[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4162-4167]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2646, FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001

  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I 
offer a motion to instruct that I noticed yesterday.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Phelps of Illinois moves that the managers on the part 
     of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of 
     the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2646 
     (an Act to provide for the continuation of agricultural 
     programs through fiscal year 2011) be instructed to agree to 
     the provisions contained in section 1071 of the Senate 
     amendment, relating to reenactment of the family farmer 
     bankruptcy provisions contained in chapter 12 of title 11, 
     United States Code.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Phelps) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion is very simple. It asks that the conferees on 
the farm bill accept language in a Senate bill that would make Chapter 
12 of the Bankruptcy Code permanent. I do not think there is any 
controversy whatsoever that Chapter 12 works well and that it protects 
our family farmers who are in distress, that it properly balances the 
legitimate needs of financially troubled farmers and their creditors, 
and that it preserves the family farm.
  No one can honestly say that the loss of family farms is anything 
other than a catastrophe for this Nation. The combined pressures of low 
crop prices, high debts just to get your crop in the ground, the 
economic competition from large industrial farms and Third World 
production all combine to squeeze those family farmers that form the 
backbone of our rural community.
  I unfortunately see this too frequently in my congressional district 
in central and southern Illinois. When a family farmer goes under, it 
is a tragedy not just for that family, but it is a tragedy and a loss 
to the economic life of small rural communities all across America.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the motion currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not oppose the motion to instruct conferees with 
respect to Section 1071 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2646 because 
the House is on record as having supported a version of this measure on 
numerous occasions. I do, however, have concerns about the potential 
impact this motion may have on another pending conference.
  Section 1071 in effect would make Chapter 12, a specialized form of 
bankruptcy relief available to certain family farmers, a permanent 
component of the Bankruptcy Code retroactive through October 1, 2001.
  Without question, the family farmer plays a critical role in our 
Nation's health and economic well-being. Unfortunately, bad weather, 
rising energy costs, volatile marketplace conditions, competition for 
large agribusinesses, and the economic forces experienced by any small 
business affect the financial stability of some family farmers.
  In response to the specialized needs of small family farmers in 
financial distress, Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted on a 
temporary basis as a part of the Bankruptcy Judges, United States 
Trustees and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986. It has subsequently 
been extended on several occasions, most recently until October 1 of 
last year.
  On the other hand, we know that statistically Chapter 12 is utilized 
rarely. While total bankruptcy filings in each of the past 6 years has 
surpassed more than 1 million cases, the number of Chapter 12 cases 
exceeded 1,000 on only one occasion, and that was back in 1996. So for 
the past 5 years there have not been even 1,000 Chapter 12 filings.
  In the absence of Chapter 12, family farmers may apply for relief 
under the Bankruptcy Code's other alternatives, although these 
generally do not work quite as well for farmers as does Chapter 12.
  As you know, I have consistently supported prior efforts to extend 
Chapter 12 in this Congress. I must note, however, that a substantively 
identical provision to Section 1071 is already included in H.R. 333, 
the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act which is 
currently in conference. And that conference is much further along than 
the farm bill conference.
  Since August of last year, the House and Senate staff have been 
actively working to resolve the differences between the respective 
bills. In February of this year, the House conferees sent

[[Page 4163]]

