[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 38 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1183-H1188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2646, FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I
offer a motion to instruct that I noticed yesterday.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Phelps of Illinois moves that the managers on the part
of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2646
(an Act to provide for the continuation of agricultural
programs through fiscal year 2011) be instructed to agree to
the provisions contained in section 1071 of the Senate
amendment, relating to reenactment of the family farmer
bankruptcy provisions contained in chapter 12 of title 11,
United States Code.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Phelps) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the motion is very simple. It asks that the conferees on
the farm bill accept language in a Senate bill that would make Chapter
12 of the Bankruptcy Code permanent. I do not think there is any
controversy whatsoever that Chapter 12 works well and that it protects
our family farmers who are in distress, that it properly balances the
legitimate needs of financially troubled farmers and their creditors,
and that it preserves the family farm.
No one can honestly say that the loss of family farms is anything
other than a catastrophe for this Nation. The combined pressures of low
crop prices, high debts just to get your crop in the ground, the
economic competition from large industrial farms and Third World
production all combine to squeeze those family farmers that form the
backbone of our rural community.
I unfortunately see this too frequently in my congressional district
in central and southern Illinois. When a family farmer goes under, it
is a tragedy not just for that family, but it is a tragedy and a loss
to the economic life of small rural communities all across America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the motion currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will not oppose the motion to instruct conferees with
respect to Section 1071 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2646 because
the House is on record as having supported a version of this measure on
numerous occasions. I do, however, have concerns about the potential
impact this motion may have on another pending conference.
Section 1071 in effect would make Chapter 12, a specialized form of
bankruptcy relief available to certain family farmers, a permanent
component of
[[Page H1184]]
the Bankruptcy Code retroactive through October 1, 2001.
Without question, the family farmer plays a critical role in our
Nation's health and economic well-being. Unfortunately, bad weather,
rising energy costs, volatile marketplace conditions, competition for
large agribusinesses, and the economic forces experienced by any small
business affect the financial stability of some family farmers.
In response to the specialized needs of small family farmers in
financial distress, Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted on a
temporary basis as a part of the Bankruptcy Judges, United States
Trustees and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986. It has subsequently
been extended on several occasions, most recently until October 1 of
last year.
On the other hand, we know that statistically Chapter 12 is utilized
rarely. While total bankruptcy filings in each of the past 6 years has
surpassed more than 1 million cases, the number of Chapter 12 cases
exceeded 1,000 on only one occasion, and that was back in 1996. So for
the past 5 years there have not been even 1,000 Chapter 12 filings.
In the absence of Chapter 12, family farmers may apply for relief
under the Bankruptcy Code's other alternatives, although these
generally do not work quite as well for farmers as does Chapter 12.
As you know, I have consistently supported prior efforts to extend
Chapter 12 in this Congress. I must note, however, that a substantively
identical provision to Section 1071 is already included in H.R. 333,
the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act which is
currently in conference. And that conference is much further along than
the farm bill conference.
Since August of last year, the House and Senate staff have been
actively working to resolve the differences between the respective
bills. In February of this year, the House conferees sent the Senate a
proposed offer resolving all outstanding issues. Although the Senate
did not accept the proffer, I am pleased to report as of last week
there is a mere handful of items that need to be resolved and that the
bankruptcy conference is nearly completed.
Given this significant progress, it is my expectation that the few
remaining matters will be resolved well before the conference on H.R.
2646 is completed.
Among the issues resolved in the bankruptcy conference are a series
of provisions that give family farmers enhanced protections under
Chapter 12. These provisions, in addition to a permanent extension of
Chapter 12, are included in the bankruptcy conference as part of a
complex and extensively negotiated effort. So merely making Chapter 12
permanent will mean that the enhanced protections that are already
agreed to in the bankruptcy conference will end up not becoming a part
of the permanent law. And those types of enhanced protections will end
up having to start over from scratch.
Therefore, I am accordingly quite concerned that the motion to
instruct may be simply an effort to cherry-pick one of the provisions
which would incentivize others to do the same. I fear that the motion
to instruct could reduce the momentum for the bankruptcy conference and
lessen support for it, and thereby jeopardize enactment of the other
farmer-friendly protections included in the compromise.
