Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, utility companies provide many basic and life-saving services, such as electricity to light our homes, water to drink, and gas to heat our homes. Sometimes, however, individuals, through no fault of their own, struggle to pay for these services often in the face of devastating medical debt, job loss, or economic disruption

caused by divorce. While resorting to bankruptcy provides some relief from financial distress, current law permits utility companies to force these debtors to pay security deposits for continued service even if they were current on their bills before filing for bankruptcy or if they promise to be current on their bills after bankruptcy. Utility companies typically insist that debtors pay at least two months or more of their average bills as a deposit--in addition to requiring that they remain current on their utility bills after bankruptcy--in exchange for the utility continuing to supply service.

The ``Preventing Termination of Utility Service in Bankruptcy Act of 2015'' corrects this injustice. It provides that if the debtor remains current on his or her utility bills after filing for bankruptcy relief, the debtor should not have to pay a deposit to the utility to continue service.

In Detroit, for example, families across the city have seen their water rates increase by 119% over the past decade. During the same period, the Nation generally and Detroit in particular suffered in the aftermath of a global financial crisis that left one-in-five local residences in foreclosure and sent local unemployment rates skyrocketing.

Fortunately, we are incrementally recovering from the Great Recession of 2008. For those individuals who must seek bankruptcy relief, however, we should ensure that their ability to pay their utility bills going forward is not hindered by unnecessary demands for deposits if these debtors remain current on their payments to these companies.

Terminating a family's access to such life-saving services that keeps the lights on, warms our homes, and ensures that they can bathe, hydrate, and prepare meals is simply wrong if these utility bills are being paid on time.

This legislation is part of a range of solutions that are needed to address the still pervasive adverse impacts of the Great Recession of 2008. I continue to work with my colleagues in Congress, state and federal officials, and my constituents to defend the right to water and protect public health. I will not tolerate the notion that--in the 21st Century, in the wealthiest nation on earth--families should go without access to affordable public water and sanitation services.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following:

Summary

The ``Home Foreclosure Reduction Act of 2015'' would permit

a bankruptcy judge, with respect to certain home mortgages,

to reduce the principal amount of such mortgages to the fair

market value of the homes securing such indebtedness. My

legislation will encourage homeowners to make their mortgage

payments and help stem the endless cycle of foreclosures that

further depresses home values. It also would authorize the

mortgage's repayment period to be extended so that monthly

mortgage payments are more affordable. In addition, the bill

would allow exorbitant mortgage interest rates to be reduced

to a level that will keep the mortgage affordable over the

long-term. And, it would authorize the waiver of prepayment

penalties and excessive fees. Further, the bill would

eliminate hidden fees and unauthorized costs.

This bill addresses a fundamental problem: homeowners in

financial distress simply lack the leverage to make mortgage

lenders and servicers engage in meaningful settlement

negotiations, even when in the interest of all parties. My

legislation would empower a homeowner, under certain

circumstances, to force his or her lender to modify the terms

of the mortgage by allowing the principal amount of the

mortgage to be reduced to the home's fair market value. And,

the implementation of this measure will not cost taxpayers a

single penny.

The ``Home Foreclosure Reduction Act of 2015'' is identical

to H.R. 101 (introduced in the 113th Congress) and H.R. 1587

(introduced in the 112th Congress). It contains similar

provisions included in H.R. 1106, which the House passed

nearly six years ago. Unfortunately, those provisions were

removed in the Senate and not included in the final version

of the bill that was subsequently enacted into law.

Section-by-Section Explanation of Provisions

Section 1. Short Title. Section 1 sets forth the short

title of this Act as the ``Home Foreclosure Reduction Act of

2015.''

Section 2. Definition. Bankruptcy Code section 101 defines

various terms. Section 2 amends this provision to add a

definition of ``qualified loan modification,'' which is

defined as a loan modification agreement made in accordance

with the guidelines of the Obama Administration's Homeowner

Affordability and Stability Plan, as implemented on March 4,

2009 with respect to a loan secured by a senior security

interest in the debtor's principal residence. To qualify as

such, the agreement must reduce the debtor's mortgage payment

(including principal and interest) and payments for various

other specified expenses (i.e., real estate taxes, hazard

insurance, mortgage insurance premium, homeowners'

association dues, ground rent, and special assessments) to a

percentage of the debtor's income in accordance with such

guidelines. The payment may not include any period of

negative amortization and it must fully amortize the

outstanding mortgage principal. In addition, the agreement

must not require the debtor to pay any fees or charges to

obtain the modification. Further, the agreement must permit

the debtor to continue to make these payments as if he or she

had not filed for bankruptcy relief.

Section 3. Eligibility for Relief. Section 3 amends

Bankruptcy Code section 109, which specifies the eligibility

criteria for filing for bankruptcy relief, in two respects.

First, it amends Bankruptcy Code section 109(e), which sets

forth secured and unsecured debt limits to establish a

debtor's eligibility for relief under chapter 13. Section 3

amends this provision to provide that the computation of

debts does not include the secured or unsecured portions of

debts secured by the debtor's principal residence, under

certain circumstances. The exception applies if the value of

the debtor's principal residence as of the date of the order

for relief under chapter 13 is less than the applicable

maximum amount of the secured debt limit specified in section

109(e). Alternatively, the exception applies if the debtor's

principal residence was sold in foreclosure or the debtor

surrendered such residence to the creditor and the value of

such residence as of the date of the order for relief under

chapter 13 is less than the secured debt limit specified in

section 109(e). This amendment is not intended to create

personal liability on a debt if there would not otherwise be

personal liability on such debt.