the Senate a proposed offer resolving all outstanding issues. Although 
the Senate did not accept the proffer, I am pleased to report as of 
last week there is a mere handful of items that need to be resolved and 
that the bankruptcy conference is nearly completed.
  Given this significant progress, it is my expectation that the few 
remaining matters will be resolved well before the conference on H.R. 
2646 is completed.
  Among the issues resolved in the bankruptcy conference are a series 
of provisions that give family farmers enhanced protections under 
Chapter 12. These provisions, in addition to a permanent extension of 
Chapter 12, are included in the bankruptcy conference as part of a 
complex and extensively negotiated effort. So merely making Chapter 12 
permanent will mean that the enhanced protections that are already 
agreed to in the bankruptcy conference will end up not becoming a part 
of the permanent law. And those types of enhanced protections will end 
up having to start over from scratch.
  Therefore, I am accordingly quite concerned that the motion to 
instruct may be simply an effort to cherry-pick one of the provisions 
which would incentivize others to do the same. I fear that the motion 
to instruct could reduce the momentum for the bankruptcy conference and 
lessen support for it, and thereby jeopardize enactment of the other 
farmer-friendly protections included in the compromise.
  It is for these very same reasons I have adamantly opposed attempts 
by others to move other provisions in the bankruptcy bill separately. 
Again, although I do not oppose the motion to instruct conferees on 
Section 1071, I am very concerned that it may potentially have a 
damaging impact on the pending bankruptcy conference and the additional 
farmer-friendly protections already agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in all due respect to my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), we have been hearing this for almost 5 years now, that 
we are going to move on with Chapter 12, make it permanent. There are 
always divisive issues lingering around that we have to deal with that 
could serve to disrupt our goal in trying to achieve these matters. I 
feel like we need to move on this now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. 
Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection was 
created to help farmers in crisis keep their family farms. The farm 
bill includes a provision added by the other body to make Chapter 12 of 
the Bankruptcy Code permanent.
  By accepting this Senate provision, we can finally ensure that our 
farmers have this important protection permanently in place. Bankruptcy 
generally requires liquidation of real property rather than 
reorganization if debtors have significant assets. Of course, for 
family farmers, this means that their farm equipment and other assets 
often disqualify them for reorganization under Chapter 11 or 13, and 
they are forced into Chapter 7 liquidation. Chapter 12 allows these 
family farmers to keep essential farm assets and reorganize their 
debts.
  With planting season just beginning, farmers need to know how now 
that they can reorganize and keep their farms. Farmers in Wisconsin and 
around the Nation are in stress, duress, and crisis. A dairy farmer 
from Belleville in my district called me about this issue just the 
other day. He has been in farming, like his dad before him, most of his 
life. He milks 70 cows to make his living. Milk prices have remained 
low for most of the time he has been in farming, and now milk prices 
are reaching historic lows again. He simply cannot stay in business 
because he is losing money. He is scared he is going to lose his farm 
to his creditors and let his family down.
  Chapter 12 would allow this gentleman another chance to reorganize 
his debts and keep the farm in his family.
  Permanent Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection will provide the security 
family farmers in crisis need to decide whether to stay in business as 
they make their way through financial difficulty.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has pointed out 
comprehensive bankruptcy reform legislation, H.R. 333, is currently 
under consideration in a conference committee. The gentleman is 
correct. Although I appreciate his optimism about a quick completion to 
the H.R. 333 conference, significant issues remain unresolved in that 
conference. While waiting for this comprehensive bankruptcy reform 
legislation over the past 5 years, Chapter 12 has expired six times and 
it has been expired since last September. During this current Congress 
we have been forced to pass two extensions of Chapter 12. The farm bill 
provides an excellent opportunity to ensure that Chapter 12 is made 
permanent this year.
  I understand the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) firmly 
believes in keeping all H.R. 333 provisions from being considered 
separately by this House. But Chapter 12 bankruptcy is an important 
protection that our family farmers need right now. And I am confident 
that the distinguished gentleman will be able to fight off other 
attempts to pass individual provisions of the bankruptcy reform bill 
should they come before this House separately.
  Chapter 12 is the only provision in the bankruptcy bill that is 
currently expired. It is time to act to ensure our farmers that this 
additional protection will allow them to keep their farms. I urge my 
colleagues to support this motion to instruct and urge the other 
conferees to recede to the Senate position.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I am not opposed to this motion to instruct, but 
I think that everybody ought to know what section 1071 of the Senate 
bill leaves out which is in the agreed-upon provision relative to 
family farms in the House-Senate compromise and the bankruptcy bill.
  First of all, both 1071 and the compromise make Chapter 12 permanent. 
But what 1071 does not do is to increase the debt limits and index that 
debt limit to inflation. What is being proposed in the Senate version 
of the farm bill is going to have the debt limit be frozen on what it 
is now.
  There also is a provision in the compromise that makes more flexible 
the percentage of income derived from farming for both spouses. And 
where one spouse works on the farm and another spouse has got a job off 
the farm, the current law which they are proposing to make permanent 
without any improvements, is going to make these types of farmers 
ineligible for Chapter 12, and they will have to go to either Chapter 
11 or Chapter 13.

