SURPRISE! HOUSE PASSES BILL IN MIDNIGHT SESSION- TO SATISFY CREDIT INDUSTRY

November 15, 2002

Return To Archives

After the anti-consumer Bankruptcy Reform Bill was effectively killed for this session of Congress by the defeat of a procedural vote, Members of Congress passed a new measure, stripped of the controversial portions of the bill, including the abortion clinic violence provisions.

Why did they do it? Because the lobbyists for the consumer credit industry have paid millions of dollars to get this legislation passed. Also, because Congress knows that the U.S. Senate won’t pass the legislation, necessary for it to become law. What about next year? Who knows. An excerpt from The Congressional Records follows. Mr. Nadler and Mr. Frank oppose the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) will be recognized for 30 minutes in support of the motion, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) will be recognized for 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The upshot of all this parliamentary movement that we have witnessed just now is to bring back to the Chamber the conference report on the bankruptcy reform bill without the odious language that caused such a bitter debate earlier in the day which in effect would remove the abortion language altogether. In addition, it would remove the language that would call for new judges to be appointed in various jurisdictions, not because of the substance of that portion of the provisions but because this would eliminate the possibility of a point of order being lodged on the budgetary portion of the bill. So in effect we have a clean conference report without the judges and without the abortion clinic language vested in it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry before I start my 30 minutes.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we have just been handed a 472-page bill labeled H.R. 5745. My inquiry is, is this brand new bill what is now before the House that none of us have had a chance to read?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is the text incorporatd by reference in the pending motion.

Mr. NADLER. The motion is to consider this bill?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The text is incorporated by reference in the motion.

Mr. NADLER. My next parliamentary inquiry is, is this brand new 472-page bill that no one has had a chance to read, including me, that we just saw for the first time about 5 minutes ago identical to anything we have ever seen before, or is this a brand new bill that we are going to debate sight unseen?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. NADLER. Is this a new bill or is this a copy of something else?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill was introduced today.

Mr. NADLER. But my question is, is this the same as something else that we have seen before or is it new, since we have not had a chance to read it?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a parliamentary inquiry. That is a matter for debate.

Mr. NADLER. Then I will ask the gentlemen, somebody over there, to yield and answer that question.

Mr. FRANK. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.

Mr. FRANK. The gentleman referred to this as a conference report. Conference reports are handled under one set of procedures. Is this in fact still a conference report, and will it be treated in the other body that way, or is it a brand new bill, to be treated as a brand new bill?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This motin contains a proposed amendment to the Senate amendment. It is not a conference report.

Mr. FRANK. So it is not a conference report, and therefore if we were to pass it, it does not have the status of a conference report when it goes to the other body?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are told, and we have to take it on faith, that this 472-page amendment, although it says H.R. 5745, it is a new bill, is the same as the conference report minus the Schumer amendment, minus the judgeships, but otherwise it is supposedly identical. We have to take on faith that this brand new 472-page bill that we have never seen before is in fact the same as the conference report text minus the two differences we have been told about. We have to take it on faith because we have not been given any opportunity at all to read the bill.

Not being satisfied with the humiliation of having one of their top priority bills defeated by their own Members earlier today, the Republican leadership now insults our intelligence by wasting our time at one o’clock in the morning with a bill they know the Senate will not even glance at. The conference report whose rule was defeated earlier today and which was just ruled out of order a few minutes ago was the result of months of painstaking negotiations with the other body. Now we are going to undo the results of all those negotiations in a few minutes and produce a brand new bill that we know the Senate will not even glance at. Mr. Speaker, even everyone, even the banks who have paid for this legislation with cold hard cash, know that this midnight stunt cannot result in a live bill. I find it hard to believe that even the Members putting on this little show can believe that it is intended even vaguely seriously.

[Time: 01:10]

It does not really matter how Members vote on this bill tonight, because the bill is not going anywhere, although I am sure the vote totals will be hastily inserted into a press release that has already been drafted.

I am not going to get into the merits of the bill. We debated the merits of the bill this afternoon, although I will note that the 28 new bankruptcy judges and the extensions of temporary judgeships that will otherwise expire that were contained in the conference report have been removed.

