[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15229-15231]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 333, BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND 
                    CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2001

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from 
the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 333) to amend title 11, United 
States Code, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, 
disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by 
the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.


               Motion to Instruct Offered by Ms. Baldwin

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Baldwin of Wisconsin 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 House bill 
     (H.R. 333) be instructed to agree to title X (relating to 
     protection of family farmers and family fishermen) of the 
     Senate amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from

[[Page 15230]]

Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection was created to help 
farmers in crisis keep their family farms. H.R. 333 makes Chapter 12 
permanent. While waiting for this comprehensive bankruptcy reform 
legislation, Chapter 12 has expired five times. Just during the current 
Congress, we have been forced to pass two extensions to Chapter 12. It 
is time to treat our family farmers with the respect that they have 
earned. Adjusting eligibility to more properly reflect the needs of 
real family farmers would make a significant improvement to the 
underlying bill.
  This motion on H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer 
Protection Act of 2001 would instruct the House conferees to accept 
Senate language on Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection. The other body 
expanded the definition of family farmer to allow more family farmers 
to file under the protections of Chapter 12. These changes do three 
simple things to allow more of our family farmers to qualify for 
Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection.
  First, the amendment will increase from $1.5 million to $3 million 
the amount of aggregate debt that may be accrued by the family farmer. 
This is necessary because many family farmers accrue more than the $1.5 
million in debt before filing for bankruptcy.
  Second, the amendment will reduce from 80 percent to 50 percent the 
value of a family farm's aggregate noncontingent liquidated debts that 
must be related to the farming operation. Again, this expanded 
definition will allow for more families to keep their farms under 
chapter 12 rather than having to liquidate their farm assets.
  Finally, under current law, the person or family must earn more than 
50 percent of their gross income from farming in the year prior to 
bankruptcy. The amendment would look at one of the last 3 years prior 
to the bankruptcy rather than just the prior year. This change is very 
important because many farm families split their time between farm and 
other employment out of necessity. It is not at all unusual for one 
spouse to work on a nonfarm job to secure health or other benefits for 
the entire family. In a year prior to declaring bankruptcy, that 
nonfarm income may easily exceed farm-related income, since low prices 
and crop failures can dramatically reduce gross income in that year. 
Looking at one of the 3 years prior to bankruptcy filing will keep true 
family farms from being denied chapter 12 relief.
  During committee consideration, I proposed similar language to expand 
the definition of family farmer. The majority did not accept the 
amendment due to a desire to maintain the language negotiated by the 
Bankruptcy Conference Committee in the 106th Congress in an attempt to 
avoid a conference committee in this session. My discussions with the 
bill's author and others in the majority revealed no substantive 
objection to expanding this definition. Now that the other body has 
decided to include it in their version of the bill, I hope the House 
will incorporate it into the bill.
  This motion also instructs conferees to accept the Senate language 
with respect to extending chapter 12 bankruptcy protection to family 
fishermen. Family fishermen face the same type of financial pressures 
that are beyond their control as family farmers do. They harvest the 
oceans like our family farmers harvest the land. Allowing family 
fishermen to reorganize their debts without losing their equipment that 
is essential to their livelihood will ensure the continued viability of 
our family fishermen.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to 
instruct conferees to accept the chapter 12 positions from the other 
body. These commonsense amendments will improve the Bankruptcy Abuse 
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001 to protect some of the 
most vulnerable families in America and allow them to maintain their 
farms and their livelihoods.
  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 to include extraneous material on the motion to 
instruct conferees currently under debate.
  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 first to state that I have no objection to the motion to 
instruct, and I would urge that the House go on and speedily approve 
it, hopefully without a rollcall.
  Secondly, a concern that I have, and I am looking at the Senate 
amendment and I am not sure whether it is properly drafted, is to make 
sure that a family fisherman is a commercial fisherman, rather than 
having someone claim to be a sport fisherman and thus protecting very 
expensive yachts, that are used occasionally for fishing purposes, from 
being sold and the assets distributed amongst the creditors. So the 
provision in the Senate bill might need some clarification.
  But with that reservation, I am happy to support the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by 
the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, and I want to commend her for her 
consistent and forceful stand on behalf of this Nation's embattled 
family farmers.
  The proposed instruction is very straightforward and should not draw 
any opposition. The Senate language represents a bipartisan consensus 
that family farmers and embattled family fishermen who now face a 
crisis ought to be able to reorganize their debts and continue the work 
on the land or on the water that their families have pursued for 
generations. That is what this is all about.
  The Senate language would expand eligibility for chapter 12 to 
reflect the current economic realities, not the economic realities of 
1986. It increases eligibility from $1.5 million in debt to $3 million 
in debt. The House bill does not do that. It merely allows the amounts 
to be adjusted in the future, but does not take into account 15 years 
of inflation.
  Like the House bill, the Senate provision would make chapter 12 
permanent. Unlike the House bill, it would recognize for the first time 
that many family farmers, especially those in distress, do not receive 
more than 50 percent of their income from farming because one spouse 
may need to work off the farm to keep the farm afloat. We should not 
now penalize these people for doing everything in their power to avoid 
bankruptcy through hard work.
  The proposed amendment also extends chapter 12 protection to family 
fishermen for the first time. They too are subject to the stresses of 
fluctuating commodity prices, and they also have similar problems of 
large capital investments and significant preseason debts against the 
coming harvest which characterize family farmers, and for which chapter 
12 has been specifically tailored.
  Chapter 12 is not a bailout, it is merely a way for a family farmer, 
or as we extend it for a family fisherman, to reorganize debts and stay 
on the land or on the water. It protects family farmers from being 
swallowed up by agribusiness or suburbanization, it protects our 
watersheds and drinking water, and it protects those families and 
communities who have been the backbone of rural America and of our 
Nation.
  Again I commend the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for this motion, and I 
urge everyone to support it.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to