                              {time}  1345

  One of the improvements that has been agreed to in the bankruptcy 
conference is a prohibition on the retroactive assessment of disposable 
income, not in section 1071; and finally, the House-Senate bankruptcy 
conference has agreed to include family fishermen under Chapter 12 
which is not in section 1071.
  So even though I am supporting the gentleman's motion, I would really 
hope that the proponents of this motion would start putting pressure on 
the conferees over in the other side on the bankruptcy bill because we 
can make Chapter 12 much better by using the bankruptcy bill as a 
vehicle.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the principal author of the bankruptcy 
bill.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for yielding me the time, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin has given an excellent account of the history of Chapter 12.
  There was not one moment since the bankruptcy reform movement started 
5 years ago that we did not consider Chapter 12 and the extension 
thereof and to make it permanent. So when we rise here today to 
routinely support the motion, we come from a history that supports our 
ability to do that. We have always supported Chapter 12 in

[[Page 4164]]

making it permanent or extending it when necessary.
  Here is the strange thing. This Chapter 12 is to aid the farmers in 
distress. Is there any one of us who does not want to aid a farmer in 
distress? Should we not apply some of the same resources and energy 
that the gentleman in bringing this motion to the floor could apply to 
helping our farmers seek and gain prosperity? Should we not be devoting 
some of the time as to the farmer on determining whether or not we 
should support the President in his trade authority to Fast Track 
Authority, so that our farmers can see expanded markets all over the 
world? That is what our farmers want.
  Of course, they want a fail-safe net of bankruptcy in case they go 
into distress, but more than that, they want expanded markets; and we 
should be supporting a motion to send a message to the Senate that they 
ought to act on trade authority for the President so that he can help 
our farmers by expanding markets. That is even more important than the 
safety net which we all agree should be in place, but we want to 
prevent every single farmer in our country from going bankrupt by 
expanding markets.
  Moreover, is it not just as worthy a venture on our part to come to 
the floor here and to talk about the elimination of death taxes? The 
farmer in our every district is pining for the day when death taxes 
will be eliminated, because the very future of the family farm rests on 
whether or not they can pass on green land to their successors rather 
than have to dispose of it, the heirs, in order to pay off the death 
taxes. That is a worthy debate that we ought to have on this floor, not 
to only worry about the farmer in distress but to take steps to make a 
farmer prosperous, to make sure if we can that he will never have to 
face bankruptcy. If he does, we are there to help.
  We are asking our colleagues to help, help the farmer prosper so that 
he never has to face bankruptcy. We ought to be discussing a motion to 
send a signal to the Senate to act on elimination of death taxes, to 
act on Fast Track Authority for the President as real antidotes for the 
plight of the farmer, not to predict the future of bankruptcy, but to 
predict the future of prosperity and success for our family farmer.
  We ought to be coming back to this floor as soon as we can and making 
an impassioned plea to Senator Daschle, if I could use his name 
appropriately, and to the leadership in the Senate to act on the 
elimination of death taxes. That will help the farmer. That will help 
the family farmer. That will help our free flow of farm goods to all 
the markets of the world; and at the same time, we should be devoting 
some time, not just on bankruptcy, not just the distress of a farmer, 
but the success of the farmer that can come from expanding markets in 
China and in the world community eager to trade with the United States.
  I am for this motion. My goodness am I for this motion, but I dread 
the thought of bankruptcy for a farmer. I want to help him escape 
bankruptcy. I want him to know that this Congress is helping him in the 
prospect of eliminating death taxes. I want the farmer to know that, 
while we are going to protect him if he goes into bankruptcy, heaven 
knows we will do that. We have been trying for 5 years.
  We have never had one moment of consideration of the bankruptcy 
reform bill in which we did not consider the plight of the farmer in 