[Page: H8875]

Now, with the great increase in bankruptcy filings that supposedly motivated the bill in the first place, everyone concedes that we need those judicial positions in order to process all the bankruptcy proceedings, especially with all the new requirements that will be imposed by this bill, which will necessitate a lot of new judicial time, according to everyone.

I find it interesting that with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the terrible impact on justice of the Senate’s failure to confirm promptly the President’s judicial nominees, we are suddenly eliminating 28 judges and many existing judges who will now be permitted to expire for no apparent reason. Why are the Republicans suddenly eliminating all these, everyone admits, needed judicial positions? Now, I understand the political necessity of paying obeisance and bowing down deeply to the religious right by eliminating the Schumer amendment, but why eliminate these judicial positions that are, everyone concedes, essential?

It is no wonder that the voters are cynical about Congress, when the leadership here, the Republican leadership, insists on putting on circuses purely to entertain the lobbyists who have put up the money behind this bill. We know this bill will not pass the Senate. It will not go to the President. It is the legislative equivalent of a fraternity stunt.

Has anyone, by the way, even read this brand new bill, these 457 new pages? I would ask anyone who has read this bill to raise their hand.

I do not see any hands raised.

I know the voters are bursting with pride as they watch this at 1 in the morning; but the fact is, this is a legislative stunt for no purpose except saying to the lobbyists, we passed it, even though we passed it in a form we know the Senate will not glance at and we are just wasting everyone’s time.

Mr. Speaker, I will not waste further time by getting into the merits of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy. I had an earlier discussion with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), who is not on the floor as I can see now, the new whip, if somebody knows where he is.

I would like to discuss this with the sponsor of the legislation. I am concerned about the new judges. To me it is absurd that we are at this point anyhow. We should have passed this bill earlier today.

But of those 28 new judges, four of them would be in Delaware. As the gentleman knows, Delaware’s bankruptcy court is extraordinarily busy, and even after the four new judges would still have the highest caseload of any court in the United States of America. As it is now, we are borrowing courts from actually the gentleman’s jurisdiction, from Pennsylvania, on a regular basis to handle the bankruptcy matters there.

I understand that this was deleted from the bill because it could present apparently some sort of budgetary point of order, as I understand the circumstances. There are 28 new judges, and I think there are some expired judges there. Do we know how many expired judge terms there are? Does anyone on staff know?

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. GEKAS. We are not certain of that. Let me assure the gentleman that indeed this deletion of the judges does not in any way sway us away from our commitment to have these judges appointed and to assume their positions as bankruptcy judges. This is, just as we outlined, necessary in order to get the main body of the bill on bankruptcy reform to the vote for the Members. So we reassure the gentleman that the commitment to the judges is intact and that will be part of a final solution to this problem.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) is here now. If I could inquire of the gentleman as part of this inquiry his representations concerning these new judges and what would happen to them in the future, if this legislation were to pass tonight and then were to pass the Senate tomorrow.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. BLUNT. The gentleman makes a good point. Because of the passage of the legislation, I think we would need to add the judges as the legislation did that came back from the conference committee. I think that was a wise addition, and the gentleman certainly has my commitment, and I believe the commitment of the majority of our colleagues, would be my thought, that we would follow up with the sections of this bill that relate to judges, assuming that the bill is passed in the other body.

Mr. CASTLE. Well, reclaiming my time, my sense is that this bill will not pass in the other body, and perhaps in this sense it should not pass, and I think it should have passed today. As it is, I am getting some acknowledgment over there on that side.

But I think it is extraordinarily important. I cannot stress how important this is. I cannot stress how stressed our courts are as a result of this. It has been very disruptive to the entire district court practice, because the district court judges have actually had to do this in my State and a lot of other jurisdictions that are missing judges and with expired terms.

So we have a tremendous judicial problem in this country, and this needs to be acted on immediately. Again, I think bankruptcy is probably going to be a subject for next year. The way it has been handled today, it will not get through the House and Senate. But if it did, the aspect of the judges absolutely has to take the highest priority at the earliest possible time.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I agree totally with the gentleman. I think it became clear during the further discussion of the bill that we sent to the other body and during the conference that we needed to deal with this question of judges as well, and certainly would believe that that would follow any legislation that passed that did not include these judges.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank both the gentlemen. I am not entirely appeased by what I heard. Obviously, I believe the judges should be in there, but I do take your word for it on that basis.