It is for these very same reasons I have adamantly opposed attempts
by others to move other provisions in the bankruptcy bill separately.
Again, although I do not oppose the motion to instruct conferees on
Section 1071, I am very concerned that it may potentially have a
damaging impact on the pending bankruptcy conference and the additional
farmer-friendly protections already agreed to.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in all due respect to my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), we have been hearing this for almost 5 years now, that
we are going to move on with Chapter 12, make it permanent. There are
always divisive issues lingering around that we have to deal with that
could serve to disrupt our goal in trying to achieve these matters. I
feel like we need to move on this now.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms.
Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection was
created to help farmers in crisis keep their family farms. The farm
bill includes a provision added by the other body to make Chapter 12 of
the Bankruptcy Code permanent.
By accepting this Senate provision, we can finally ensure that our
farmers have this important protection permanently in place. Bankruptcy
generally requires liquidation of real property rather than
reorganization if debtors have significant assets. Of course, for
family farmers, this means that their farm equipment and other assets
often disqualify them for reorganization under Chapter 11 or 13, and
they are forced into Chapter 7 liquidation. Chapter 12 allows these
family farmers to keep essential farm assets and reorganize their
debts.
With planting season just beginning, farmers need to know how now
that they can reorganize and keep their farms. Farmers in Wisconsin and
around the Nation are in stress, duress, and crisis. A dairy farmer
from Belleville in my district called me about this issue just the
other day. He has been in farming, like his dad before him, most of his
life. He milks 70 cows to make his living. Milk prices have remained
low for most of the time he has been in farming, and now milk prices
are reaching historic lows again. He simply cannot stay in business
because he is losing money. He is scared he is going to lose his farm
to his creditors and let his family down.
Chapter 12 would allow this gentleman another chance to reorganize
his debts and keep the farm in his family.
Permanent Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection will provide the security
family farmers in crisis need to decide whether to stay in business as
they make their way through financial difficulty.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has pointed out
comprehensive bankruptcy reform legislation, H.R. 333, is currently
under consideration in a conference committee. The gentleman is
correct. Although I appreciate his optimism about a quick completion to
the H.R. 333 conference, significant issues remain unresolved in that
conference. While waiting for this comprehensive bankruptcy reform
legislation over the past 5 years, Chapter 12 has expired six times and
it has been expired since last September. During this current Congress
we have been forced to pass two extensions of Chapter 12. The farm bill
provides an excellent opportunity to ensure that Chapter 12 is made
permanent this year.
I understand the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) firmly
believes in keeping all H.R. 333 provisions from being considered
separately by this House. But Chapter 12 bankruptcy is an important
protection that our family farmers need right now. And I am confident
that the distinguished gentleman will be able to fight off other
attempts to pass individual provisions of the bankruptcy reform bill
should they come before this House separately.
Chapter 12 is the only provision in the bankruptcy bill that is
currently expired. It is time to act to ensure our farmers that this
additional protection will allow them to keep their farms. I urge my
colleagues to support this motion to instruct and urge the other
conferees to recede to the Senate position.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, I am not opposed to this motion to instruct, but
I think that everybody ought to know what section 1071 of the Senate
bill leaves out which is in the agreed-upon provision relative to
family farms in the House-Senate compromise and the bankruptcy bill.
First of all, both 1071 and the compromise make Chapter 12 permanent.
But what 1071 does not do is to increase the debt limits and index that
debt limit to inflation. What is being proposed in the Senate version
of the farm bill is going to have the debt limit be frozen on what it
is now.
There also is a provision in the compromise that makes more flexible
the percentage of income derived from farming for both spouses. And
where one spouse works on the farm and another spouse has got a job off
the farm, the current law which they are proposing to make permanent
without any
[[Page H1185]]
improvements, is going to make these types of farmers ineligible for
Chapter 12, and they will have to go to either Chapter 11 or Chapter
13.
{time} 1345
One of the improvements that has been agreed to in the bankruptcy
conference is a prohibition on the retroactive assessment of disposable
income, not in section 1071; and finally, the House-Senate bankruptcy
conference has agreed to include family fishermen under Chapter 12
which is not in section 1071.