distress; but my goodness, we ought to be discussing just as fulsomely 
the prospect of eliminating the death taxes and at the same time 
granting the President Fast Track Authority to open the markets of the 
world to the farmer who wants to till, not to fail, who wants to work, 
not to go into bankruptcy.
  We do not want one single farmer to go into bankruptcy. We want fast 
track. We want elimination of death taxes, to help all the farm 
communities gain prosperity and avoid bankruptcy.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). Members are reminded to avoid 
mentioning individual members of the other body and to urge Senate 
action or inaction.
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  That is all wonderful and we have heard this rhetoric before. I hold 
in my hand the Congressional Record of both February and June of last 
year where the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) addresses this very 
item; and yet we are still talking about helping bankrupt farmers, 
possibly having the tools they need to get back to the table with their 
creditors. Sure, all this other stuff we are talking about, global and 
marketing and how we can help the farmer, what about now? Why are we 
still delaying this?
  I hope to see the improvements enacted into law that the gentleman 
talked about, Mr. Speaker. While we are waiting, farmers do not even 
have the protections in current law. We cannot let the perfect be the 
enemy of the good. If Congress later passes a bill that improves 
Chapter 12, so much the better; but we need the protections of current 
law now. Adopting this and making Chapter 12 permanent will not prevent 
us from improving it later.
  Like the chairman, I supported House Resolution 333, and I am not 
trying to derail it. I am just trying to put some real teeth into what 
we promised could be helpful to those farmers who may be looking at a 
planting season or possibly facing bankruptcy, wondering whether they 
should go ahead and plant with the promises of maybe next year, if they 
have a good crop year, they can have these tools that we promised them; 
and then perhaps then we will still talk about like we have been, since 
last year, have this same record of rhetoric and the farmer is even in 
deeper hock then, another year, because what he was promised did not 
materialize. This is something that I think we can accept and must move 
forward.
  Farming, Mr. Speaker, is everybody's business; and we ignore the 
plight of our family farmer at our own peril. Unfortunately, that is 
exactly what Congress has done. Chapter 12 was enacted in 1986. There 
was some questions whether it would work properly so Congress made it 
temporary.
  The idea behind Chapter 12 is straightforward. Other forms of 
bankruptcy relief are either too costly or do not fit the particular 
circumstances of a family farm. They own lots of equipment, they had 
lots of debt, they have their knowledge of the land handed down through 
the generations, and they have nothing to offer but the sweat of their 
brow. Unfortunately, because a family farm is not Enron or Kmart or Pan 
Am, Chapter 11 will not work when they try to propose a plan to repay 
their debts because of something called the ``absolute priority rule.'' 
I am sure everybody out there in the land knows about that.
  As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the hard work of a family farm 
does not count when they propose a plan to repay their debts and still 
hold on to their farm equipment. The general rules of bankruptcy 
reorganization are not designed to preserve a family farm as a going 
concern, and they do not accomplish that goal in fact.
  In 1997, the National Bankruptcy Review Commission recommended that 
Chapter 12 be made permanent. Shortly thereafter, a bipartisan bill 
sponsored by Senators Daschle and Grassley, who do not always find much 
to agree on by the way, introduced legislation to do so. Both the House 
and Senate have included language in their bankruptcy bill that would 
make Chapter 12 permanent and make further improvements to it so that 
more farmers would be eligible.
  These are all wonderful developments my colleagues speak about; but 
here we are nearly 5 years later with no Chapter 12, and let me repeat, 
there is no Chapter 12. Not only has Congress failed to make it 
permanent, but the efforts to extend it and keep it in effect have been 
stymied. Chapter 12 relief has been legally unavailable since October 
1st of last year. There is no excuse for this.
  We have been told repeatedly that the bankruptcy bill will pass any 
day now, and I am supportive. Bring it on. We have been told to wait 
patiently. We have been told that help is on the way, that the 
legislation we need is