Second, section 3 amends Bankruptcy Code section 109(h),

which requires a debtor to receive credit counseling within

the 180-day period prior to filing for bankruptcy relief,

with limited exception. Section 3 amends this provision to

allow a chapter 13 debtor to satisfy this requirement within

30 days after filing for bankruptcy relief if he or she

submits to the court a certification that the debtor has

received notice that the holder of a claim secured by the

debtor's principal residence may commence a foreclosure

proceeding.

Section 4. Prohibiting Claims Arising from Violations of

the Truth in Lending Act. Under the Truth in Lending Act, a

mortgagor has a right of rescission with respect to a

mortgage secured by his or her residence, under certain

circumstances. Bankruptcy Code section 502(b) enumerates

various claims of creditors that are not entitled to payment

in a bankruptcy case, subject to certain exceptions. Section

4 amends Bankruptcy Code section 502(b) to provide that a

claim for a loan secured by a security interest in the

debtor's principal residence is not entitled to payment in a

bankruptcy case to the extent that such claim is subject to a

remedy for rescission under the Truth in Lending Act,

notwithstanding the prior entry of a foreclosure judgment. In

addition, section 4 specifies that nothing in this provision

may be construed to modify, impair, or supersede any other

right of the debtor.

Section 5. Authority to Modify Certain Mortgages. Under

Bankruptcy Code section 1322(b)(2), a chapter 13 plan may not

modify the terms of a mortgage secured solely by real

property that is the debtor's principal residence. Section 5

amends Bankruptcy Code section 1322(b) to create a limited

exception to this prohibition. As amended, the exception only

applies to a mortgage that: (1) originated before the

effective date of this amendment; and (2) is the subject of a

notice that a foreclosure may be (or has been) commenced with

respect to such mortgage.

In addition, the debtor must certify pursuant to new

section 1322(h) that he or she contacted--not less than 30

days before filing for bankruptcy relief--the mortgagee (or

the entity collecting payments on behalf of such mortgagee)

regarding modification of the mortgage. The debtor must also

certify that he or she provided the mortgagee (or the entity

collecting payments on behalf of such mortgagee) a written

statement of the debtor's current income, expenses, and debt

in a format that substantially conforms with the schedules

required under Bankruptcy Code section 521 or with such other

form as promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United

States. Further, the certification must include a statement

that the debtor considered any qualified loan modification

offered to the debtor by the mortgagee (or the entity

collecting payments on behalf of such holder). This

requirement does not apply if the foreclosure sale is

scheduled to

occur within 30 days of the date on which the debtor files

for bankruptcy relief. If the chapter 13 case is pending at

the time new section 1322(h) becomes effective, then the

debtor must certify that he or she attempted to contact the

mortgagee (or the entity collecting payments on behalf of

such mortgagee) regarding modification of the mortgage before

either: (1) filing a plan under Bankruptcy Code section 1321

that contains a modification pursuant to new section

1322(b)(11); or (2) modifying a plan under Bankruptcy Code

section 1323 or section 1329 to contain a modification

pursuant to new section 1322(b)(11).

Under new section 1322(b)(11), the debtor may propose a

plan modifying the rights of the mortgagee (and the rights of

the holder of any claim secured by a subordinate security

interest in such residence) in several respects. It is

important to note that the intent of new section 1322(b)(11)

is permissive. Accordingly, a chapter 13 may propose a plan

that proposes any or all types of modification authorized

under section 1322(b)(11).

First, the plan may provide for payment of the amount of

the allowed secured claim as determined under section

506(a)(1). In making such determination, the court, pursuant

to new section 1322(i), must use the fair arket value of the

property at the date that such value is determined. If the

issue of value is contested, the court must determine such

value in accordance with the appraisal rules used by the

Federal Housing Administration.

Second, the plan may prohibit, reduce, or delay any

adjustable interest rate applicable on, and after, the date

of the filing of the plan.

Third, it may extend the repayment period of the mortgage

for a period that is not longer than the longer of 40 years

(reduced by the period for which the mortgage has been

outstanding) or the remaining term of the mortgage beginning

on the date of the order for relief under chapter 13.

Fourth, the plan may provide for the payment of interest at

a fixed annual rate equal to the applicable average prime

offer rate as of the date of the order for relief under

chapter 13, as determined pursuant to certain specified

criteria. The rate must correspond to the repayment term

determined under new section 1322(b)(11)(C)(i) as published

by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council in

its table entitled, ``Average Prime Offer Rates--Fixed.''

In addition, the rate must include a reasonable premium

for risk.

Fifth, the plan, pursuant to new section 1322(b)(11)(D),

may provide for payments of such modified mortgage directly

to the holder of the claim or, at the discretion of the

court, through the chapter 13 trustee during the term of the

plan. The reference in new section 1322(b)(11)(D) to ``holder

of the claim'' is intended to include a servicer of such

mortgage for such holder. It is anticipated that the court,

in exercising its discretion with respect to allowing the

debtor to make payments directly to the mortgagee or by

requiring payments to be made through the chapter 13 trustee,

will take into consideration the debtor's ability to pay the

trustee's fees on payments disbursed through the trustee.

New section 1322(g) provides that a claim may be reduced

under new section 1322(b)(11)(A) only on the condition that

the debtor agrees to pay the mortgagee a stated portion of

the net proceeds of sale should the home be sold before the

completion of all payments under the chapter 13 plan or

before the debtor receives a discharge under section 1328(b).

The debtor must pay these proceeds to the mortgagee within 15

days of when the debtor receives the net sales proceeds.