[[Page 15231]]

respond to the gentleman's concerns relating to the language adopted in 
title X by the other body. As I read the definition of family 
fisherman, I feel quite confident that this is limited to commercial 
fishing enterprises and operations and that the gentleman's concern of 
individuals trying to protect yachts and other luxury boats not used in 
a commercial fishing venture would not be covered under this.
  I am wondering whether the gentleman is supportive of the entire 
motion or whether he might want to read and satisfy himself that this 
is indeed protecting only commercial fishing operations.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the definition of 
commercial fishing operation contained in section 1007 in the Senate 
bill is sufficiently tightly worded to prevent someone who uses a yacht 
for sport fishing and derives income therefrom from being able to 
protect the yacht under the bankruptcy code. That is what my concern 
is.
  What I am suggesting to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, my colleague, 
is that perhaps section 1007 should be looked at very closely to make 
sure we are not creating a loophole and that it not be treated as holy 
writ, not subject to any modification whatsoever.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Motion to 
Instruct. This will put the House on the record as supporting Senate 
passed provisions that are more favorable to our farmers and fishermen.
  We always talk about the special need to protect our farmers. They 
face harsh weather and are constantly being squeezed by corporate farms 
and hug buyers and wholesalers. The least we can do is help honest 
farmers and fishermen reorganize their affairs so they can stay in 
business.
  The Senate bill is preferable to the House bill in four key respects. 
First, it reduces from 80 percent to 50 percent the amount of total 
debt that must be related to farming. Many farm families are forced to 
seek multiple outside jobs in order to keep their farms afloat. This 
should not be a reason that you lose your farm in bankruptcy.
  Second, the Senate provision permits family farmers to file for 
Chapter 12 if they meet the 50 percent requirement in any of the three 
years prior to filing. For farm families that split their income, low 
prices or crop failures can dramatically reduce gross income in the 
year prior to filing. Allowing consideration of any of three years 
prior to filing will keep farm families from being unfairly denied 
Chapter 12 relief.
  Third, the Senate provision increases the jurisdictional debt limit 
for filing Chapter 12 from $1.5 million to $3 million. This new figure 
offsets the effects of inflation of the last 15 years. The $1.5 million 
limit was established in 1986.
  Finally, the Senate bill extends protections to family fishermen so 
they can protect their boats and fishing equipment. Like agricultural 
farmers, fishermen face a hostile economic environment and thousands of 
fishermen leave the business every year. There is no reason to 
discriminate between family farmers and family fishermen in providing 
basic key protections.
  These provisions will help rural and coastal communities retain their 
unique character and allow farmers and fishermen to keep their farms 
and boats. I urge a yes vote on the Motion to Instruct.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees:
  From the Committee on the Judiciary for consideration of the House 
bill and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Sensenbrenner, Hyde, Gekas, Smith of Texas, Chabot, 
Barr of Georgia, Conyers, Boucher, Nadler, and Watt of North Carolina.
  From the Committee on Financial Services, for consideration of 
sections 901 through 906, 907A through 909, 911, and 1301 through 1309 
of the House bill, and sections 901 through 906, 907A through 909, 911, 
and 913-4 and title XIII of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference: Messrs. Oxley, Bachus, and LaFalce.
  From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for consideration of title 
XIV of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: 
Messrs. Tauzin, Barton of Texas, and Dingell.
  From the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for consideration 
of section 1403 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Boehner, Castle and Kildee.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________