I wish to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Chairman, that apparently the Congressional Budget Office did not see the savings that the gentleman envisions in this, and the gentleman has been here long enough to remember the Paperwork Reduction Act. Whatever happened to that? Here, if the gentleman were to examine the proceedings in any bankruptcy court, he would quickly know that the court can demand an income tax return, and certainly any party in interest is not about to forget to bring that in to the proceeding if there is any slight notice that he needs it. So what the gentleman from North Carolina is doing is merely making this optional to anybody that wants it, and here the gentleman from Pennsylvania is resisting it. If a Federal agency tried to promulgate this rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania would be leading the Congress in demanding to know why they want such unnecessary authority. So, please, let us improve the bill to at least this minor amount.
On the recordMay 5, 1999
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing concerns about proposed legislation and its implications during a committee meeting.
Share
More from John Conyers
Oct 3, 2017
I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin). Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to share Denise's story. Already a mother of two young children, Denise was expecting her third child…
Nov 6, 2017
He should have been prevented from purchasing firearms from licensed gun dealers via the Brady background check system.
Oct 24, 2017
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 3, line 11, insert after ``settlement agreement'' the following: ``(except as provided in subsection…





