a vital tool in combatting the incidence of sexual assault. It is noteworthy that the rate of sexual assaults has decreased by half in the last decade. This resolution also recognizes the plight of victims of sexual assault. Often, victims suffer emotional scars that remain long after the physical scars have healed. Free, confidential help is available to all victims of sexual assault through the National Sexual Assault Hotline, more than 1,000 rape crisis centers in the United States and other organizations that provide services to assist the victims of sexual assault. Hopefully, public awareness of this issue will also help victims to recognize that they are not alone and encourage them to come forward and report the crime. Currently, less than 40 percent of the sexual assault victims pursue prosecution by reporting their attack to law enforcement agencies. This resolution offers the support of this Congress and brings attention to this very important issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the individuals and organizations that dedicate themselves to combatting sexual assault. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 8.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1086) to encourage the development and promulgation of voluntary consensus standards by providing relief under the antitrust laws to standards development organizations with respect to conduct engaged in for the purpose of developing voluntary consensus standards, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1529, the Involuntary Bankruptcy Improvement Act of 2003, a bill I introduced earlier this year that addresses a very serious and possibly growing problem with respect to abuse of the judicial process by extremists and others. Under current law, a debtor can voluntarily commence a bankruptcy case or be involuntarily forced into bankruptcy by one or more creditors. Although rarely used, an involuntary bankruptcy petition can be a useful creditor collection tool. It can preserve and maximize assets for the benefit of creditors and provide for the appointment of a bankruptcy trustee to investigate a debtor's financial affairs. Unfortunately, tax protesters and other extremists are now resorting to filing fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy petitions against public officials and private individuals as yet another weapon in their arsenal of abusive litigation tactics, such as filing false liens. Last year, for instance, a tax protester filed fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy petitions against 36 local public officials in my district in Wisconsin, including the county sheriff, the circuit judge, and nearly every member of the county board of supervisors. Some of these individuals only discovered that they were the subject of a pending involuntary bankruptcy case after their lines of credit were terminated or they were charged higher interest rates. Worse yet, an involuntary bankruptcy filing, as with most bankruptcy cases, is a matter of public record and can appear on an individual's credit report for up to 10 years even if the involuntary bankruptcy filing is fraudulent and the case is dismissed by the court. As a result, innocent individuals continue to experience credit problems long after these abusive cases are dismissed. As the Hartford Courant reported last month, it sometimes takes years for corrections to be made to a person's credit report. As a result, the individual may potentially be forced to pay higher interest rates until the proper steps can be taken to fix their credit report. While abusive bankruptcy filings are not pervasive, they have occurred in various districts across the Nation. According to an informal survey conducted by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the National Conference of Bankruptcy Clerks, fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy cases have recently been filed in California, Ohio, Maine, Nebraska, and North Carolina. Organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League and the National District Attorneys Association have expressed concern that this litigation tactic may become even more widespread. H.R. 1529 responds to the serious problems presented by abusive involuntary bankruptcy filings in two respects: First, it amends the Bankruptcy Code to require the bankruptcy court, on motion of the debtor, to expunge all records relating to a fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy case from the court's files under certain conditions. Second, it authorizes the bankruptcy court to prohibit all credit reporting agencies from issuing a consumer report containing any reference to a fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy case where the debtor is an individual and the court has dismissed the petition. This bill offers great forward but very much-needed relief to innocent victims of abusive involuntary bankruptcy petitions. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1529.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1529) to amend title 11 of the United States Code with respect to the dismissal of certain involuntary cases.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1954) to revise the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to naturalization through service in the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to show how bipartisan we in the Committee on the Judiciary are on practically everything. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). (Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, has the time allocated to the minority expired?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1954 is a bill that has almost universal support in this House because it is a compromise. The Committee on the Judiciary on legislation relating to the Immigration and Naturalization Act has deep divisions. The reason this bill is so strongly supported is twofold. One is that there is a demonstrated need to provide a naturalization road and the immigration benefits to those who have served our country, their immediate families and their survivors. Everybody agrees that this is part of the immigration law that needs to be changed and updated, particularly in light of those who have paid the ultimate price in defending America's freedoms in Iraq. But I would like to give a word of caution, because this bill is a compromise. Everybody with an oar in the water and a differing viewpoint gave up something to ease the passage of this bill. If we allow the bill to emphasize the divisions that we have in the Congress and in the Committee on the Judiciary on immigration law and in the conference, then it is not going to have an easy road from here. But what we have given up to make H.R. 1954 an agreed-upon bill that will get an overwhelming vote in a few minutes should continue to be given up in the conference so we can speedily turn this bill into law and give the benefits to the people that we want to give the benefits to. As we proceed in this, I urge all of my colleagues to keep that in mind.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close general debate if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) wants to use the rest of his time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan is right. The Supreme Court is not required to accept congressional findings. In the cases that I have cited, they have given great deference to congressional findings. Here in the Stenberg case, the Supreme Court accepted the findings of the district court. We believe the district court's findings were in error. That is why there are extensive findings contained in H.R. 760 which we hope are substantiated by extensive hearing records and that the Supreme Court will give the same type of deference that it has done in the past in civil rights and employment cases. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).