If the residence is sold in the first year following the

effective date of the chapter 13 plan, the mortgagee is to

receive 90 percent of the difference between the sales price

and the amount of the claim as originally determined under

section 1322(b)(11) (plus costs of sale and improvements),

but not to exceed the unpaid amount of the allowed secured

claim determined as if such claim had not been reduced under

new section 1322(b)(11)(A). If the residence is sold in the

second year following the effective date of the chapter 13

plan, then the applicable percentage is 70 percent. If the

residence is sold in the third year following the effective

date of the chapter 13 plan, then the applicable percentage

is 50 percent. If the residence is sold in the fourth year

following the effective date of the chapter 13 plan, then the

applicable percentage is 30 percent. If the residence is sold

in the fifth year following the effective date of the chapter

13 plan, then the applicable percentage is ten percent. It is

the intent of this provision that if the unsecured portion of

the mortgagee's claim is partially paid under this provision

it should be reconsidered under 502(j) and reduced

accordingly.

Section 6. Combating Excessive Fees. Section 6 amends

Bankruptcy Code section 1322(c) to provide that the debtor,

the debtor's property, and property of the bankruptcy estate

are not liable for a fee, cost, or charge that is incurred

while the chapter 13 case is pending and that arises from a

claim for debt secured by the debtor's principal residence,

unless the holder of the claim complies with certain

requirements. It is the intent of this provision that its

reference to a fee, cost, or charge includes an increase in

any applicable rate of interest for such claim. It also

applies to a change in escrow account payments.

To ensure such fee, cost, or charge is allowed, the

claimant must comply with certain requirements. First, the

claimant must file with the court and serve on the chapter 13

trustee, the debtor, and the debtor's attorney an annual

notice of such fee, cost, or charge (or on a more frequent

basis as the court determines) before the earlier of either:

one year of when such fee, cost, or charge was incurred, or

60 days before the case is closed. Second, the fee, cost, or

charge must be lawful under applicable nonbankruptcy law,

reasonable, and provided for in the applicable security

agreement. Third, the value of the debtor's principal

residence must be greater than the amount of such claim,

including such fee, cost or charge.

If the holder fails to give the required notice, such

failure is deemed to be a waiver of any claim for such fees,

costs, or charges for all purposes. Any attempt to collect

such fees, costs, or charges constitutes a violation of the

Bankruptcy Code's discharge injunction under section

524(a)(2) or the automatic stay under section 362(a),

whichever is applicable.

Section 6 further provides that a chapter 13 plan may waive

any prepayment penalty on a claim secured by the debtor's

principal residence.

Section 7. Confirmation of Plan. Bankruptcy Code section

1325 sets forth the criteria for confirmation of a chapter 13

plan. Section 7 amends section 1325(a)(5) (which specifies

the mandatory treatment that an allowed secured claim

provided for under the plan must receive) to provide an

exception for a claim modified under new section 1322(b)(11).

The amendment also clarifies that payments under a plan that

includes a modification of a claim under new section

1322(b)(11) must be in equal monthly amounts pursuant to

section 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I).

In addition, section 7 specifies certain protections for a

creditor whose rights are modified under new section

1322(b)(11). As a condition of confirmation, new section

1325(a)(10) requires a plan to provide that the creditor must

retain its lien until the later of when: (1) the holder's

allowed secured claim (as modified) is paid; (2) the debtor

completes all payments under the chapter 13 plan; or (3) if

applicable, the debtor receives a discharge under section

1328(b).

Section 7 also provides standards for confirming a chapter

13 plan that modifies a claim pursuant to new section

1322(b)(11). First, the debtor cannot have been convicted of

obtaining by actual fraud the extension, renewal, or

refinancing of credit that gives rise to such modified claim.

Second, the modification must be in good faith. Lack of good

faith exists if the debtor has no need for relief under this

provision because the debtor can pay all of his or her debts

and any future payment increases on such debts without

difficulty for the foreseeable future, including the positive

amortization of mortgage debt. In determining whether a

modification under section 1322(b)(11) that reduces the

principal amount of the loan is made in good faith, the court

must consider whether the holder of the claim (or the entity

collecting payments on behalf of such holder) has offered the

debtor a qualified loan modification that would enable the

debtor to pay such debts and such loan without reducing the

principal amount of the mortgage.

Section 7 further amends section 1325 to add a new

provision. New section 1325(d) authorizes the court, on

request of the debtor or the mortgage holder, to confirm a

plan proposing to reduce the interest rate lower than that

specified in new section 1322(b)(11)(C)(ii), provided:

(1) the modification does not reduce the mortgage

principal; (2) the total mortgage payment is reduced through

interest rate reduction to the percentage of the debtor's

income that is the standard for a modification in accordance

with the Obama Administration's Homeowner Affordability and

Stability Plan, as implemented on March 4, 2009; (3) the

court determines that the debtor can afford such modification

in light of the debtor's financial situation, after allowance

of expense amounts that would be permitted for a debtor

subject to section 1325(b)(3), regardless of whether the

debtor is otherwise subject to such paragraph, and taking

into account additional debts and fees that are to be paid in

chapter 13 and thereafter; and (4) the debtor is able to

prevent foreclosure and pay a fully amortizing 30-year loan

at such reduced interest rate without such reduction in

principal. If the mortgage holder accepts a debtor's proposed

modification under this provision, the plan's treatment is

deemed to satisfy the requirements of section 1325(a)(5)(A)

and the proposal should not be rejected by the court.

Section 8. Discharge. Bankruptcy Code section 1328 sets

forth the requirements by which a chapter 13 debtor may

obtain a discharge and the scope of such discharge. Section 8

amends section 1328(a) to clarify that the unpaid portion of

an allowed secured claim modified under new section

1322(b)(11) is not discharged. This provision is not intended

to create a claim for a deficiency where such a claim would

not otherwise exist.

