Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I think the words which have been spoken today are very true; and I, too, am not afraid of the majority. I am not afraid of what we do. I am not afraid of how we act. I am not afraid of the ideas that we present forward. But just as we began talking about a balanced budget years ago, and the need for a balanced budget and the need for us to create fairness in our Tax Code and the need for us to talk about returning power from Washington back to people, is all predicated on a balance, a desire of the people to have balance. So we will have this debate every year until we get it done. We will continue to provide a view and a vision that if America and Members of Congress who come up talk about a balance, that is we balance out, that we believe that people should be more powerful than government, that we believe that people who get up and go to work every day should have an equal right to keep their money against an intrusive Federal government, then that means that we will begin debating issues that decide how easy or how difficult it is to raise taxes. Part of this debate also means that we have Members who have been here for a long time and some for a short time. One of the long-serving Members, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), from the Fourth District of Texas, he came to Washington also with a vision and view that he respected the Constitution, but wants to make it more difficult based upon what he sees today. But the debate goes on and the ideas will always be presented. Today, as our next speaker we are going to have a gentleman who is one of the newest Members of Congress. He came from a State where he recognized and saw where a balance and an opportunity to make it more difficult to raise taxes was important. He has listened to the debate for years and has become a leader in this endeavor as a message to America that we must make it more difficult to raise taxes. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), who is the lead cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Mesquite Independent School District for their centennial anniversary on March 12. Since 1901, the leaders and educators have strived to create an outstanding record in education. They continue to work tirelessly to ensure academic excellence and accountability for students, teachers, and administrators. Enriching these efforts are the partnerships and strong support of parents and the community. As a result, the students acquire important learning skills and a foundation of knowledge that will serve them throughout life. Mesquite ISD is one of the largest districts to achieve ``Recognized'' status as a result of President George W. Bush's education initiatives while he was Governor of Texas. With 42 schools and over 30,000 students, it has exemplified how successful our nation's public school system can be. I congratulate Mesquite ISD for one hundred years of educational excellence.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing today, I would like to say that the Bankruptcy Review Commission was created in 1994 and filed its report in 1997. It was composed of people who were on the front lines, not only bankruptcy judges but also trustees from all across the country as well as those who were interested in small business, consumers and others. They have provided us feedback that we have included in this bill today. Today I had an opportunity to speak with the trustee of the Northern District of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas, Bill Neary. Mr. Neary provided me information and feedback that, in fact, he believed that the most complete, up-to-date opportunities that they are seeing in the marketplace today are included within this bill. This rule that we are talking about is fair. It is doing the right thing. It will support the underlying legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Columbus, Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman's help. In fact, I believe that a nondischargeable debt, as most of them are, would simply be given relief, and so it would not be cost effective to chase after $80 for forever, nor would it be appropriate and right. Nor would it be allowed under this law. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Palm Bay, Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our previous speaker, who is a very good friend of mine, was speaking about credit card debts, was speaking about who would and would not get relief under this bill. I would like to just state that the purpose of this bill is to allow all Americans the opportunity to file bankruptcy. The gentleman indicated that credit card companies would stay after that little guy for forever. But, in fact, that is not true. Because if the little guy that was in reference to, unless they had a nondischargeable debt, meaning that they took on this credit card debt fraudulently, immediately upon filing for bankruptcy they would get the relief, just like anyone else in this country. We are not after the little guy. We are trying to do the right things for everybody. And so whether you did have a pension or whether you were a little guy, we would offer that same protection.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), my colleague and my friend; pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is a fair and structured rule, providing for the consideration of H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill and provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Judiciary. The rule also provides that the amendments recommended by the Committee on Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and that the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. It provides that amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report divided equally and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for the division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule also waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions and provides authorization for a motion in the House to go to conference with the Senate on the bill, H.R. 333. Mr. Speaker, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001 will fundamentally reform the existing bankruptcy system into a needs-based system. I am proud of the tireless efforts of the House Committee on the Judiciary under the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) to address this issue and to ensure that our bankruptcy laws operate fairly, efficiently, and free from abuse. We must end the days when debtors who are able to repay some portion of their debt are allowed to game the system to take advantage of those laws. Instead, this bill is crafted to ensure the debtor's rights to a fresh start while protecting the system from flagrant abuses from those who can pay their bills. This should not be a controversial issue because Congress has spoken many times on this issue before today. Two Congresses ago, in the 105th Congress, the House and the Senate passed different versions of bankruptcy reform legislation. The House agreed to the conference report that was negotiated on October 9, 1998, by a vote of 300 to 125. During the 106th Congress, both the House and the Senate overwhelmingly approved bankruptcy reform legislation, also on a bipartisan basis. The House passed H.R. 833 by a vote of 313 to 108 in May of 1999 and later passed the conference report by voice vote on October 12, 2000. Each time the bankruptcy reform legislation has received overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. The Senate also voiced its strong support and passed the conference report by a vote of 70 to 28. Unfortunately, President Clinton chose to pocket veto this bill. That is why we are here again today, Mr. Speaker. The legislation that we consider today is virtually identical to the conference report that passed the House in the 106th Congress. There is a great need for this bill now. According to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, bankruptcy filings reached an all-time high of more than 1.4 million in 1998. The debts that remain unpaid as a result of those bankruptcies cost each American family that did pay their bills on time $400 a year in the form of higher cost for credit, goods and services. Unfortunately, much of the debt that was eventually passed on to consumers last year was debt that bankruptcy filers could have afforded to pay. They simply did not because of the current opportunities under the law. That is why it is so important for us today to pass real bankruptcy reform. Without serious reform of our bankruptcy laws, these trends promise to continue growing, as they have every year, costing business and consumers even more