Again, this is legislation, in my judgment, we should not be considering at 1:15 in the morning. It should have happened a lot earlier in the day, and it would be over in the Senate already. But so be it. Hopefully, the word of everybody tonight will be held up.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, as I realized how much time was going to be wasted on this effort to allow some Members to get back in the graces of some of their financial supporters whom they had to alienate, and as we were lionizing, justifiably, Mr. Morris, the refrain kept going through my head, Hey, Mr. Tally Clerk, tally up our votes; daylight comes and we want to go home.

We cannot go home because here is what happened: the bankruptcy bill came up, and some Members on the Republican side had to choose between people who are interested in vigorously protesting abortion and the financial community; and they decided to support the people who vigorously protest abortion, which meant that the bill died.

Now, there is no way this bill is going to pass. Understand that what they did then was this. Let us be clear about the sequence. The bill died because some of the Members there were torn between the people opposed to abortion and the people with money. And you would have thought they could have waited until maybe February or March to get back in the graces of the people with money. But apparently the separation anxiety on the Republican side of not being continuously in the bosom, if not the pocket, of large financial interests, was so great that they had to come up with, and let me use the technical parliamentary term, the cockamamiest scheme I have ever seen on the floor of a legitimate democratic legislature.

You bring a bill to the floor, it is losing, and you do everything you can to get people to vote for it. And when you cannot get them to vote for it, you then decide that what you try to get them to vote for violates the rules of the House. So you bring back your own bill, which violated the rules of the House, and say to people, well, you know these rules, maybe they are more important than we thought.

So you then make a point of order against your own bill to change it, knock out a very important provision about judges, the gentleman from Delaware asked a legitimate question, he gets a little bit of mumbo-jumbo because none of this makes any sense, and he sits down with a little grumble, and now you want to vote to send this bill to the Senate. People should understand, this will go to the Senate not as a conference report, but as a stand-alone bill.

It will pass in the other body if someone gets unanimous consent to pass it.

Now, I think frankly there are a lot of things more likely to get unanimous consent than this. No one thinks that this bill will even be taken up in the Senate. So here is what puzzles me. Yes, I understand that people in the financial industry to whom many of you are attached emotionally, politically, and in any other way, they are distressed that you voted no, and they want you now to vote yes, so you can vote both ways on the same bill in the same evening. Not that bad.

But here is the problem. When the bill had a chance to pass, you voted to kill it. Now, when it is dead, you vote to pass it. And I got to say this, I have to ask you this question, I have to ask you this question because I am interested in your techniques. For this you are going to get credit? I mean, if you can persuade, and let me say in tribute, if you can persuade these sophisticated financial people to give you credit for something this phony, then you are selling too cheap. Why do you not get a platinum credit card with negative interest rates? I mean, you are going to these people and they are going to accept this? You killed the bill when it could have passed, and now you are going through this, it is not a charade because there is talking, but I do not know what it is.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, just to summarize, Members kill a bill because of some honest concern about the first amendment rights of people who are protesting. I honor that. Do not degrade that. Stay with that. What you have done is to transform this statement of principle by then bringing back the bill you tried to get people to vote for, announcing that your own bill violated the Rules of the House, now alleging allegiance to the Rules of the House, and engaging in the most transparent, cynical, legislative maneuver I have ever seen, giving Members a chance to switch their votes to be recorded on a bill to make contributors and other financial interests happy in the full knowledge that it will end here.

Mr. Speaker, politics is a nice business, and we are all in it. But this is so cynical, so an interruption of the legislative process that you ought to be embarrassed about it.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the total absurdity of the situation having been well explained by the gentleman from Massachusetts, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I too was moved by the gentleman from Massachusetts and I observed how much his side of the aisle thought he made cogent points, and as we move to the vote I am going to see how many people support the position with their vote.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion.

The previous question was ordered.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman will state it.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, before I yielded back the balance of my time, the gentleman from Pennsylvania had yielded back the balance of his time, had he not?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. The gentleman reserved the balance of his time.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The inquiry is to be clear on what the Members are voting on. Are they not voting on a bill that we just saw with no judges to rule on the law?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Speaker, is this bill without any judicial support in terms of the judges provision? Is that not in the bill?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.

The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

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

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were–ayes 244, noes 116, not voting 72.