Section 9. Standing Trustee Fees. Section 9(a) amends 28

U.S.C. Sec. 586(e)(1)(B)(i) to provide that a chapter 13

trustee may receive a commission set by the Attorney General

of no more than four percent on payments made under a chapter

13 plan and disbursed by the chapter 13 trustee to a creditor

whose claim was modified under Bankruptcy Code section

1322(b)(11), unless the bankruptcy court waives such fees

based on a determination that the debtor has income less than

150 percent of the official poverty line applicable to the

size of the debtor's family and payment

of such fees would render the debtor's plan infeasible.

With respect to districts not under the United States

trustee system, section 9(b) makes a conforming revision to

section 302(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Judges, United States

Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986.

Section 10. Effective Date; Application of Amendments.

Section 10(a) provides that this measure and the amendments

made by it, except as provided in subsection (b), take effect

on the Act's date of enactment.

Section 10(b)(1) provides, except as provided in paragraph

(2), that the amendments made by this measure apply to cases

commenced under title 11 of the United States Code before,

on, or after the Act's date of enactment. Section 10(b)(2)

specifies that paragraph (1) does not apply with respect to

cases that are closed under the Bankruptcy Code as of the

date of the enactment of this Act.

Section 11. GAO Study. Section 11 requires the Government

Accountability Office to complete a study and to submit a

report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees within

two years from the enactment of this Act. The report must

contain the results of the study of: (1) the number of

debtors who filed cases under chapter 13, during the one-year

period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act for

the purpose of restructuring their principal residence

mortgages; (2) the number of mortgages restructured under

this Act that subsequently resulted in default and

foreclosure; (3) a comparison between the effectiveness of

mortgages restructured under programs outside of bankruptcy,

such as Hope Now and Hope for Homeowners, and mortgages

restructured under this Act; (4) the number of appeals in

cases where mortgages were restructured under this Act; (5)

the number of such appeals where the bankruptcy court's

decision was overturned; and (6) the number of bankruptcy

judges disciplined as a result of actions taken to

restructure mortgages under this Act. In addition, the report

must include a recommendation as to whether such amendments

should be amended to include a sunset clause.

Section 12. Report to Congress. Not later than 18 months

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Government

Accountability Office, in consultation with the Federal

Housing Administration, must submit to Congress a report

containing: (1) a comprehensive review of the effects of the

Act's amendments on bankruptcy courts; (2) a survey of

whether the types of homeowners eligible for the program

should be limited; and (3) a recommendation on whether such

amendments should remain in effect.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the ``Cyber Privacy Fortification Act of 2014.'' This bill would provide criminal penalties for the failure to comply with federal or state obligations to report security breaches of the sensitive personally identifiable information of individuals. Certain breaches would also be required to be reported to the FBI or the Secret Service. The bill would also require federal agencies engaged in rulemaking related to personally identifiable information to publish privacy impact statements relating to the impact of the proposed rule.

One of the main motivators for cybercrime and computer network intrusions is financial gain. Intrusions into networks of financial institutions and businesses may yield information, often on a large scale, about customers such as credit and debit card numbers, Social Security numbers, birth dates, account passwords, and other personally identifiable information. Information obtained through such data breaches may be used to steal from the accounts of the customers, use their credit cards, hack into their personal communications, or the information may be sold to others who commit these crimes or compile provides about individuals which others might find valuable.

With constant revelations about new data breaches impacting millions of Americans, we must take additional steps to protect the sensitive information of consumers maintained on corporate databases. This bill will provide a greater incentive for companies to provide notice of breaches consumers' sensitive information such as Social Security numbers and financial account numbers. This protects the privacy of our citizens and allows them to be vigilant against identity theft.

Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, together with my colleagues-- the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Spencer Bachus, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law; and the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust--to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Administrative Conference of the United States.

Every year, federal agencies issue thousands of regulations that concern the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the autos we drive. Although regulations play a role in myriad aspects of our daily lives, there is no independent, nonpartisan entity--other than the Administrative Conference of the United States--that exists specifically so that Congress can call upon it to evaluate ways to improve the regulatory process.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Administrative Conference of the United States, an independent federal agency tasked by Congress to make recommendations intended to improve the administrative process and to provide nonpartisan expert advice. Over the course of its existence, many of these recommendations have been enacted into law or voluntarily implemented by federal agencies and the federal judiciary. As a result of the Conference's excellent work, our Nation's federal administrative procedures are not only looked to as a standard around the world, but constantly in the course of additional improvement.

From its inception in 1964, the Conference has provided invaluable guidance to all three branches of government, including federal agencies, Congress, and the federal judiciary--about how to make the regulatory process more responsive, efficient, and cost-effective. Members of the Conference are drawn from executive and judicial branches of the federal government, academia, as well as from the private sector.

Congress has assigned the Conference important responsibilities in the implementation of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, the Equal Access to Justice Act, the Congressional Accountability Act, and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty- Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act. In addition, the Conference has facilitated judicial review of agency decisions and helped eliminate various technical impediments to such review. And, the Conference helps save taxpayer dollars. Just one agency alone--the Social Security Administration--estimated that the Conference's recommendation to change that agency's appeals process would result in approximately $85 million in savings.

In recognition of its many accomplishments, the Conference has enjoyed broad bipartisan and bicameral support over the years. President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the initial legislation creating the Conference into law in 1964, and President George W. Bush reauthorized the Conference in 2008. Similarly, the Conference is supported by the private sector and advocacy groups across the political spectrum.