[[Page 4165]]

moving like lightning. Well, in southern Illinois, Mr. Speaker, in my 
part of the country, lightning strikes quickly. One does not have to 
wait around 5 years waiting for it to hit.
  I understand the concern of the proponents of the bankruptcy bill. 
This is popular and people need it. We give up a nice sweetener in the 
bill. I voted for that bill, but enough is enough. We have the chance 
to protect family farmers now. We cannot wait for lightning to strike 
or pie to fall from the sky.
  For those of my colleagues who are concerned that bankruptcy would do 
more for Chapter 12 farmers, I would point out that passing a permanent 
Chapter 12 bill as part of the farm bill will not stop us from doing 
more later should the bankruptcy bill pass. If it does pass, those 
extra protections would be added to the law and farmers would benefit.
  Let us not hold family farmers hostage while the bankruptcy bill 
lumbers through the process. It has been about to pass for the last 5 
years. Family farmers cannot any longer wait. I urge my colleagues to 
let our farmers go. Support the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the impassioned speech by the gentleman from Illinois. I 
am afraid he has forgotten a couple of things as he has been talking 
about how good Chapter 12 is.
  First of all, Congress did pass an extension of Chapter 12. It was by 
a voice vote in this House and an overwhelming vote in the Senate as a 
part of a bankruptcy reform bill, and Chapter 12 would be permanent 
today if it were not for the fact that President Clinton pocket vetoed 
the Bankruptcy Reform Act in the last Congress; and in this Congress, 
the House has been attempting to reach a compromise with the other body 
in the bankruptcy conference.
  We sent a proffer to the Senate in February to resolve all of the 
outstanding issues, and the other body rejected it. So there has not 
been any negligence on the part of the House of Representatives in 
reaching a conclusion on this. We still continue our negotiations. The 
people on the other side of the Capitol are bringing additional issues 
that were not considered in either House that we continue negotiating.
  One of my top priorities this year is to get a bankruptcy bill passed 
and signed into law that will help out everybody in this country, not 
just the 383 people who filed for Chapter 12 in the year 2001.
  I need the gentleman's help in getting an overall bankruptcy reform 
bill passed. Again, I do not have a problem with his motion to 
instruct, but I hope and pray that the effect of that motion to 
instruct is not to unravel all of the popular items out of a bankruptcy 
reform bill so that we do not pass an overall bankruptcy reform bill 
and get it signed into law.
  Last year, bankruptcy wrote off $44 billion of debt of bankrupts and 
that has increased the cost of goods and services by approximately $400 
for the average American family from Maine to California, and it seems 
to me that we should not be letting people who use bankruptcy as a 
financial planning tool off the hook because that ends up being a tax 
increase on the overwhelming majority of the American people who pay 
their debts as agreed, and that is the issue in bankruptcy reform; and 
that is why we have got to keep all the cars on the train so that we 
can get this passed and relieve the American people of having to pay 
the debts of those that use bankruptcy as a financial planning tool.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to instruct, but let us keep our 
eye on the ball.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman's leadership in this field, and 
I have observed the gentleman very closely since I have been here. I 
know the gentleman is dedicated to passing legislation that will help 
all those who are facing bankruptcy have the tools to properly deal 
with it.
  I know that the voice vote that the gentleman has mentioned, we have 
had it twice since October in this House, yet we are facing the same 
situation for those farmers who are wanting the assistance that we can 
provide them, and they are asking what is the problem. I am here trying 
to cheer this on because I feel we are at a critical point in time as 
our conferees are discussing the farm bill. As a member of the 
Committee on Agriculture, I am trying to help farmers in my district, 
knowing what is at stake.
  Family farmers work hard and play by the rules, and they are wanting 
the proper rules in place so they can repay their debts. Chapter 12 
provides them with breathing room and an ability to repay their 
creditors. Family farmers are the proudest people I have ever met. They 
do not want debts hanging over their heads. They want to get it off the 
books. They want the tools to work with it. They know that we have it 
promised, and they know that we say it is forthcoming, and every year 
for the last 5 years we will hand them the resources so they know where 
they are at and how they can plan.
  Sure, the estate tax needs to be repealed. I was a cosponsor and 
voted for it, but I feel like we played some gimmickry in the bill that 
put it 10 years down the road rather than repeal it immediately, but 
that is another matter.
  We are here before family farmers, saying we have the equipment to 
give them to sit down with their creditors, renegotiate, possibly get 
by another planting season, and to save the family farm. I am trying to 
do this on behalf of my family farmers who are struggling in the 19th 
Congressional District in southern Illinois, one of the highest 
unemployment areas of the Nation.
  We have it ready to give to them. What is the hold-up? If the 
bankruptcy bill passes, and all of the other obtrusive things that may 
come about, we can deal with in that bill. We have people that are 
equipped and have experience to negotiate what is proper. It is time to 
close on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, sometimes I am not too good on 
politics, but I like to think that I am good on policy. I think both 
sides have decided it is good policy to have this kind of bankruptcy 
provision for American agriculture.
  Just briefly, let me explain what it does. It says to farmers that 
instead of going into a separate chapter, we are going to have a 
provision where they do not have to sell their tractor, plow, and tools 
in order to try to come back and try to resolve their indebtedness 
problems, but we are going to give farmers a little leeway so they do 
not have to sell their equipment, which is the only way they are going 
to be able to survive and reconstruct their business.
  The concept of this direction to conferees is good. It is something 
that needs to be done. I am going to vote for it. I think the politics 
might be that it is an extra, for lack of a better word, inspiration 
for the conferees on the bankruptcy bill to move ahead with that bill.
  But American agriculture right now has real problems. There are 
individuals who have filed bankruptcy. The bankruptcy courts are 
waiting in hopes that this will be changed into law so that they can 
refile and allow these farmers to refile under Chapter 12 provisions. 
Chapter 12 allows some of the farmers who are hard pressed, and it is 
mostly the smaller farmers who have been forced through government 
programs and low commodity prices to give up farms which have been in 
their family for generations.
  I hope my colleagues will support this instruction, because I think 
it is important that we move ahead with this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and I have 
introduced three bills. Two of them have been passed. One is in the 
wings, waiting now to at least have a temporary

