Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeships Extension Act of 2011

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1021) to prevent the termination of the temporary office of bankruptcy judges in certain judicial districts, as amended.

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 materials on H.R. 1021, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

One of the results of a slack economy is that more individuals and businesses have filed for bankruptcy. In fact, over the past 3 years, the number of bankruptcy petitions filed in bankruptcy courts has doubled. While recent data show that the volume of cases is beginning to subside, our bankruptcy judges remain hard at work.

Bankruptcy judges are critical to the operation of our Federal bankruptcy courts. The important bankruptcy reforms Congress passed in 2005, for example, called on judges to do more to help prevent bankruptcy abuse; and large, complex chapter 11 cases, like the recently filed mega-case of American Airline, are time intensive for our bankruptcy judges.

In the last Congress, the Judiciary Committee reported a bankruptcy judgeships bill that would have created new permanent judgeships, converted temporary judgeships to permanent status, and extended temporary judgeships. The House passed that bill, but it did not pass the Senate.

As a result, several temporary judgeships are in danger of being unable to be refilled if there is a vacancy. But the need for bankruptcy judges remains high.

I introduced the legislation under consideration with the ranking member of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, Steve Cohen, the chairman of that subcommittee, Howard Coble, and the ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee, John Conyers.

This bill permits 23 temporary bankruptcy judgeships in judicial districts throughout the country to be filled if there is a judgeship vacancy in those districts during the next 5 years as a result of a judge's death, removal, retirement, or resignation.

Congress should ensure there are enough bankruptcy judges to handle the increased caseloads as a result of the recession; but Congress should also conserve Federal resources and conduct periodic oversight of judicial caseloads. H.R. 1021 authorizes a 5-year extension, which preserves Congress's ability to reassess the need for bankruptcy judges in a few years.

Time is of the essence. I urge the Senate also to act quickly on this measure so that our bankruptcy system may continue to operate with speed and efficiency.

I want to thank the bill's cosponsors for their bipartisan support.

One of the results of the slack economy is that more individuals and businesses have filed for bankruptcy. In fact, over the past three years, the number of bankruptcy petitions filed in bankruptcy courts has doubled. While recent data show that the volume of cases is beginning to subside, our bankruptcy judges remain hard at work.

Bankruptcy judges are critical to the operation of our federal bankruptcy courts. The important bankruptcy reforms Congress passed in 2005, for example, called on judges to do more to help prevent bankruptcy abuse. And large, complex chapter 11 cases, like the recently filed mega-case of American Airlines, are time-intensive for our bankruptcy judges.

However, no new bankruptcy judgeships have been created since 2005. At that time, Congress created temporary judgeships so that it could periodically review the caseloads in each district and assess whether the temporary judgeship was still needed. Permanent judgeships have not been authorized since 1992.

Every two years, the Judicial Conference of the United States publishes a report to Congress that details the judicial needs of each district. The Conference evaluates need based on a ``weighted caseload'' analysis. The 2011 weighted caseload statistics demonstrate that judges are desperately needed in many districts.

In the last Congress, the Judiciary Committee reported a bankruptcy judgeships bill that would have created new permanent judgeships, converted temporary judgeships to permanent status and extended temporary judgeships. The House passed that bill but it did not pass the Senate.

As a result, several temporary judgeships are in danger of being unable to be refilled if there is a vacancy. But the need for bankruptcy judges remains high.

I introduced the legislation under consideration with the Ranking Member of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, Steve Cohen; the Chairman of that subcommittee, Howard Coble; and the Ranking Member of the full Judiciary Committee, John Conyers.

This bill permits 23 temporary bankruptcy judgeships in judicial districts throughout the country to be filled if there is a judgeship vacancy in those districts during the next five years as a result of a judge's death, removal, retirement or resignation.

Congress should ensure there are enough bankruptcy judges to handle the increased caseloads as a result of the recession. But Congress should also conserve federal resources and conduct periodic oversight of judicial caseloads. H.R. 1021 authorizes a 5-year extension, which preserves Congress's ability to reassess the need for bankruptcy judges in a few years.

The relief a debtor receives from the bankruptcy system is extraordinary; they either reorganize their debts on more favorable terms or they get a complete discharge of all their prepetition debts. All except the poorest of debtors pay a fee to file a bankruptcy case and receive these benefits.

I believe it is fair to use debtors' filing fees to pay for the costs associated with our bankruptcy judges. This legislation, as amended, raises the filing fee on chapter 11 reorganization cases from $1000 to $1042--a modest 4 percent increase. As a result, this bill does not increase direct spending by the federal government.

Time is of the essence. I urge the Senate also to act quickly on this measure so that our bankruptcy system may continue to operate with speed and efficiency.