United States Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia have testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary in support of the Conference and its work on not just one, but two highly historic occasions. Justice Breyer, for example, cited the Conference's ``unique'' role in identifying ways to improve the federal regulatory process. He explained in 2004, prior to the Conference's revival in 2010:

Given the Conference's rather low cost (a small central

staff, commissioning academic papers, endless amounts of

volunteered private time, and two general meetings a year),

it is indeed a pity that by abolishing this Conference, we

have weakened our federal government's ability to respond

effectively, in this general way, to the problems of its

citizens.

I have not found other institutions readily available to

perform this same task. Individual agencies, while trying to

reform themselves, sometimes lack the ability to make cross-

agency comparisons. The American Bar Association's

Administrative Law Section, while a fine institution, cannot

call upon the time and resources of agency staff members and

agency heads as readily as could the Administrative

Conference. Congressional staffs cannot as easily conduct the

technical research necessary to develop many of the

Conference's more technical proposals. The Office of

Management and Budget does not normally concern itself with

general procedural proposals.

Justice Scalia also described the Conference's ``unique'' characteristics. Citing its ``combination of talents from the academic world, from within the executive branch . . . and, . . . from the private bar, especially lawyers particularly familiar with administrative law,'' he observed, ``I did not know another organization that so effectively combined the best talent from each of those areas.'' In sum, Justice Scalia said that ACUS was ``obviously . . . a worthwhile organization'' and that it was ``an enormous bargain.''

Accordingly, we are pleased to mark the 50th anniversary of the Conference and to express our continued support for its very important work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 83, Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, and to set forth my views on certain matters concerning or relating to the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. While the bill does fund many agencies and programs within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction at the 2014 enacted level or higher through September 2015, H.R. 83 funds the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) only through February 27, 2015 because of the Republican Leadership's opposition to the President's actions on immigration. By restricting funding to DHS to a highly limited duration, this measure is not only short-sighted and irresponsible, but potentially harmful to all Americans.

H.R. 83, by providing short-term funding to DHS, makes it nearly impossible for the agency to pursue long-term strategies to ensure the safety and security of our Nation. The bill jeopardizes many critical functions of DHS, including developing technologies to prevent future terrorism attacks and securing the Internet to fight various cyber crimes such as identity theft and financial fraud. It also undermines the agency's Disaster Relief Fund that FEMA uses to fund response and recovery efforts associated with major disasters. Other affected DHS components include the Secret Service, which protects the President and the White House from attack, and the U.S. Coast Guard, which provides essential operations, training, and equipment to those who guard our Nation's waters.

Essentially, the Majority has bundled with must-pass year-end appropriations legislation a short-sighted measure intended to lash back at the President's humanitarian efforts to deal with a major immigration crisis. As a result, H.R. 83 now puts at risk the ability of the DHS and its thousands of dedicated employees to protect all Americans from terrorism, disaster, and crime.

With respect to other agencies and programs that fall within the Judiciary Committee's authorization jurisdiction, H.R. 83 appropriates funding in most instances above 2014 enacted levels. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that the bill reduces funding for the COPS Program--a very effective initiative to reduce crime by putting more police on the streets and promoting community policing--by $6 million.

The bill also extends the Internet Tax Freedom Act till October 1, 2015, which is a moratorium on state and local taxation of Internet access and on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce, and which includes grandfather protections.

In addition, the bill includes various riders, some of which are harmful. Fortunately, the final version of H.R. 83 does not include numerous House-proposed riders that would have impeded the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory authority to ensure the safety of our Nation's air and water.

Further, H.R. 83 attempts to prevent the implementation of an initiative legalizing recreational use of marijuana in the District of Columbia by prohibiting the use of any funds to ``enact any law, rule, or regulation'' for such purpose. It is my understanding, however, that as this initiative has already been enacted, no further funds are needed for it to go into effect. Thus, the bill's restriction has no legal effect on the initiative.

The following summarizes the bill's principal provisions pertaining to the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction:

Judiciary

Funding: $6.7 billion for the Judiciary, which is $182 million more than the 2014 enacted level; the $182 million increase is $1 million less than the Judiciary's request.

Riders: 10 temporary district judgeships were extended for 1 year; no funding for new courthouse construction until the General Services Administration completes a feasibility study.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Funding: $3.5 billion for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which is equal to CBO's projection of USPTO's FY 2015 fee revenue collections, and $434 million above the 2014 enacted level.

Department of Justice

Funding:

--$8.44 billion for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is $93.3 million more than the 2014 enacted level.

--$2.03 billion for the Drug Enforcement Agency, which is $15.3 million more than the 2014 enacted level.

--$1.2 billion for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which is $22 million more than the 2014 enacted level.

--$6.82 billion for the Bureau of Prisons, Salaries and Expenses account, which is $46 million more than the 2014 enacted level.

--$376 million for Byrne-JAG grants, which is the same as the 2014 enacted level.

--$208 million for the COPS program, which is $6 million less than the 2014 enacted level.

--$430 million for Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs, which is $13 million above the 2014 enacted level.

--$125 million for the ongoing DNA Initiative program which funds the testing of sexual assault kits, which is the same as the FY 2014 enacted level and $25 million above the request. In addition, $41 million is included for the new Community Sexual Assault Kit Backlog Reduction program.

--$73 million for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is $14.5 million more than the 2014 enacted level and $18 million more than the request.

Riders:

--The agreement rejects House policy riders to: 1) block reporting requirements on multiple sales of rifles/shotguns to the same person, and 2) make permanent two annual riders related to firearms.

--The agreement rejects a House rider to defund grants to state or local law enforcement on the basis of local immigration policy.

--The agreement rejects a House rider prohibiting the Department of Justice from enforcing certain parts of the Fair Housing Act.

Legal Services Corporation

Funding: $375 million, which is $10 million above the enacted 2014 level.