[[Page 4166]]

continuation of the Chapter 12 provision for farmers.
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership in this area 
and for his support for the motion. And I would add, the gentleman is 
good on politics or he would not be here.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement with my good 
friend from Wisconsin, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that 
this motion to instruct House Conferees on H.R. 2646 to accept section 
1071 of the Senate amendment could negatively affect the good progress 
that has been made in the bankruptcy conference. The bankruptcy 
conference has been dragging on for too long, and it is time for the 
bankruptcy bill Conferees to finish the handful of outstanding issues 
so this important conference report can be brought back to the House 
for approval.
  In addition, however, I am aware of the immediate need for 
Congressional action with respect to Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code 
relating to farm bankruptcies. This section has been expired since 
October of last year, and has negatively impacted many farmers and 
ranchers across the country. An expedient solution to this dilemma is 
required. I am also aware of the broad support in the House for a 
solution.
  At this moment, we are working very hard in the conference on H.R. 
2646 to find consensus on all outstanding issues, and I am hopeful that 
we can complete work on the farm bill.
  Knowing Chairman Sensenbrenner's concerns about section 1071 of the 
Senate amendment and recognizing that the bankruptcy conference could 
also be completed any day now, I am ready and willing to work with my 
good friend from Wisconsin to find a resolution to this issue in a 
manner that he would find acceptable.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Motion to Instruct 
Conferees.
  This instruction to accept the Senate language to make permanent 
Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, is not only a prudent measure of 
sound public policy, but it is also a reaffirmation of at least 4 
separate votes we have cast in the 107th Congress to help out the 
family farmer.
  That's right, 4 times in this Congress, we have voted to sustain the 
opportunity for family farmers who are down on their luck to reorganize 
and thus preserve their farms through a streamlined expedited 
bankruptcy process. In each of those 4 times, the vote was 
overwhelming.
  In rollcall vote 17 on February 28, 2001, we voted 408-2 to pass H.R. 
256, the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Relief Act. That bill, introduced by 
the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Smith, extended Chapter 12 through 
June 1, 2001.
  The very next day, in rollcall vote 25, we voted 306-108 to pass H.R. 
333, the Bankruptcy reform bill introduced by my friend from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas. That bill included a permanent extension of 
Chapter 12.
  Skip ahead to June 5, 2001. After having let Chapter 12 expire for 4 
days, in rollcall vote 153, we voted 411-1 to extend the provision 
another few months through October 1, 2001.
  Last July, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin proposed a 
Motion to Instruct the Conferees of the bankruptcy bill to accept the 
Senate language making the Chapter 12 extension permanent. We passed 
that motion by voice vote.
  Mr. Speaker, October 1, 2001 has come and gone, and the provision has 
expired yet again, leaving family farmers in the lurch yet again. Some 
of my friends on the other side have held efforts to extend Chapter 12 
hostage in hopes of providing momentum for conference action on H.R. 
333, the bankruptcy reform bill.
  H.R. 333 is a good bill and a fair bill. I am proud to have voted for 
it and proud to be a cosponsor. But the bill remains stalled in 
conference, just like it did in the 106th Congress, and it doesn't seem 
likely it will conclude any time soon.
  So, if you voted yes on any one of the 4 occasions I mentioned here--
and I don't believe there is anyone among us who hasn't voted yes at 
least once--then there isn't any reason why you shouldn't support this 
motion to instruct.
  We have a chance to make Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code permanent.
  Vote for this Motion to Instruct.
  Mr. Phelps. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 424, 
nays 3, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 86]

                               YEAS--424

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows

[[Page 4167]]


     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--3

     Flake
     Paul
     Rohrabacher

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Blagojevich
     Fattah
     Gordon
     Levin
     Pryce (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Traficant

                              {time}  1444

  Mr. FLAKE and Mr. PAUL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________