[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 28, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H143-H148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 1920, BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND 
                    CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2003

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 503 and ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page H144]]

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 503

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (S. 1920) to extend for 6 months the period for 
     which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is 
     reenacted. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and the 
     amendments made in order by this resolution and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 975 as 
     passed by the House. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. If the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it 
     shall be in order to move that the House insist on its 
     amendment to S. 1920 and request a conference thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend, from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is a fair rule that 
provides 1 hour of general debate on the bill and on the amendments 
made in order under the rule to be equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. It provides that it shall be in order to consider as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule a 
substitute amendment consisting of H.R. 975 as passed by the House, and 
it shall be considered as read.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute and makes in order only the amendments 
preprinted in the Committee on Rules report. It provides that the 
amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
report, and shall be considered as read and debatable for the time 
specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent.
  The rule also provides that these amendments shall not be subject to 
amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. It waives all 
points of order against the amendments preprinted in the report, 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions, and 
provides that if the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it shall 
be in order to move that the House insist on its amendment to S. 1920 
and to request a conference thereon.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today that this House will have the 
opportunity to once again during the 108th Congress consider and send 
to the Senate much-needed bankruptcy reform legislation under this fair 
rule. I am proud of the tireless efforts on behalf of many Members and 
their staffs, who have put in countless hours towards the passage of 
this legislation over the last four Congresses.
  Their efforts allow us today to again urge Senate action to ensure 
that our Nation's bankruptcy laws operate fairly, efficiently, and free 
of abuse. Congress has the opportunity to once again end, once and for 
all, the loophole to debtors who are able to repay some portion of 
their debts to game the system and increase the cost of credit, goods 
and services for other law-abiding citizens. Between 2002 and 2003, the 
Federal court system reported that there was a 9.6 percent increase in 
bankruptcy filings to over 1.650 million filings, and these filings 
have a real cost not only to every consumer but also to simple, 
everyday Americans.
  In 1998, debtors who filed for bankruptcy relief discharged more than 
$44 billion of debt. When amortizing on a daily basis, this amounts to 
a loss of at least $110 million every day; or put more simply, 
bankruptcies cost each American family that pays their bills on time 
$450 a year in the form of higher costs for credit, goods and services. 
As the other body continues to stall on this legislation to protect the 
system from further abuse, these numbers and totals only continue to 
mount.
  It has been estimated that if current practices continue, one out of 
every seven households will have filed for bankruptcy by the end of 
this decade, with many of these losses as a result of the misuse of the 
law by irresponsible, high-income filers. The Credit Union National 
Association, known as CUNA, reported last year that credit unions have 
lost nearly $3 billion from bankruptcies since Congress began 
considering bankruptcy reform legislation in 1998.
  We should not forget the other indirect costs associated with 
bankruptcy fraud. Because the law currently allows people to game the 
system for their own benefit, the number of Federal bankruptcy filings 
per judgeship has increased from 71.1 percent, from 2,998 per Federal 
judge in 1992 to 5,130 in 2003, the largest caseload in our Federal 
court system. This backlog in this workflow slows down the progress for 
a countless number of legitimate bankruptcy filings and increases 
disrespect for the entire judicial system.
  This bill is crafted to ensure the debtor's right to a fresh start 
while protecting the system from flagrant abusers by those who can, 
should, and, we believe, will be paying their own bills. Bankruptcy 
should not be a convenience or just another financial planning tool, 
and this legislation will ensure that it will remain a safety net for 
those who genuinely need it while trying to prevent bad actors from 
imposing their costs on everyone else.
  Congress has spoken on this issue many times before. As is widely 
known, Mr. Speaker, the 105th, 106th and 107th Congresses passed 
legislation addressing bankruptcy reform. In the 105th Congress, the 
conference passed the House, but time expired before the Senate voted 
on final passage. In the 106th Congress, a conference report received 
overwhelming bipartisan support in both Chambers. However, President 
Clinton chose to pocket veto the bill. In the 107th Congress, and again 
earlier this last year, we came extremely close again to the final 
passage of a conference report; but in the end, it was not 
accomplished.