in the form of losses and higher costs of credit. As we debate and vote today, we should keep in mind two important tenets of the bankruptcy reform: number one, the bankruptcy system should provide the amount of debt relief that an individual needs, no more and no less; and, number two, bankruptcy should be the last resort and not a first resort to financial crisis. It should not become a way of life. Opponents of this bill have tried to divert the discussion away from the merits of the bill and claim it would make it more difficult for divorced women to obtain child support and alimony payments. However, nothing could be further from the truth. This bankruptcy reform bill protects the financial security of women and children by giving them higher priority than today's law. The legislation closes loopholes that allow some debtors to use the current system to delay, or even evade, child support and alimony payments. The bill recognizes that no obligation is more important than that of a parent to his or her children. Currently, child support payments under today's law are the seventh priority behind such things as attorney's fees. Make no mistake about this, H.R. 333 puts women and children first at the top of the list. We should provide greater protection to families who are owed child support, and this bill will do just that. One important part of this legislation is known as the ``homestead provision.'' Protection of one's home is something that is very important to myself, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who will be speaking in just a minute on behalf of the minority, and also our constituents in Texas. The homestead provision maintains the long-held standard that allows the States to decide if homestead should be protected, yet stops those who purchase a home before filing bankruptcy as a means to evade creditors. The bill also addresses other problems, including needs-based bankruptcy. The heart of this legislation is a needs-based formula that separates filers into chapter 7 or chapter 13 based upon their ability to pay. While many families may face job loss, divorce, or medical bills and, therefore, legitimately need protection provided by the bankruptcy code, research has shown that some chapter 7 filers actually have the capacity to repay some of what they owe. Needs-based reform says that if someone can reasonably repay some of their debts, they should. This does not mean that the debtor cannot declare bankruptcy, but merely that the debtor needs to use chapter 13 rather than chapter 7 to repay some of the debt if he or she is able to do so. This bill also recognizes the need for consumer education and protection. It includes education provisions that will ensure that debtors are made aware of their options before they file for bankruptcy, including alternatives to bankruptcy, such as credit counseling. And the bill cracks down on bankruptcy mills, law firms, and other entities that push debtors into bankruptcy without fully explaining the consequences. Finally, the bill also imposes new restrictions and responsibilities upon creditors with the goal of preventing borrowers from getting in over their heads. For example, the bill requires creditors to disclose more about the effect of paying only the minimum payment and establishes new creditor penalties designed to encourage good-faith bankruptcy settlements with debtors. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this bill. This resolution will bring bankruptcy reform to the House of Representatives. The rule allows for full and fair debate on the underlying measure, as well as adequate opportunity for those who oppose the legislation to offer amendments. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and H.R. 333. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 71 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 333.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2) to establish a procedure to safeguard the combined surpluses of the Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance trust funds, as amended.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, H.R. 2, be re-referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition, to the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today has been, once again, an exceptional job on behalf of my colleagues in the Democrat party, as well as my colleagues in the Republican party, who have once again approached a very difficult issue with the decision that rather than sticking our heads in the sand, we are going to talk about Social Security, we are going to talk about the things that not only Social Security does for America today and the people who are on Social Security, but also a belief, an abiding belief, that we can do something to make sure it is there for the future of this country. I would remind my colleagues that the one part about this legislation that is fabulous is that there is an exception in the legislation that any bill that saves Social Security contains this phrase, that if a Member believes that a bill does not save Social Security or Medicare, he or she can always raise a point of order against any part of that legislation. That is one of the wonderful parts about this bill that is good for all of us. It is a matter of whether we are going to spend the Social Security, or whether we are going to save it. Re-referral of H.R. 2 to Committee on Budget and Committee on Rules

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Lexington, Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to ask is if we have a copy of this bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is always wonderful when the opposition agrees with you. I appreciate that support today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia Beach, Virginia (Mr. Schrock), a brand new Member of this body.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Marysville, California (Mr. Herger), the cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in 1999, the Republican Congress led the effort to stop the 30-year raid on the Social Security trust fund. Since then, Republicans have made retirement security a top priority by committing to protect 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. The Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 2001 continues this effort by once again protecting every cent of the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. Under this legislation, we will be honest with the American public and exercise fiscal discipline by locking away all the surpluses from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. This bill creates a point of order against consideration of any bill, amendment, conference report, or budget resolution that spends any of the Social Security or Part A surpluses. According to the most recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, known as the CBO, $2.5 trillion of the $5.6 trillion total surplus over the next 10 years can be attributed to the Social Security trust fund. The Medicare Part A surplus is expected to total $392 billion. This means that senior citizens and all Americans can count on the fact that the total of these two surpluses, $2.88 trillion over 10 years, will be set aside and will be available to them through these crucial programs. Under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the House overwhelmingly passed a similar Social Security Medicare Lockbox bill last year by a vote of 420-2. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats eventually stalled the bill and we did not achieve consensus. However, the importance of this issue has not gone unnoticed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In addition to the overwhelming support it received from this House, we also witnessed former Vice President Al Gore's attempts to adopt this issue on his own during the Presidential campaign. Though we are all familiar with the television parities of the campaign season regarding the Lockbox legislation, we must recognize that this is no laughing matter. In fact, it is downright serious. The irresponsible spending practices of the past must not be allowed to happen again. Senior citizens now and beneficiaries in the future who will depend upon these crucial programs must have assurance and guarantee that the surpluses from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will be used only toward the strengthening and solvency of these programs. I am proud of this Republican Congress for its efforts to preserve, protect and modernize Social Security and Medicare. This legislation is simply another step in the long line of efforts to restore fiscal stability to our Nation's retirement systems. I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.