So even though I am supporting the gentleman's motion, I would really
hope that the proponents of this motion would start putting pressure on
the conferees over in the other side on the bankruptcy bill because we
can make Chapter 12 much better by using the bankruptcy bill as a
vehicle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the principal author of the bankruptcy
bill.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) for yielding me the time, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin has given an excellent account of the history of Chapter 12.
There was not one moment since the bankruptcy reform movement started
5 years ago that we did not consider Chapter 12 and the extension
thereof and to make it permanent. So when we rise here today to
routinely support the motion, we come from a history that supports our
ability to do that. We have always supported Chapter 12 in making it
permanent or extending it when necessary.
Here is the strange thing. This Chapter 12 is to aid the farmers in
distress. Is there any one of us who does not want to aid a farmer in
distress? Should we not apply some of the same resources and energy
that the gentleman in bringing this motion to the floor could apply to
helping our farmers seek and gain prosperity? Should we not be devoting
some of the time as to the farmer on determining whether or not we
should support the President in his trade authority to Fast Track
Authority, so that our farmers can see expanded markets all over the
world? That is what our farmers want.
Of course, they want a fail-safe net of bankruptcy in case they go
into distress, but more than that, they want expanded markets; and we
should be supporting a motion to send a message to the Senate that they
ought to act on trade authority for the President so that he can help
our farmers by expanding markets. That is even more important than the
safety net which we all agree should be in place, but we want to
prevent every single farmer in our country from going bankrupt by
expanding markets.
Moreover, is it not just as worthy a venture on our part to come to
the floor here and to talk about the elimination of death taxes? The
farmer in our every district is pining for the day when death taxes
will be eliminated, because the very future of the family farm rests on
whether or not they can pass on green land to their successors rather
than have to dispose of it, the heirs, in order to pay off the death
taxes. That is a worthy debate that we ought to have on this floor, not
to only worry about the farmer in distress but to take steps to make a
farmer prosperous, to make sure if we can that he will never have to
face bankruptcy. If he does, we are there to help.
We are asking our colleagues to help, help the farmer prosper so that
he never has to face bankruptcy. We ought to be discussing a motion to
send a signal to the Senate to act on elimination of death taxes, to
act on Fast Track Authority for the President as real antidotes for the
plight of the farmer, not to predict the future of bankruptcy, but to
predict the future of prosperity and success for our family farmer.
We ought to be coming back to this floor as soon as we can and making
an impassioned plea to Senator Daschle, if I could use his name
appropriately, and to the leadership in the Senate to act on the
elimination of death taxes. That will help the farmer. That will help
the family farmer. That will help our free flow of farm goods to all
the markets of the world; and at the same time, we should be devoting
some time, not just on bankruptcy, not just the distress of a farmer,
but the success of the farmer that can come from expanding markets in
China and in the world community eager to trade with the United States.
I am for this motion. My goodness am I for this motion, but I dread
the thought of bankruptcy for a farmer. I want to help him escape
bankruptcy. I want him to know that this Congress is helping him in the
prospect of eliminating death taxes. I want the farmer to know that,
while we are going to protect him if he goes into bankruptcy, heaven
knows we will do that. We have been trying for 5 years.
We have never had one moment of consideration of the bankruptcy
reform bill in which we did not consider the plight of the farmer in
distress; but my goodness, we ought to be discussing just as fulsomely
the prospect of eliminating the death taxes and at the same time
granting the President Fast Track Authority to open the markets of the
world to the farmer who wants to till, not to fail, who wants to work,
not to go into bankruptcy.
We do not want one single farmer to go into bankruptcy. We want fast
track. We want elimination of death taxes, to help all the farm
communities gain prosperity and avoid bankruptcy.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). Members are reminded to avoid
mentioning individual members of the other body and to urge Senate
action or inaction.
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
That is all wonderful and we have heard this rhetoric before. I hold
in my hand the Congressional Record of both February and June of last
year where the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) addresses this very
item; and yet we are still talking about helping bankrupt farmers,
possibly having the tools they need to get back to the table with their
creditors. Sure, all this other stuff we are talking about, global and
marketing and how we can help the farmer, what about now? Why are we
still delaying this?