  Today, due to the outstanding work and leadership of our Committee on 
the Judiciary chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), we have the historic opportunity to make modern 
bankruptcy reform a reality.
  As we debate and vote today, we should keep in mind the two important 
tenets fulfilled by this version of bankruptcy reform. First, the 
bankruptcy system should provide the amount of debt relief that an 
individual needs, no more and no less; and that bankruptcy should be a 
last resort and not a convenient response to a financial crisis.
  One important part of this legislation that I would like to highlight 
is also known as the ``homestead provision.'' Protection of one's 
homestead is something that is very important to me and many people in 
Texas and other States across this great Nation. The homestead 
provision in this legislation maintains the long-held standard that 
allows States to decide if a homestead should be protected, yet 
prohibits those who would purchase a home before filing a bankruptcy as 
a means to

[[Page H145]]

evade creditors. By tightening our current laws and making it more 
difficult to escape fraud by declaring bankruptcy, we are expressing no 
tolerance for those who would game the system to make up for their own 
wrongdoing.
  Modern bankruptcy reform has taken a long and somewhat arduous 
journey, which makes the much-anticipated result of our work today even 
more rewarding. It has required not only hard work but also some 
difficult decisions on the part of this Congress. The result is what I 
believe to be a carefully balanced package that protects women, 
children, family farmers, low-income individuals, and provides access 
to bankruptcy for all Americans who have a legitimate need.
  I believe that today's vote will finally make modern bankruptcy 
reform a reality.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote with me in supporting this 
rule and the important underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the procedural abuses that marked the 
first session of the 108th Congress would be left behind. I had hoped 
that we would start the new year on a positive note. We have an 
opportunity today to come together from both sides of the aisle and 
pass good legislation to help the good people who are struggling to 
keep their family farms alive.
  The Senate has sent us a simple one-page bill, a bipartisan, 
noncontroversial bill that would extend bankruptcy protections for 
America's struggling family farmers. We could pass S. 1920 as it is, 
and tonight it could be on the President's desk to be signed into law. 
That would restore the chapter 12 bankruptcy protections for family 
farmers that expired at the end of last year.
  Instead, we have before us an election-year dog and pony show. House 
Republicans have replaced this simple bill to extend a helping hand to 
family farms with a controversial 500-page bankruptcy overhaul bill, 
the same legislation that this body passed in March of 2003. They have 
transformed a bill to help family farmers into a symbolic protest 
against the other body for not taking up the bankruptcy bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the House has routinely approved extensions of chapter 
12 so that our family farmers are protected from the hardships of the 
global economy and so they can access the necessary funds to run their 
farms. Now is the time of the year when farmers must borrow in order to 
prepare for spring planting. If this House fails to extend bankruptcy 
protections for our family farmers today, many will not be able to 
convince their local banks to provide them with the necessary cash and 
credit to buy new seed. It is that simple, Mr. Speaker.
  Are we going to help our family farmers today? Are we going to pass 
the extension of chapter 12 that unanimously passed in the other body? 
Are we going to send it to the President today for his signature? Or 
are we going to engage in political theatrics and once again subvert 
the legislative process?
  Several members of the other body have already announced that they 
will not, I repeat they will not, accept S. 1920 back if the House 
attaches the larger bankruptcy bill to it. So what are we doing here 
other than punishing and putting in peril the livelihoods of our family 
farmers?
  Mr. Speaker, I would humbly like to make a suggestion to the 
Republican leadership. Instead of using struggling family farmers to 
send a message to the other body, I suggest that they simply walk 
across the Capitol and consult with their fellow Republican leaders in 
the other body.

