F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is a very good amendment. This program is a very important one. It is too important to let go by the wayside. I believe we should take this opportunity to reauthorize it in the context of this bill and would urge the committee to support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I am going to quit while I am ahead. The gentleman from New York agrees with me that this amendment is a bad one. There is no more that I can say but to urge the membership once again to vote against it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about personal responsibility. It is about plugging loopholes in the Bankruptcy Code that result in the shifting of millions and billions of dollars to people who pay their bills on time. It is going to put more vibrancy in our economy because of the fact that debt that is written off is something that has to be absorbed by corporations and people who hire other people who cannot afford that. I would urge the Members to support this legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clear the confusion that has just arisen. There are several provisions of H.R. 975 which are crucial to the collection of child support during bankruptcy which will fail if this bill goes down. First, it prioritizes the collection and payment of spousal and child support. The legislation gives spousal and child support the highest priority under bankruptcy law. Current law give these claimants only a seventh-level payment priority. Spousal and child support will remain at seventh level if this bill goes down. H.R. 975 requires important guidance and information be supplied to child support payments and a notification to State child support agency of a deadbeat parent's bankruptcy filing. That will not happen if this bill goes down. H.R. 975 protects the name of the debtor's minor child from public disclosure in a bankruptcy case. That is public record if this bill goes down. H.R. 975 permits enforcement actions to continue or to be commenced notwithstanding the deadbeat's bankruptcy filing. With the automatic stay under the current law, there cannot be an enforcement action for back child support, and any pending enforcement action is stayed. If this bill goes down, that means enforcement actions will come to a screeching halt. Finally, H.R. 975 permits child custody and domestic violence proceedings to continue notwithstanding the debtor's filing for bankruptcy protection. Those actions will be stayed if this bill goes down. This bill does protect women and children and should be passed. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself. Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the gentleman from California should not go unanswered. The gentleman gives the impression that the law that is proposed in this bill is a strait jacket that will prevent the shifting of cases around where there is a justification for it. I draw the attention of Members to title 28 of United States Code 1412 relative to change of venue. It says that a district court may transfer a case or proceeding under title 11, which is the bankrupt title, to a district court for another district in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties. So if there is a need to transfer a case out of the court in Delaware, for example, to a court in Houston, the present bankruptcy code allows for that. There have been some courts that are very plugged up and are not able to process bankruptcies quickly. Business is steered away from those courts simply because they have been so plugged up. I believe there is enough flexibility, and there should not be a poison pill that will destroy the delicate balance; and hopefully we will get this bill passed. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, if this bill is voted down, we also will have opened up our hearts to corporate crooks who build multimillion dollar mansions on the water in nice places in Florida because the unlimited homestead exemption that is in the current law will be maintained. I do not want to open up my heart to those folks, and that is why this bill ought to pass. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today is a victory for those Americans who work hard, pay their bills, but are forced to shoulder the debts of those who abuse our bankruptcy system. H.R. 975 restores personal responsibility and integrity to our bankruptcy system by offering a fresh start to those who deserve one, while cracking down on those who do not. All Americans suffer when people who have the ability to pay their bills do not do so. Just yesterday the Spiegel Group, an entity that owns the famous Spiegel Catalogue and the Eddie Bauer stores, filed for bankruptcy. Why? This company, founded in 1871, began offering credit to its customers under the slogan ``We trust the people.'' According to one news report, however, the company trusted too many people, and some did not pay their credit card bills. Analysts estimate that the default rate with respect to Spiegel's credit card receivables ranged from 17 to 20 percent. When businesses hurt, their employees and investors hurt, and our economy suffers. America's bankruptcy system was established to help provide a fresh start for individuals with demonstrated financial need. H.R. 975 maintains this goal by providing relief to those who truly require financial protection as a result of unexpected medical bills, unemployment, or other legitimate needs. Our bankruptcy system was also established to encourage the reliable collection of debt owed to creditors. The measure we consider today advances both of these objectives and provides a comprehensive framework to promote the integrity of our bankruptcy system. Take, for example, homestead exemptions. We have all heard about the former corporate executives acquiring or building multibillion-dollar mansions in the very face of those shareholders who are defrauded by such individuals. I am particularly pleased that this legislation places reasonable monetary limitations on unlimited homestead exemptions which have often been misused by debtors to unfairly evade their financial obligations. This legislation will keep crooked corporate executives from using bankruptcy to shield their mansions and penthouses from the claims of creditors, defrauded shareholders, and employees. In addition, H.R. 975 includes numerous proconsumer provisions. The bill includes special protection for individuals with spousal and child support claims. In addition to giving these claims the highest priority in regard to payment, it expands the definition of these claims to include obligations that are accruable before or after a bankruptcy case is filed, and requires deadbeat parents to pay those debts even after