Federal Trade Commission

Funding: $293 million, which is $5 million below the 2014 enacted level but reflects one-time moving expenses for 2014.

Administrative Conference of the United States

Funding: $3.1 million, which is $.1 million above the 2014 enacted level.

Other Matters

Abortion

--The agreement does not include a House rider prohibiting funds to subsidize abortion services in connection with a multi-state plan offered under the Affordable Care Act exchanges negotiated by OPM.

Surveillance

--The agreement does not include significant House-passed reforms on government surveillance activities conducted by the National Security Agency, but instead retains current law.

Health and Environmental Regulatory Concerns

--The agreement does not include a House policy rider prohibiting EPA's Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule.

--The agreement does not include a House policy rider prohibiting EPA's rule clarifying which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act.

--The agreement does not include a House policy rider prohibiting EPA from changing the way discharge of fill material is regulated.

--The agreement includes a House policy rider prohibiting regulation of lead in ammunition.

--The agreement includes a House policy rider prohibiting the issuance of final and proposed rules related to Sage Grouse under the Endangered Species Act.

--The agreement does not include a House policy rider prohibiting EPA from ensuring mining companies are financially capable of cleaning up pollution rather than taxpayers, but includes report language on the matter.

--The agreement does not include a House policy rider prohibiting EPA from enforcing a rule on safe removal and renovation of lead paint, but includes report language on the matter.

--The agreement does not include a House policy rider prohibiting funding for the development or revisions of regulations regarding imported ivory.

Mr. Speaker, I feel, as all of us do, that we rise today to honor an accomplished public servant, an effective problem-solver, and a tireless advocate for our society's most vulnerable, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge of Ohio.

As she concludes her tenure as chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, she makes us all obligated to share our deep appreciation for her courage and her thoughtfulness.

Since taking office 6 years ago, Congresswoman Fudge has been a national leader in the fight for job creation, the safety net, access to health care, and quality nutrition, and she has been able to motivate some 43 other Members of the Congressional Black Caucus in supporting these issues that have made her so outstanding.

It is fortuitous that she came to lead the Congressional Black Caucus at a time of unprecedented attacks on the Nation's nutrition-support systems that are essential for saving lives and eliminating the opportunity gap.

She has been unwavering and unstinting in her defense of people who rely on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP--as well as child nutrition and school feeding programs--for survival. There's no better way to reduce inequality than to ensure that children have access to the nutrition they need to prosper.

As the Senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, I am also extremely grateful for Chairwoman Fudge's leadership and extraordinary insight and energy in advocating for voting rights and for victims of excessive force.

Chairwoman Fudge has played an indispensable role in preserving the CBC's legacy as the ``Conscience of the Congress.''

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker and members of the committee, I rise today to honor a true statesman in every sense of the word, the dean of the House, chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and a champion of the people of Metropolitan Detroit, the Honorable Congressman John Dingell.

Now, I have had the distinct honor of working with Congressman Dingell for the last six decades, first as a member of his congressional staff and then as his colleague in the Michigan delegation. Over these six decades, we have fought together successfully for Medicare, for clean air and water, for workers' rights, and most importantly, for civil rights.

Over these decades, he has succeeded at truly Herculean tasks, including passing the Endangered Species Act, the 1990 Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Affordable Care Act, the Patients' Bill of Rights, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, among many others.

Congressman Dingell is a masterful legislator but, most importantly, a man of conscience. As he passes the torch on to another extraordinary leader, Congresswoman-elect Debbie Dingell, I am so proud to salute his legacy of compassion and service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life and music of a great Detroit Motown Records singer and songwriter, Jimmy Ruffin, who passed away on November 17th, 2014, at the age of 78.

His contribution to popular music left a huge mark on the music industry and Rhythm and Blues music.

As the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have worked on music and copyright issues over the years and have a deep appreciation for the contribution that Mr. Ruffin made for lovers of Rhythm and Blues music across the world.

Mr. Ruffin, born in Collinsville, Mississippi, was the older brother of the late Temptations singer David Ruffin. Both of them sang gospel music in the South and Detroit where their family later moved. They also worked with Barry Gordy and Motown Records, where they became widely known for their style of music.

After serving honorably in the U.S. Army here and overseas he returned to Motown Records to continue his career. Jimmy Ruffin not only wrote but sang many of his musical creations which included his song ``What Becomes of the Brokenhearted,'' which went on to become a Top 10 pop hit.

His reputation grew in this country and around the world. His popularity through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s continued to grow as he put out songs including ``I've Passed This Way Before'' and ``Gonna Give Her All the Love I've Got.'' Jimmy and David Ruffin went on to work together on the 1970s album ``I Am My Brother's Keeper.'' In the 1980's he had a major hit, ``Hold on to My Love,'' which the Bee Gees' Robin Gibb produced.

Mr. Ruffin will be missed for his singing and as a musician he produced music that was legendary. We are grateful for the songs and music that Mr. Ruffin provided to the Nation over the years and his songs will live on to be enjoyed by future generations.

I am sad that we have lost a great performer, a consummate artist and one of Motown Records' biggest stars.

Our condolences go out to his family and friends around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, in 1 week this 113th Congress will expire without having considered a single piece of legislation to fix our Nation's broken immigration system.

It has been 525 days since the Senate passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform legislation that would have made meaningful and long overdue reforms. But our Chamber here has still steadfastly refused to allow an up-or-down vote on that measure.

No one questions that our immigration system is broken. It is failing our economy and millions of families and our businesses. And yet, rather than deal with these critical issues, we are here today to vote on yet another symbolic, anti-immigrant measure that has absolutely no chance of consideration in the Senate.