                              {time}  1315

  They should leave family farmers who need this bankruptcy protection 
out of their disputes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have many critical problems facing our Nation today. 
Unemployment, an economy that is not creating jobs, and a health care 
crisis are just a few of the problems we are facing here today. Instead 
of this piece of political theater this afternoon, we could help 
struggling American families by passing a clean version of S. 1920, and 
then we could take up measures to extend unemployment insurance. 
Instead, we continue to ignore the almost 8.5 million unemployed 
Americans and the thousands more who have lost hope and who have given 
up looking for a job.
  People are losing their jobs, running out of unemployment 
compensation, and are being forced to pay their mortgages and buy food 
using their credit cards. Their personal debt becomes so great that 
they have no choice but to file for bankruptcy, which speaks to the 
need for genuine bankruptcy reform.
  Instead of addressing the fundamental issues facing Americans, we are 
wasting our time with this political sleight of hand, rehashing a 
controversial bill that passed last year, but has no future in the 
other body. Family farmers are being used as political pawns. The 
procedures and rules of the other body are being disregarded and the 
rules of this body are being manipulated and twisted in the process.
  Mr. Speaker, the language this rule substitutes for S. 1920, the 
language from H.R. 975, the larger bankruptcy reform bill passed last 
year, is still very flawed. The rhetoric around bankruptcy overhaul 
paints a vivid picture of scheming people running up huge debts, buying 
extravagant houses and expensive cars just before they run to their 
local bankruptcy court to avoid paying their bills. But the reality is 
that only 3 percent of people who file for bankruptcy are these kinds 
of cheaters.
  In order to stop these 3 percent who abuse the system, this bill 
takes the dramatic, sweeping step of harming the 97 percent of the 
people who are forced to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Code 
because of illness, unemployment or divorce. In fact, nearly half of 
the people who file for bankruptcy protection do so because of medical 
bills and the financial consequences of illness or injury. Middle-class 
families are only one serious illness away from financial collapse, and 
the impact of medical costs is highest on women, families headed by 
women and among older people.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also very disappointed that the substituted 
language still does not include provisions to hold perpetrators of 
violence against women's health care clinics accountable for their 
actions. As part of a coordinated strategy, perpetrators of clinic 
violence have filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying judgments against 
them for violating Federal law. This bill would allow them to discharge 
these judgments and get away with breaking Federal law and trampling 
the constitutional rights of women.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congress should be seeking the enforcement of 
Federal law and protection for the meaningful exercise of 
constitutional rights, not attempting to undermine it.
  Mr. Speaker, this body still has an opportunity to do the right thing 
by our family farmers. A substitute will be offered by our colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), to permanently authorize 
Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, which would, once and for all, 
guarantee these bankruptcy protections for our farmers. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Baldwin substitute 
and to stop holding our family farmers hostage in a game to coerce 
through legislation that primarily benefits wealthy corporate 
contributors at the expense of struggling farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, there is only one reason why Republicans 
are seeking to attach H.R. 975, the 500- page bankruptcy bill, to S. 
1920, a 2-page farm bankruptcy renewal. They want to force the Senate 
to agree to radical bankruptcy changes that do not include protections 
for women and abortion clinics.
  The bankruptcy bill has been held up for the past 3 years because 
Republicans refuse to agree to the Schumer

[[Page H146]]