filing bankruptcy relief. H.R. 975 exempts from the claims of creditors certain retirement pension funds and educational IRAs for the debtor's children. It mandates that credit lenders give consumer borrowers more disclosure about the adverse consequences of just paying the minimum monthly payment. The bill requires debtors to receive credit counseling before they can be eligible for bankruptcy relief, so that they will make an informed choice about bankruptcy, its alternatives, and its consequences. In several significant respects, H.R. 975 helps our Nation's family farmers in financial distress. It makes Chapter 12, a specialized form of bankruptcy relief, a permanent component of the bankruptcy codes. It ensures that more family farmers will be eligible for Chapter 12 by easing some of the income and debt limitations that currently restrict access to this type of bankruptcy relief; and for the first time family fishermen will be eligible to file for relief under Chapter 12. H.R. 975 authorizes the increases of 28 additional bankruptcy judgeships. According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the workload of bankruptcy judges has increased 52 percent since 1992, which was the last time additional bankruptcy judges were authorized. Another major reform of H.R. 975 deals with the economic stability of our Nation's financial marketplace. The bill includes provisions intended to reduce systemic risk with respect to the setoff or netting of various financial transactions. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has described the enactment of these provisions as being extremely important. Finally, H.R. 975 addresses problems presented by the inconsistent and unpredictable current state of bankruptcy laws concerning the treatment of bankrupt multinational corporations. It largely codifies the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency to ensure greater legal certainties for trade and investment, as well as provide for the fair and efficient administration of these cases. The time for these reforms is long overdue. This body has on six previous occasions passed similar bankruptcy reform bills. It is my hope that today we will again do the right thing and pass this needed bipartisan bankruptcy reform legislation. Perhaps the seventh attempt will prove to be a charm and finally lead to the enactment of these critically important reforms. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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 to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 975, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2003.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers and am prepared to yield back if the gentleman from Massachusetts will do the same.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) to get back to debating the Pledge of Allegiance and the Newdow ruling.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), who represents the area that includes the Elk Grove Unified School District, which is the district from which this case arose.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we will consider House Resolution 132, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' recent ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment and urges the Attorney General to appeal its decision. We are here today because the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit continues to get it wrong. On February 28, 2003, as our country continued preparations for what is now an impending war to defend the values upon which our great Nation is founded, the Ninth Circuit refused to rehear the case of Newdow v. U.S. Congress. In Newdow, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the voluntary, voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school students violates the first amendment because it includes the phrase ``one Nation under God.'' In addition, on February 28, the three-judge panel amended its June 2002 ruling and held that the Elk Grove, California, school district policy of opening each school day with the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag ``impermissibly coerces a religious act'' on the part of those students who choose not to recite the Pledge and, thus, violates the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. This second preposterous ruling by the most-often reversed appellate court in the Nation impels us to come to the House floor again to voice our profound disagreement. House Resolution 132 expresses the sense of the House that the phrase ``one Nation, under God'' should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance and that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. U.S. Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment. It also urges the Attorney General of the United States to repeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling and urges the President to nominate and the Senate to confirm Federal circuit court judges who will interpret the Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text. House Resolution 132 also encourages school districts across the Nation to continue reciting the Pledge daily and praises the Elk Grove School District for its defense of the Pledge of Allegiance against this specious constitutional challenge. Since the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer nor a statement of religious faith, the recitation of the Pledge is not a religious exercise. Rather, it is a patriotic exercise in which one expresses support for the United States of America and pledges allegiance to the flag, the principles for which the flag stands, and to the Nation. To conclude otherwise is to ignore clear precedent from the Supreme Court. If this latest ruling is allowed to stand, schoolchildren at every public school in nine States, a total of 9,600,000 students, will be prohibited from reciting the pledge. Furthermore, the constitutionality of the voluntary recitation by public school students of numerous historical and founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address has been placed into serious doubt. When one considers how this decision distorts Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the importance of appointing judges who will interpret the Constitution consistent with its text becomes clear. Congress has consistently supported the Pledge of Allegiance by starting each session of the House with its recitation. The House reaffirmed its support for the Pledge when, on June 27, 2002, it adopted House Resolution 459, which I introduced, by a vote of 416 to three. The House should do the same with House Resolution 132 today. I am proud to serve as an original cosponsor of this measure, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.