I hope to see the improvements enacted into law that the gentleman
talked about, Mr. Speaker. While we are waiting, farmers do not even
have the protections in current law. We cannot let the perfect be the
enemy of the good. If Congress later passes a bill that improves
Chapter 12, so much the better; but we need the protections of current
law now. Adopting this and making Chapter 12 permanent will not prevent
us from improving it later.
Like the chairman, I supported House Resolution 333, and I am not
trying to derail it. I am just trying to put some real teeth into what
we promised could be helpful to those farmers who may be looking at a
planting season or possibly facing bankruptcy, wondering whether they
should go ahead and plant with the promises of maybe next year, if they
have a good crop year, they can have these tools that we promised them;
and then perhaps then we will still talk about like we have been, since
last year, have this same record of rhetoric and the farmer is even in
deeper hock then, another year, because what he was promised did not
materialize. This is something that I think we can accept and must move
forward.
Farming, Mr. Speaker, is everybody's business; and we ignore the
plight of our family farmer at our own peril. Unfortunately, that is
exactly what Congress has done. Chapter 12 was enacted in 1986. There
was some questions whether it would work properly so Congress made it
temporary.
The idea behind Chapter 12 is straightforward. Other forms of
bankruptcy relief are either too costly or do not fit the particular
circumstances of a family farm. They own lots of equipment, they had
lots of debt, they have their knowledge of the land handed down through
the generations, and they have nothing to offer but the sweat of their
brow. Unfortunately, because a family farm is not Enron or Kmart or Pan
Am, Chapter 11 will not work when they try to propose a plan to repay
their debts because of something called the ``absolute priority rule.''
I am sure everybody out there in the land knows about that.
As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the hard work of a family farm
does not count when they propose a plan to repay their debts and still
hold on to their farm equipment. The general rules of bankruptcy
reorganization are not designed to preserve a family farm
[[Page H1186]]
as a going concern, and they do not accomplish that goal in fact.
In 1997, the National Bankruptcy Review Commission recommended that
Chapter 12 be made permanent. Shortly thereafter, a bipartisan bill
sponsored by Senators Daschle and Grassley, who do not always find much
to agree on by the way, introduced legislation to do so. Both the House
and Senate have included language in their bankruptcy bill that would
make Chapter 12 permanent and make further improvements to it so that
more farmers would be eligible.
These are all wonderful developments my colleagues speak about; but
here we are nearly 5 years later with no Chapter 12, and let me repeat,
there is no Chapter 12. Not only has Congress failed to make it
permanent, but the efforts to extend it and keep it in effect have been
stymied. Chapter 12 relief has been legally unavailable since October
1st of last year. There is no excuse for this.
We have been told repeatedly that the bankruptcy bill will pass any
day now, and I am supportive. Bring it on. We have been told to wait
patiently. We have been told that help is on the way, that the
legislation we need is moving like lightning. Well, in southern
Illinois, Mr. Speaker, in my part of the country, lightning strikes
quickly. One does not have to wait around 5 years waiting for it to
hit.
I understand the concern of the proponents of the bankruptcy bill.
This is popular and people need it. We give up a nice sweetener in the
bill. I voted for that bill, but enough is enough. We have the chance
to protect family farmers now. We cannot wait for lightning to strike
or pie to fall from the sky.
For those of my colleagues who are concerned that bankruptcy would do
more for Chapter 12 farmers, I would point out that passing a permanent
Chapter 12 bill as part of the farm bill will not stop us from doing
more later should the bankruptcy bill pass. If it does pass, those
extra protections would be added to the law and farmers would benefit.
Let us not hold family farmers hostage while the bankruptcy bill
lumbers through the process. It has been about to pass for the last 5
years. Family farmers cannot any longer wait. I urge my colleagues to
let our farmers go. Support the motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the impassioned speech by the gentleman from Illinois. I
am afraid he has forgotten a couple of things as he has been talking
about how good Chapter 12 is.