amendment. The Schumer amendment, approved by the Senate by an 80-to-17 
margin, prevents criminals convicted of crimes against women and 
abortion clinics from filing for bankruptcy protection to escape fines 
or civil judgments.
  Since the Republican leadership does not have the vote to defeat the 
Schumer amendment, they want to use procedural tactics to prevent it 
from being considered at all. Today, I delivered a letter to the 
Speaker, signed by every Democratic woman Member of the House, 41 in 
all, stating our unity in opposing these tactics. It is wrong to hold 
family farmers hostage so the majority can push through a controversial 
bankruptcy bill that helps big banks and credit card companies. It is 
wrong to use procedural tactics to prevent an honest and open debate on 
language that would provide greater protections for women.
  But it is not only Democratic women in the House who oppose these 
tactics; farmers do not want to be held hostage either. The National 
Farmers Union, the National Family Farm Coalition, and Farm Aid oppose 
the majority's tactics. The National Farmers Union said, ``Any delay in 
approving an extension of Chapter 12 places agricultural producers and 
their families who are faced with bankruptcy in a serious and untenable 
position. We understand there are some in Congress who wish to utilize 
the extension of the ag provisions as a means to leverage support for a 
broader bankruptcy reform measure that contains highly controversial 
and divisive provisions unrelated to the farm bankruptcy law. We reject 
this legislative strategy as an insensitive, cruel and malicious effort 
that will only serve to increase the level of distress of farm families 
who are already experiencing severe financial difficulties.''
  And from the National Family Farm Coalition, I quote: ``We urge you 
to pass this 6-month extension and not hold family farmers hostage to 
the highly controversial overall bankruptcy reform bill. Every day of 
delay by Congress has a direct cost to our Nation's family farmers.''
  And this from Farm Aid: ``The reasons for the creation of the 
separate Bankruptcy Code that enables farmers to stay on the land while 
reorganizing their farm operation is as urgent now as it was in 1986 
when first created by Congress. This lapse in coverage directly results 
in farmers having to face foreclosure and liquidation instead of 
seeking a reasonable negotiation with their creditors that works for 
farm families, their creditors and businesses in their rural 
community.''
  It is also opposed by unions and civil and women's rights 
organizations, like the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Teamsters, United Auto 
Workers, the National Organization for Women, NARAL, Consumers Union, 
the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the NAACP.
  It is not only the tactics that are the problem. H.R. 975 is a deeply 
flawed bill. It assumes that middle-class Americans who file for 
bankruptcy are spendthrifts that abuse the system, and that is not 
true. Over 91 percent of individuals who have filed for bankruptcy have 
suffered a recent job loss, medical problem or divorce. The leading 
cause of personal bankruptcy is unemployment. Two out of three 
individuals that file for bankruptcy have lost jobs. Half have 
experienced a serious health problem.
  H.R. 975 will also hurt seniors. The average household debt for those 
over 65 and older has skyrocketed 164 percent, most of it related to 
medical costs. H.R. 975 also hurts women. In 1999, over 200,000 women 
filing for bankruptcy were owed child support or alimony.
  The proponents of this bill say they want to restore personal 
responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy system. Fine. But do not 
punish people who are in trouble because they lost a job or are dogged 
by huge medical bills or cannot get a deadbeat dad to pay child 
support. These are the people that account for a majority of personal 
bankruptcies, not spendthrifts abusing the system.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose this attempt 
to hold family farmers hostage to help big banks and credit card 
companies.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today to oppose the rule.
  I strongly oppose this rule because it would delay the renewal of 
Chapter 12 family farm bankruptcy protection that is needed desperately 
by our family farmers. We should not be amending this bill and sending 
it back to the other body for more debate. This House should take up 
the 6-month extension bill, pass it without amendment, and send it to 
the President immediately. Chapter 12 farm bankruptcy protection 
expired on December 31, 2003. There is no good excuse for additional 
delay of Chapter 12 extension.
  The Committee on the Judiciary chairman, the House leadership and the 
financial services industry have proposed under this rule that we gut 
this noncontroversial 6-month extension bill before us to try to force 
a conference committee on the massive bankruptcy overhaul bill. Groups 
representing family farmers are opposed to this parliamentary maneuver 
that will delay the extension of Chapter 12 protection.
  On January 23, the National Farmers Union wrote to Speaker Hastert 
and Minority Leader Pelosi that ``We reject this legislative strategy 
as an insensitive, cruel and malicious effort that will only serve to 
increase the level of distress of farm families who are already 
experiencing severe financial difficulties.'' The National Family Farm 
Coalition and Farm Aid have also sent letters urging immediate action 
to extend Chapter 12 and opposing sending this legislation back to the 
other body.
  Mr. Speaker, the bankruptcy overhaul bill that this rule moves 
forward is bad for several reasons. Among them is an attempt in this 
bill to shield people convicted of crimes against women and abortion 
clinics from fines and damages. Too often, I am sorry to say, criminals 
who commit these acts of violence have been able to avoid monetary 
penalties by declaring bankruptcy. Our bankruptcy laws should not be 
used and manipulated by criminals to avoid their punishment.
  Again, the base bill, Senate 1920, could be on the President's desk 
by the end of this day. It is noncontroversial. Our body has passed 
this bill unanimously in previous sessions. We are not accomplishing 
anything by the parliamentary maneuvers that we are engaged in today.
  Since I have been in Congress, the family farm protections in the 
Bankruptcy Code have expired six times, and we have acted to extend 
these provisions eight times. We should stop using family farmers as 
leverage to pass larger bankruptcy protections. I know these families; 
I represent many of them. I hear their struggles, I hear their stories. 
Let us act today to extend family farmer bankruptcy protection.
  I do want to thank the Committee on Rules and the chairman of that 
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for making my 
substitute amendment in order. However, our farmers need immediate 
relief, and the only way to achieve that goal expeditiously is to 
defeat the rule and to take up Senate bill 1920 immediately.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record letters from the National 
Farmers Union, the National Family Farm Coalition and Farm Aid.