I want to be clear. H.R. 5759 is politically motivated, hastily drafted, and an attempt, once again, to attack our President, as well as immigrant families who contribute to our communities and our economy.

By blocking the protections offered by the President's actions, the legislation would deprive nearly 5 million immigrants and their families of the hope that they might finally live without constant fear of separation and deportation.

It would undermine the administration's efforts to devote greater resources toward securing our borders and deporting felons and not families. This would mean millions of undocumented immigrants would not be asked

to pass national security and criminal background checks and pay their fair share of taxes in order to register for temporary protection from deportation.

Now, H.R. 5759 falsely claims that President Obama's assertion of authority is unlawful. The constitutionality of the President's executive order is recognized by both liberal and conservative legal experts. In a letter written last month, 11 prominent scholars explained that the President's actions ``are within the power of the executive branch and that they represent a lawful exercise of the President's authority.''

This letter was signed--I was amazed at the list of constitutional authorities: Walter Dellinger; David Strauss, formerly with the Solicitor General's Office; Laurence Tribe; and even conservative professors like Eric Posner.

Five days later, 135 immigration law professors echoed that conclusion and provided substantial constitutional, statutory, and regulatory authority for these actions; not to mention that the President himself was a professor of constitutional law.

Finally, this measure, H.R. 5759, goes well beyond preventing the President from expanding deferred action for childhood arrivals or creating a program to protect the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents from deportation.

It would not only prevent this President, but any future President from protecting discrete categories of individuals facing unique dangers and challenges. This means that no future administration would be able to parole in place the undocumented parents or spouses and children of military personnel and veterans, or facilitate enlistment in our armed services by American citizens who have undocumented family members, or grant deferred action to victims of a crime or serious forms of human trafficking.

For these and other reasons, this legislation is opposed by many organizations that care about our immigration system and are working to protect the vulnerable among us, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the AFL-CIO, the Service Workers International Union, and the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women.

Let's think this through carefully, and I urge you to oppose this very dangerous anti-immigrant measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds before I call on our distinguished gentlelady from California.

I want everyone, particularly the author of this bill, to know that, as the senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, I firmly believe and support the Constitution, the amendments, and the precedents.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee who has worked on this issue for a number of years.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi), our leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, Judy Chu, a dedicated member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, a distinguished member of the Judiciary.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield now 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island, Representative Cicilline, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Al Green.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Luis Gutierrez.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member on the Judiciary Committee, to close out our side.

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

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

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5421, as amended, the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014.

It is intended to ensure that the resolution of large, complex financial institutions on the verge of insolvency can be better facilitated under the Bankruptcy Code. I support this legislation for several reasons.

First, it addresses a real need, which is recognized by the regulatory agencies, bankruptcy experts, and the private sector, that the bankruptcy law must be amended, so that it can expeditiously restore trust in the financial marketplace after the collapse of a major financial institution.

Such was the case with the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2008, for example, which caused a worldwide freeze on the availability of credit, wreaking havoc on Wall Street, as well as on Main Street. The near collapse of our Nation's economy that resulted from Lehman's failure revealed that current bankruptcy law is, unfortunately, ill-equipped to deal with complex financial institutions that are in economic distress.

This legislation, accordingly, creates a court-supervised, orderly liquidation mechanism that will be guided by the regulators.

In sum, this process will allow a failing financial institution to transfer its assets to a newly-formed bridge company over a single weekend, which will promote confidence in the financial marketplace.

The institution's equity and debt will remain in the bankruptcy case to be administered by a trustee under court supervision. As a result, value assets will be maximized for the benefit of creditors, and the marketplace will be stabilized.

Additionally, I support the legislation because it appropriately recognizes the important role the Dodd-Frank Act has in the regulation of large financial institutions. Without a doubt, the Great Recession was a direct result of the regulatory equivalent of the Wild West.

The Dodd-Frank Act goes a long way toward reinvigorating a regulatory system that makes the financial marketplace more accountable and, hopefully, more resilient. The act also institutes long-needed consumer protections that have up until now not been available.

Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act establishes a mandatory administratively-driven resolution process to wind down large financial institutions. Title II is a critical enforcement tool for bank regulators to facilitate compliance with the act's heightened regulatory requirements for large companies.

Nevertheless, the Dodd-Frank Act clearly recognizes that bankruptcy should be a first resort and that the title II's orderly liquidation process should be a last resort.

In fact, title I of the act explicitly requires these companies to write so-called ``living wills'' that must explain how they will resolve their financial difficulties in a hypothetical bankruptcy scenario. This is because bankruptcy law has, for more than 100 years, enabled some of the Nation's largest companies to regain their financial footing.

I am from Detroit, and I remember that General Motors and the Chrysler Corporation were major beneficiaries. H.R. 5421 will ensure that bankruptcy is a truly viable alternative to the Dodd-Frank Act's resolution process.

I am pleased to note, as has been referenced by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that this legislation is the product of a very collaborative, bipartisan, and deliberate process, which should be the norm, not the exception, when it comes to drafting legislation, so a tip of my hat to Chairman Goodlatte and to the subcommittee chairman for the work that they have done in bringing this legislation to this point.

For example, this bill, unlike similar legislation in the Senate, doesn't include any controversial provisions aimed at undoing the important protections of the Dodd-Frank Act.

I should also note, however, that H.R. 5421 does not include any provision allowing companies to have access to lenders of last resort. Nearly every expert recognizes that such access, even if it is the Federal Government, is a

necessary element to ensure financial stability.

I want to acknowledge the excellent level of cooperation on both sides of the aisle on the Judiciary Committee in producing the legislation that is pending before us today, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

I would like to just add that my friend, Spencer Bachus of Alabama, is a longtime Member who has been particularly active over the years in the areas of administrative law, as well as immigration and criminal justice.