First of all, Congress did pass an extension of Chapter 12. It was by
a voice vote in this House and an overwhelming vote in the Senate as a
part of a bankruptcy reform bill, and Chapter 12 would be permanent
today if it were not for the fact that President Clinton pocket vetoed
the Bankruptcy Reform Act in the last Congress; and in this Congress,
the House has been attempting to reach a compromise with the other body
in the bankruptcy conference.
We sent a proffer to the Senate in February to resolve all of the
outstanding issues, and the other body rejected it. So there has not
been any negligence on the part of the House of Representatives in
reaching a conclusion on this. We still continue our negotiations. The
people on the other side of the Capitol are bringing additional issues
that were not considered in either House that we continue negotiating.
One of my top priorities this year is to get a bankruptcy bill passed
and signed into law that will help out everybody in this country, not
just the 383 people who filed for Chapter 12 in the year 2001.
I need the gentleman's help in getting an overall bankruptcy reform
bill passed. Again, I do not have a problem with his motion to
instruct, but I hope and pray that the effect of that motion to
instruct is not to unravel all of the popular items out of a bankruptcy
reform bill so that we do not pass an overall bankruptcy reform bill
and get it signed into law.
Last year, bankruptcy wrote off $44 billion of debt of bankrupts and
that has increased the cost of goods and services by approximately $400
for the average American family from Maine to California, and it seems
to me that we should not be letting people who use bankruptcy as a
financial planning tool off the hook because that ends up being a tax
increase on the overwhelming majority of the American people who pay
their debts as agreed, and that is the issue in bankruptcy reform; and
that is why we have got to keep all the cars on the train so that we
can get this passed and relieve the American people of having to pay
the debts of those that use bankruptcy as a financial planning tool.
{time} 1400
Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to instruct, but let us keep our
eye on the ball.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman's leadership in this field, and
I have observed the gentleman very closely since I have been here. I
know the gentleman is dedicated to passing legislation that will help
all those who are facing bankruptcy have the tools to properly deal
with it.
I know that the voice vote that the gentleman has mentioned, we have
had it twice since October in this House, yet we are facing the same
situation for those farmers who are wanting the assistance that we can
provide them, and they are asking what is the problem. I am here trying
to cheer this on because I feel we are at a critical point in time as
our conferees are discussing the farm bill. As a member of the
Committee on Agriculture, I am trying to help farmers in my district,
knowing what is at stake.
Family farmers work hard and play by the rules, and they are wanting
the proper rules in place so they can repay their debts. Chapter 12
provides them with breathing room and an ability to repay their
creditors. Family farmers are the proudest people I have ever met. They
do not want debts hanging over their heads. They want to get it off the
books. They want the tools to work with it. They know that we have it
promised, and they know that we say it is forthcoming, and every year
for the last 5 years we will hand them the resources so they know where
they are at and how they can plan.
Sure, the estate tax needs to be repealed. I was a cosponsor and
voted for it, but I feel like we played some gimmickry in the bill that
put it 10 years down the road rather than repeal it immediately, but
that is another matter.
We are here before family farmers, saying we have the equipment to
give them to sit down with their creditors, renegotiate, possibly get
by another planting season, and to save the family farm. I am trying to
do this on behalf of my family farmers who are struggling in the 19th
Congressional District in southern Illinois, one of the highest
unemployment areas of the Nation.
We have it ready to give to them. What is the hold-up? If the
bankruptcy bill passes, and all of the other obtrusive things that may
come about, we can deal with in that bill. We have people that are
equipped and have experience to negotiate what is proper. It is time to
close on this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, sometimes I am not too good on
politics, but I like to think that I am good on policy. I think both
sides have decided it is good policy to have this kind of bankruptcy
provision for American agriculture.
Just briefly, let me explain what it does. It says to farmers that
instead of going into a separate chapter, we are going to have a
provision where they do not have to sell their tractor, plow, and tools
in order to try to come back and try to resolve their indebtedness
problems, but we are going to give farmers a little leeway so they do
not have to sell their equipment, which is the only way they are going
to be able to survive and reconstruct their business.
The concept of this direction to conferees is good. It is something
that needs to be done. I am going to vote for it. I think the politics
might be that it is an extra, for lack of a better word, inspiration
for the conferees on the bankruptcy bill to move ahead with that bill.
[[Page H1187]]
But American agriculture right now has real problems. There are
individuals who have filed bankruptcy. The bankruptcy courts are
waiting in hopes that this will be changed into law so that they can
refile and allow these farmers to refile under Chapter 12 provisions.
Chapter 12 allows some of the farmers who are hard pressed, and it is
mostly the smaller farmers who have been forced through government
programs and low commodity prices to give up farms which have been in
their family for generations.
I hope my colleagues will support this instruction, because I think
it is important that we move ahead with this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and I have
introduced three bills. Two of them have been passed. One is in the
wings, waiting now to at least have a temporary continuation of the
Chapter 12 provision for farmers.
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership in this area
and for his support for the motion. And I would add, the gentleman is
good on politics or he would not be here.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement with my good
friend from Wisconsin, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that
this motion to instruct House Conferees on H.R. 2646 to accept section
1071 of the Senate amendment could negatively affect the good progress
that has been made in the bankruptcy conference. The bankruptcy
conference has been dragging on for too long, and it is time for the
bankruptcy bill Conferees to finish the handful of outstanding issues
so this important conference report can be brought back to the House
for approval.
In addition, however, I am aware of the immediate need for
Congressional action with respect to Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code
relating to farm bankruptcies. This section has been expired since
October of last year, and has negatively impacted many farmers and
ranchers across the country. An expedient solution to this dilemma is
required. I am also aware of the broad support in the House for a
solution.
At this moment, we are working very hard in the conference on H.R.
2646 to find consensus on all outstanding issues, and I am hopeful that
we can complete work on the farm bill.
Knowing Chairman Sensenbrenner's concerns about section 1071 of the
Senate amendment and recognizing that the bankruptcy conference could
also be completed any day now, I am ready and willing to work with my
good friend from Wisconsin to find a resolution to this issue in a
manner that he would find acceptable.
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Motion to Instruct
Conferees.
This instruction to accept the Senate language to make permanent
Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, is not only a prudent measure of
sound public policy, but it is also a reaffirmation of at least 4
separate votes we have cast in the 107th Congress to help out the
family farmer.
That's right, 4 times in this Congress, we have voted to sustain the
opportunity for family farmers who are down on their luck to reorganize
and thus preserve their farms through a streamlined expedited
bankruptcy process. In each of those 4 times, the vote was
overwhelming.
In rollcall vote 17 on February 28, 2001, we voted 408-2 to pass H.R.
256, the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Relief Act. That bill, introduced by
the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Smith, extended Chapter 12 through
June 1, 2001.
The very next day, in rollcall vote 25, we voted 306-108 to pass H.R.
333, the Bankruptcy reform bill introduced by my friend from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas. That bill included a permanent extension of
Chapter 12.
Skip ahead to June 5, 2001. After having let Chapter 12 expire for 4
days, in rollcall vote 153, we voted 411-1 to extend the provision
another few months through October 1, 2001.
Last July, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin proposed a
Motion to Instruct the Conferees of the bankruptcy bill to accept the
Senate language making the Chapter 12 extension permanent. We passed
that motion by voice vote.
Mr. Speaker, October 1, 2001 has come and gone, and the provision has
expired yet again, leaving family farmers in the lurch yet again. Some
of my friends on the other side have held efforts to extend Chapter 12
hostage in hopes of providing momentum for conference action on H.R.
333, the bankruptcy reform bill.
H.R. 333 is a good bill and a fair bill. I am proud to have voted for
it and proud to be a cosponsor. But the bill remains stalled in
conference, just like it did in the 106th Congress, and it doesn't seem
likely it will conclude any time soon.
So, if you voted yes on any one of the 4 occasions I mentioned here--
and I don't believe there is anyone among us who hasn't voted yes at
least once--then there isn't any reason why you shouldn't support this
motion to instruct.
We have a chance to make Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code permanent.
Vote for this Motion to Instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 424,
nays 3, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 86]
YEAS--424
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
[[Page H1188]]
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--3
Flake
Paul
Rohrabacher
NOT VOTING--7
Blagojevich
Fattah
Gordon
Levin
Pryce (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Traficant
{time} 1444
Mr. FLAKE and Mr. PAUL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________