                                                     Farm Aid,

                                 Somerville, MA, January 27, 2004.
     Hon. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chair, House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: I am writing to urgently 
     ask you to take action this week to reinstate Chapter 12 
     Bankruptcy provisions for our nation's family farmers. Since 
     the expiration of Chapter 12 on December 31, 2003, thousands 
     of America's family farmers facing serious financial problems 
     have not been able to consider filing a Chapter 12 
     bankruptcy.
       Farm Aid operates a national family farmer hotline. Every 
     day, we receive desperate calls from farm families facing 
     financial crisis. The stresses these families are under could 
     and should be alleviated immediately by reinstating Chapter 
     12.
       The reasons for the creation of a separate bankruptcy code 
     that enable farmers to stay on the land while reorganizing 
     their farm operation is as urgent now as it was in 1986 when 
     first created by Congress. This lapse in coverage directly 
     results in farmers having to face foreclosure and liquidation 
     instead of seeking a reasonable negotiation with their 
     creditors that works for farm families, their creditors and 
     businesses in their rural community.

[[Page H147]]

       I urge you to pass this six-month extension so that the 
     livelihoods of thousands of family farmers are not linked to 
     the cumbersome and controversial overall bankruptcy reform 
     bill. When Congress passed the last extension in July 2003, 
     the vote was 397-3. Every day of delay by Congress has a 
     direct cost to our nation's family farmers. The immediate 
     reinstatement of Chapter 12 bankruptcy will restore an 
     important option for family farmers facing economic crisis.
       On behalf of America's family farmers, I thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Mark Smith,
     Campaign Director.
                                  ____



                               National Family Farm Coalition,

                                 Washington, DC, January 26, 2004.
     Hon. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chair, House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC
       Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: The National Family Farm 
     Coalition representing family farmers and rural residents 
     across the country urges you to take action this week to 
     immediately reinstate Chapter 12 Bankruptcy provisions for 
     our nation's family farmers. Since January 1, 2004 farmers 
     facing serious financial problems resulting from record low 
     commodity prices and serious drought conditions have not been 
     able to consider filing a Chapter 12 bankruptcy.
       The reasons for the creation of a separate bankruptcy code 
     that enable farmers to stay on the land while reorganizing is 
     as urgent now as it was in 1986 when first created by 
     Congress. This lapse in coverage directly results in farmers 
     having to face foreclosure and liquidation instead of seeking 
     a reasonable negotiation with their creditors that works for 
     farm families, their creditors and businesses in their rural 
     community.
       We urge you to pass this six month extension and not hold 
     family farmers hostage to the highly controversial overall 
     bankruptcy reform bill. When Congress passed the last 
     extension in the July 2003, the vote was 397-3. Every day of 
     delay by Congress has a direct cost to our nation's family 
     farmers. We urge immediate reinstatement of Chapter 12 
     bankruptcy restoring an important option for family farmers 
     facing economic crisis.
       On behalf of family farmers we thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                    George Naylor,
     Iowa farmer and President, NFFC.
                                  ____



                                       National Farmers Union,

                                 Washington, DC, January 23, 2004.
     Hon. Dennis J. Hastert,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Hastert and Democratic Leader Pelosi: On 
     behalf of the family farmer and rancher members of the 
     National Farmers Union I write to encourage the House of 
     Representatives to immediately adopt the language contained 
     in S. 1920 which passed the Senate late last year and 
     extended the chapter 12 provisions of title 11 of the United 
     States Code for an additional six months retroactive to 
     January 1, 2004.
       The Chapter 12 provisions, which allow the development of 
     alternative financial reorganization plans for farmers and 
     ranchers within the bankruptcy code, expired at the end of 
     2003 when the House failed to take action on the Senate bill 
     even though these provisions have been considered non-
     controversial by both parties over the course of several 
     years. Any delay in approving an extension of Chapter 12 
     places agricultural producers and their families who are 
     faced with bankruptcy in a serious and untenable position.
       We understand there are some in Congress who wish to 
     utilize the extension of the agriculture provisions as a 
     means to leverage support for a broader bankruptcy reform 
     measure that contains highly controversial and divisive 
     provisions unrelated to the farm bankruptcy law. We reject 
     this legislative strategy as an insensitive, cruel and 
     malicious effort that will only serve to increase the level 
     of distress of farm families who are already experiencing 
     severe financial difficulties.
       Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                            David J. Frederickson,
                                                        President.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess I continue to be amazed at the extent to which 
the majority in this House will go to try to serve the interests of 
their particular favorite constituencies, even to the point of doing 
substantial harm to people who are struggling in this country. And that 
is certainly the case with respect to farmers.

                              {time}  1330

  To hold this bill, the original bill, the extension of the family 
farm provisions of the bankruptcy law, a totally noncontroversial bill 
which could have been put on the suspension calendar and passed without 
any dispute whatsoever, to hold it hostage to a bill that has been in 
process for several years now and has not been able to be passed by 
both the House and the Senate or reach the President's desk for 
signature just strikes me as being extremely insensitive, even if one 
did not know the surrounding statistics. But when one knows the 
statistics related to bankruptcies over the last year, it is even more 
alarming that this kind of Russian roulette would be played with this 
bill.
  Business bankruptcies actually fell last year if you exclude family 
farms from the business category by 7.4 percent. Personal individual 
bankruptcies increased by about the same percentage, about 7 percent. 
But chapter 12 bankruptcies, those designed to meet the needs of 
financially distressed family farmers, increased by 116.8 percent.
  Now, what happens then if this Russian roulette does not play itself 
out in the way that the majority would like it to play itself out and 
the family farm provisions expire? This would be the kind of 
irresponsible activity which I think is inexcusable. I think we should 
oppose this rule and oppose the bill if it gets amended to include the 
bankruptcies reform provisions.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, if I can restate one of the frustrations that many of us 
on this side of the aisle have, we are all very concerned about our 
small family farmers, and we are worried that the relief they seek will 
be delayed indefinitely because this new version of the bill, which 
includes the very controversial and, in my opinion, flawed bankruptcy 
overhaul bill which this House passed, will go nowhere in the other 
body, and this is all show business that we are doing here right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman or any Member on the other side of 
the aisle, given the fact that the Republicans control the House and 
the Senate, has Republican leadership here in the House been given 
assurances by the Republican leadership in the other body that they 
have the necessary votes to move this conference forward? I am looking 
for an assurance or an answer to that question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we are 
intensely interested in passing this piece of legislation today, moving 
it to the Senate, believing that our colleagues on the other side of 
the building will see the wisdom of this bill and move this very 
expeditiously. This is to make permanent relief for farmers. I believe 
that the wisdom of the entire bill will be seen by that body, and then 
we will be able to have it on the President's desk very quickly for 
signature.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's spin; but we 
passed this bankruptcy reform bill last March, and the other body has 
not moved on our version because they have some problems with it. If I 
am interpreting the statements in the press from the other body 
correctly, there are Members who will filibuster this. For the bill to 
move forward in the face of the filibuster, the other body needs to 
muster 60 votes, which I am told from reliable sources they do not 
have.
  That is why I ask the question if those on the gentleman's side of 
the aisle know something that we do not know. If those press accounts 
are true, what we are doing here is not helping small family farmers, 
we are just going through the motions. This is a big waste of time for 
everybody.
  My suggestion would be that we should move forward with relief for 
family farmers. We know that will pass here easily and will pass the 
other body swiftly. We could send it to the President today and we have 
done something good rather than engage in this type of politics.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, time after time after time sitting in the 
Committee on Rules, we hear about all of the pieces of legislation that 
will never go anywhere and will never move. We have heard this about 
bankruptcies many times, about our budgets; and we have heard this 
about bills that are related to welfare reform and tax bills. It is 
amazing how often the

[[Page H148]]

other body and whoever sits as our great President, whether it be 
President Clinton or President Bush, have found the ability and a way 
to work with the leadership of both bodies. That is part of what this 
experiment is about.
  We have great confidence that the American people, who are the 
special interests to each and every one of us, the special interests 
and the needs of farmers and the needs of Americans, will be heard by 
our President, by each Member of the Senate and this body; and that is 
why we are moving this legislation forward.
  I do not think that we would ask someone ahead of time what they are 
going to do with that, but rather to allow them the chance to debate 
and work through the changes. Compromise happens all of the time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I guess that answer 
means, no, we do not have assurance from the other body that they will 
move on this; and, no, we cannot give assurances to the family farmers 
who are watching us here today that in fact the relief that they seek 
will be enacted anytime soon.
  My follow-up question will be if the gentleman gets his way and his 
leadership gets its way and this bill moves forward with the House-
passed bankruptcy reform bill attached to it, it goes over to the other 
body and they decide to filibuster it, is there agreement on how long 
we are going to wait until we help our family farmers, or will this go 
on indefinitely?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The American people will have a lot to say about that 
as they talk with Members of the other body; and based upon that wisdom 
and as a result of what the leadership does, we will catch a good 
signal. We believe it will be on their agenda, and we are proud of what 
we are doing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response; 
but it is not satisfactory, not only to those of us on this side of the 
aisle, but to those who may be watching this who are hopeful that we 
will actually do something of substance and that we will help family 
farmers looking for relief.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem here is that we have an opportunity to do 
something good, to actually help some people; and we are turning this 
into political theatrics. I think that is unfortunate. I oppose the 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. I appreciate that he wants 
to know what the agreements are between the bodies as they work 
together. I respect that, but I would say to the gentleman that I 
respect more the 315 votes from this body that chose to speak on the 
subject the last time we voted.
  Perhaps it is true there are some frustrations that come about as a 
result of the business which we engage in. Certainly there are 
frustrations that 315 people, time after time after time that vote for 
this important bill, are thwarted in the process; but I believe rather 
than becoming frustrated, it is up to us to think through how we will 
accomplish those things that are necessary, to retry, to renegotiate, 
to do those things that are dealing with negativism of, oh, it will 
never happen, to keep searching, and that is what the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, has done. He looked at a piece of legislation with 315 vote, 
and knew how important it was. Rather than accepting a defeatist 
mentality, he took the attitude he would be proactive and work on 
behalf of our special constituencies that all of us as Members of 
Congress have, the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, 315 votes is a clear and simple overwhelming majority of 
this body. I am proud of what we are doing. Obviously, what we are 
trying to do here is to make sure that we pass this bill. Since 1986, 
this ad hoc approach which has talked about reauthorizing chapter 12 
relief has allowed this relief for small farms to lapse six times. 
Today we are going to make it permanent. Today we are providing an 
answer. Today it is a change. I am proud of what we are doing. Our 
great chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), has 
not only worked diligently on behalf of farmers but also on behalf of 
consumers of this country. I think we will pass this bill. I think it 
is the right thing, and I welcome the opportunity to join the chairman 
down at the White House when our great President signs this legislation 
into law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________