Providing for Consideration of S. 1920, Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2003

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 1920, BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2003 -- (House of Representatives - January 28, 2004)

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

-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-

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 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.