I find him an individual of principle who has worked on many bipartisan initiatives. I understand Representative Bachus' father often used the adage, ``If you can't say anything nice about a person, don't say anything at all.''

Mr. Bachus has certainly adhered to that advice, as he was a consummate gentleman who wielded the gavel with fairness at all times when it was his turn to sit in the chair.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was absent on November 17, 2014 due to a flight delay and therefore missed roll call vote No. 520. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memoriam of John Doar, who passed away at the age of 92, this past Tuesday, November 11th, 2014.

A courageous advocate, a brilliant legal mind, and a remarkable public servant--Mr. Doar will remain an inspiration to everyone who has made and who will make the pursuit of justice their life's work. His accomplishments are such that they cannot seem but exaggerations--but because they are not--I feel the need to stand before you and recognize a colleague who did so much for so many.

As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I was fortunate to have worked with Mr. Doar many times--first during his time as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, and later when he served as Special Counsel during the investigation and impeachment in the House of President Nixon.

I remember Mr. Doar as someone of fierce determination and true integrity. A Lincoln Republican--he served two Democratic Presidents and impeached a Republican one--without ever changing his party affiliation.

But more than an adviser, he was an active participant in making history. He was a firm defender of our national ideals, and he fought their perversion with every tool at his disposal.

As one of the architects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he helped ensure that every American had the opportunity to fully participate in our society and our democracy.

As an attorney and advocate for the American people, he fought to integrate the University of Mississippi, and secured the first conviction of white persons for violent crimes against black persons in the history of Mississippi.

As a believer in law and the power of non-violence, he stood between protesters and police on the edge of confrontation in the wake of Medgar Evers funeral.

In every action he brought credit to his profession, to the government, and to the promise of our nation.

It is has been my privilege to have worked with Mr. Doar for so many years, and it has been America's privilege to have had his service. His example will serve as a benchmark for generations of public servants to come.

On behalf of a grateful nation, I extend my sincere thanks and condolences to his family and loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, jazz artist Geri Allen will be honored this year by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) at the Jazz Forum and Concert during the 44th Annual Legislative Conference (ALC). Ms. Allen is an internationally renowned pianist, composer, and educator, who will also be performing at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, in Washington, D.C. Ms. Allen will receive the 2014 CBCF ALC Jazz Legacy Award for her contributions to jazz and world culture.

Geri Allen was born on June 12, 1957 in Pontiac, Michigan, but she was raised in Detroit, where she attended Detroit public schools. Her early music education came at Cass Technical High School in Detroit, and

through the Jazz Development Workshop, where she was taught by Marcus Belgrave.

She then came to Washington, D.C., where she received a degree from Howard University in Jazz Studies in 1979. At Howard, she studied under composers Thomas Kerr, pianists Raymond Jackson, John Malichi, Fred Irby, Arthur Dawkins, and Komla Amoaku. She then left D.C. for New York City, where she learned from bop pianist Kenny Barron. She then moved on to study ethnomusicology at the University of Pittsburgh, earning her masters there. She returned to New York, where she began touring with Mary Wilson and the Supremes in 1982. She later helped charter the Black Rock Coalition and the Brooklyn M-Base movement. She would collaborate on several works with a fellow charter member of that group, Steve Coleman.

Her own albums have displayed a depth of range and skill. Her first album, The Printmakers, displays what many have called an avant-garde talent. In 1995, her album Twenty-One, won the Soul Train's Lady of Soul Award for album of the year. In 2008, Ms. Allen won a Guggenheim Fellowship in Composition, which allowed her to release her composition Refractions: Flying Toward the Sound, which celebrates the work of Cecil Taylor, McCoy Tyner, and Herbie Hancock. She is the youngest person and the only woman to receive the Danish JAZZPAR award.

In addition to the massive number of awards she has received, which are simply too numerous to mention here, Ms. Allen has also been a remarkable mentor to younger jazz musicians. One example of such efforts is found in the powerful For the Healing of the Nations, a tribute to the survivors of 9/11, which was performed with Howard University's Afro-Blue Jazz Choir. In addition to her work with her alma mater, she has been a professional educator for many years, having taught jazz at the University of Michigan, and presently at the University of Pittsburgh.

Despite this list of accomplishments, she has yet to slow down and take a break. She recently released a recording celebrating our collective home town: Grand River Crossings: Motown & Motor City Inspirations. On May 10, 2014, she received an Honorary Doctorate of Music from the Berklee College of Music.

Geri Allen is a living national jazz treasure, and I encourage my colleagues to learn more about her tremendous contributions to the most American of art forms.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with President Obama that the destabilizing and destructive actions of ISIL demand an American response. While I am supportive of President Obama's targeted actions against ISIS to date, I believe our government must be mindful of the unintended consequences inherent in training and equipping fighters in a highly complex foreign conflict For this reason, I authored a successful bipartisan amendment to the House's Defense Appropriations bill this summer, prohibiting the transfer of dangerous shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles known as MANPADs to parties in the Syrian civil war. As President Obama uses any authority granted by Congress to train and equip Syrian rebels, I hope he honors the will of the House of Representatives to prevent the dissemination of these and other dangerous weapons in the Middle East and beyond.

We must remain cognizant that military force is not the solution to the strife afflicting Iraq and Syria. I continue to oppose the presence of U.S. ground troops in the region. We must do all we can to eliminate funding sources for ISIL and to support inclusive governance and vigorous dialogue while respecting Iraqi sovereignty. We must also do what we can to promote a peaceful settlement in Syria and to invest in employment-focused economic development throughout the region.