Providing for Consideration of S. 256, Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 256, BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - April 14, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time.
I rise in support of the rule for consideration of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. This bill consists of a comprehensive package of reform measures that will improve bankruptcy law and practice by restoring personal responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy system. It will also ensure that the system is fair for both debtors and creditors.
As we now consider this rule, and the legislation later today, I believe it is particularly important to keep in mind bankruptcy reform's extensive deliberative history before the Committee on Rules, the Committee on the Judiciary, and both bodies of Congress, which I would like to briefly summarize.
First, the bill represents the culmination of nearly 8 years of intense and detailed congressional consideration. The House, for example, has passed prior iterations of this legislation on eight separate occasions. Likewise, the other body has repeatedly registered its strong support for bankruptcy reform. Just last month, the bill passed there 74 to 25, marking the fifth time that body has overwhelmingly adopted bankruptcy reform legislation since 1998.
Second, S. 256 has benefited immensely from an extensive hearing and amendment process, as well as meaningful bipartisan and bicameral negotiations. Over the past four Congresses, the Committee on the Judiciary has held 18 hearings on the need for bankruptcy reform, 11 of which focused on S. 256's predecessors. The Senate Judiciary Committee likewise has held 11 hearings on bankruptcy reform, including a hearing held earlier this year.
In the 105th Congress, 4 days were devoted to the Committee on the Judiciary's markup of bankruptcy reform legislation.
In the 106th Congress alone, the Committee on the Judiciary entertained 59 amendments over the course of a 5-day markup on bankruptcy reform legislation, which included 29 recorded votes. On the floor, 11 more amendments were considered.
In the 107th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary considered 18 amendments during the course of its markup of bankruptcy reform legislation, and the House, thereafter, considered five amendments.
In the last Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary entertained nine amendments to the bill, and five amendments were considered on the House floor. Also in the last Congress, the Committee on Rules made two amendments in order in connection with a similar bill, addressing bankruptcy reform, which was considered on the floor.
Last month, the Committee on the Judiciary entertained 23 more amendments, each of which has been soundly defeated.
Mr. Speaker, I have over here the paper record of the House consideration of bankruptcy reform legislation over the last four Congresses. Here's the committee report on this bill, over 500 pages long. We have a copy of the House version of the bill, which is over 500 pages long. We have the committee report from 2003. We have a conference report from the 107th Congress. We have a committee report from the 107th Congress. We have a committee report from the 106th Congress. We have a committee report earlier in the 106th Congress, one from the 105th Congress, and then we have a committee report from the 105th Congress on the House side. All of these are debates in the Congressional Record when this bill has come up, and we have had conference reports filed, amendments filed, original bills filed.
There has been plenty of process on this legislation. The time to pass it is now, and that is why this rule is coming up in the way it is structured the way it is.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding again for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule for consideration of S. 256, the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005." S. 256 consists of a comprehensive package of reform measures that will improve bankruptcy law and practice by restoring personal responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy system. It will also ensure that the system is fair for both debtors and creditors.
As we now consider this rule, and the legislation later today, I believe it is particularly important to keep in mind bankruptcy reform's extensive deliberative history before the Rules Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and both bodies of Congress, which I would like to briefly summarize for you.
First, S. 256 represents the culmination of nearly 8 years of intense and detailed congressional consideration. The House, for example, has passed prior iterations of this legislation on eight separate occasions. Likewise, the other body has repeatedly registered its strong support for bankruptcy reform. Just last month, they passed S. 256 by a vote of 74 to 25, making the fifth time that body has overwhelmingly adopted bankruptcy reform legislation since 1998.
Second, S. 256 has benefitted immensely from an exhaustive hearing and amendment process as well as meaningful bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. Over the past four Congresses, the Judiciary Committee held 18 hearings on the need for bankruptcy reform, 11 of which focused on S. 256's predecessors. The Senate Judiciary Committee, likewise, has held 11 hearings on bankruptcy reform, including a hearing held earlier this year.
In the 105th Congress, 4 days were devoted to the Judiciary Committee's mark up of bankruptcy reform legislation. In the 106th Congress alone, the Judiciary Committee entertained 59 amendments over the course of a 5-day markup of bankruptcy reform legislation, which included 29 recorded votes. On the floor, 11 more amendments were considered.
In the 107th Congress, the Judiciary Committee considered 18 amendments during the course of its markup of bankruptcy reform legislation, and the House, thereafter, considered five amendments. In the last Congress, the Judiciary Committee entertained nine amendments to the bankruptcy legislation and 5 amendments were considered on the House floor. Also in the last Congress, the Rules Committee made two amendments in order in connection with a similar bill, addressing bankruptcy reform, which was considered on the floor. Last month, the Judiciary Committee entertained 23 more amendments, each of which was soundly defeated.
Third, it must be remembered that S. 256 is a result of extensive bipartisan and bicameral negotiation and compromise. For example, conferees during the 106th Congress spent nearly 7 months engaged in an informal conference to reconcile differences between the House and Senate passed versions of bankruptcy reform legislation. In the 107th Congress, conferees formally met on three occasions and ultimately agreed-after an 11-month period of negotiations-to a bipartisan conference report. The legislation before us today represents a delicate balance and various compromises that have been struck over the past 7 years.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the need for bankruptcy reform is long-overdue and should not be further delayed. Every day that passes by without these reforms, more abuse and fraud goes undetected.
Mr. Speaker, there simply is no reason to further amend this legislation given its uniquely extensive deliberative record. Those who come to the floor today and complain about lack of process or the need to further refine this legislation-simply oppose bankruptcy reform. Accordingly, I believe this rule is appropriate, and urge Members to support it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay to rest the fact that we have not had a full and complete debate on this.
This year, on March 16, the Committee on the Judiciary had a full markup on this bill. Anybody who wished to offer amendments was allowed to do so. Our committee publishes the complete transcript of markups as a part of the committee report. This transcript goes on for 160 pages in the committee report, which shows that everybody had an opportunity to speak their peace. There were 23 amendments that were offered, and all of them were voted down by overwhelming margins.
Now, amending this bill is what the people who wish no bankruptcy reform have in mind because they know the other body has had difficulty in finding time to debate this bill and vote cloture. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), whom I greatly respect, has voted against this bill every time it has come up when she has cast a vote in a rollcall. Much of the complaints we are going to be hearing are coming from Members who wish to sink this bill through amendments. They have never supported it in the past. They are against it even if it were amended, and that is why the rule is the way it is.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I recall yesterday when the death tax repeal was on the floor. It was a similar rule, and the minority was offered a chance to offer a substitute. They offered a substitute which was voted on and debated in the House of Representatives. But that rule passed by voice vote. So the rule under which we considered the death tax repeal yesterday is the same type of rule that we are considering today, except that the minority on this bill decided not to offer a constructive alternative substitute.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov