[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.
____________________