[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15] [House] [Pages 22398-22399] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]BANKRUPTCY TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2010 Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6198) to amend title 11 of the United States Code to make technical corrections; and for related purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the Senate amendment is as follows: Senate amendment: On page 3, strike lines 1 through 5 and insert the following: ``and ``(F) in paragraph (51D), by inserting `of the filing' after `date' the 1st place it appears,'' The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California. General Leave Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California? There was no objection. Ms. CHU. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on November 19, the Senate passed an amended version of H.R. 6198, the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010. H.R. 6198 [[Page 22399]] makes a series of purely technical corrections in response to certain drafting errors resulting from the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The Senate amendment simply removes from the bill a provision that corrected a misnumbered paragraph. It is our understanding that some believe that this provision, which corrects a clear error in bankruptcy law, may possibly cause confusion with respect to other laws that currently contain cross-references to the incorrectly numbered paragraph. While some might question the need for the Senate amendment, we are willing to accommodate the concern. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6198. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McHENRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010, as amended by the Senate. The House passed the original version of the bill in late September to make purely technical changes to the Bankruptcy Code. Then, as now, these changes are not intended to make any change to substantive bankruptcy law. {time} 1250 Instead, these changes clean up the text of the Bankruptcy Code to make it easier to use by lawyers and judges. The Senate amendment strikes one provision of the House bill which would have renumbered the section of the Bankruptcy Code that defines the term ``timeshare plan.'' Rather than define ``timeshare plan'' in their own State codes, many State legislatures have chosen to incorporate the Federal definition by reference into their State law. The Senate amendment reflects a concern that changing the section number of the Bankruptcy Code definition would have resulted in inaccurate cross references in numerous State codes. The necessity of the Senate amendment highlights the perils that result when States legislate by reference to provisions of Federal law. The States are sovereign in our system of constitutional federalism and they should exercise an independent duty to legislate without respect to mutable Federal laws. The House bill, as amended, will clear up some existing confusion in the bankruptcy community regarding provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. It is important that Federal law be technically sound so that the intent of Congress is clear and judges do not use technical loopholes to practice judicial activism. In particular, it is important that the Bankruptcy Code be technically sound because of the volume of bankruptcy filings during this recession. As America continues to struggle with high unemployment, bearish capital markets, and massive deficits, the Bankruptcy Code is playing an increasingly important role in our Nation's financial health. Unfortunately, that is the case. As my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee stated when the House first considered this bill, it is important that the Congressional Record reflect the bipartisan acknowledgment that this bill does not, and is not, intended to enact any substantive change to the Bankruptcy Code. Lawyers and judges who practice bankruptcy law should not understand any provision of this bill to confer, modify, or delete any substantive bankruptcy right. Similarly, no inference should be drawn from the absence in this bill of a technical amendment to any other part of the Bankruptcy Code. With this understanding, I support the bankruptcy technical amendments bill as amended by the Senate, and I share that with my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) that the House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 6198. The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was concurred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ____________________