I thank the bill's cosponsors for their bipartisan support.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, December 5, 2011.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing concerning H.R. 1021, as

amended, the ``Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeships Extension Act

of 2011,'' which is scheduled for Floor consideration the

week of December 5, 2011.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means maintains

jurisdiction over revenue measures generally. H.R. 1021, as

amended, contains a provision that raises revenue by

increasing the Chapter 11 filing fees for the operation and

maintenance of the courts of the United States, which falls

within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

In order to expedite this bill for Floor consideration, the

Committee will forgo action on the bill. This is being done

with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice

the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or

its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar

legislation in the future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 1021, as amended, and

would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this

matter be included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1021, the Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeships Extension Act of 2011, sponsored by my good friend Representative Smith of Texas, who is also the chair of the Judiciary Committee, which I am pleased to serve on.

I would point out how ironic it is because we are now in the 336th day of this reign of the Tea Party Republican Party, which is unalterably linked with the notorious Grover Norquist and his tax pledge, his pledge to not raise taxes. We're getting ready, Mr. Speaker, to get to the end of this year, and we still have 160 million Americans at risk of suffering a tax increase, $1,000 a person on average. I don't know how many millions of dollars that would take out of consumers' pockets. And I don't hear Grover Norquist or the Tea Party Republicans crying about that. If it's the middle class, the working people tax increase, it's okay. If it is the top 1 percent making over a million bucks a year, then ``you can't touch this.'' Well, I think the American people know that it's ``hammer time'' out here. It's time for there to be justice and fairness for all under the law. And it's ironic we need these bankruptcy court judges' tenures to be extended, as this Act would allow, because there's going to be more bankruptcies filed.

Just $1,000 can push a person over the edge in terms of their solvency. People are now just living paycheck to paycheck, hand-to- mouth, trying to determine whether or not we're going to pay the light bill or whether or not we're going to get the medication that we need in order to be healthy. People are deciding whether or not to pay the gas bill or whether or not they're going to be able to eat more than ramen noodles every night for the month. So $1,000 means a lot. It may not mean a lot to a millionaire, one of those top 1 percent that my Tea Party Republican friends so heartily support, but it will hurt the little man and woman and their families, especially at Christmas time.

At a time when the corporate chieftains are getting their bonuses, multimillion-dollar bonuses based on increased profits, we're still left on December 6 with people being worried about whether or not they're going to suffer a tax increase on January 1. So let's not impose an average $1,000--actually, $1,500; let's not impose the threat of a $1,500 tax increase on the middle class and working people by failing to do what we should have done much earlier. There's no reason why we have not done this, why we have not expanded the payroll tax cut that was enacted last year. Let's keep that $1,500 in the pockets of the average middle class family. Let's try to keep down the need for people to go into bankruptcy court. Let's at some point let it expire, the number of bankruptcy court judges temporarily serving.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the excellent description of the chairman, Lamar Smith, on H.R. 1021, the Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeships Extension Act. This is a very bipartisan piece of legislation, extending by 5 years the authorizations for 30 temporary bankruptcy judges in more than 20 judicial districts around the country.

I might point out that we're not adding bankruptcy judges; and, Members of the House, that's what we ought to be doing, really, instead of just continuing the same number. We need

more. Why? Because bankruptcy judges are needed more than ever.

The bankruptcy filings have increased during the worst economic downturn the Nation has experienced since the Great Depression because long-term high unemployment rates and reduced incomes have sent more people into the bankruptcy court, because of the continuing mortgage foreclosure crisis which has affected so many people, and the increasingly onerous credit card obligations, and the sky-high student loans that are being collected on, and the uninsured medical debt.

Last year 1.6 million bankruptcy cases were filed, representing a more than 8 percent increase over the prior years. Two of the Nation's largest automobile manufacturers in Detroit, General Motors and Chrysler, filed for bankruptcy relief under chapter 11. These two cases alone involved billions of dollars, tens of thousands of workers, thousands of auto dealers, and thousands of creditors located in all parts of our Nation. Just last month, American Airlines filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief, and the national bookstore chain Borders filed last month.

A third factor must be kept in mind: that while we maintain the status quo, more needs to be done. Bankruptcy courts have been performing admirably but under critical strain. So while the bankruptcy courts' workload increases, judicial resources are, in fact, diminishing. And that's why we're authorizing new judicial membership in the bankruptcy courts in the coming year, if everything works out as we anticipate.

Right now, though, we merely ask the House of Representatives to support the bill that I and Chairman Smith have cosponsored which would maintain the new judges that are on the bench but will not add any more.

I urge your support for the additional judgeships.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hank Johnson, a member of the committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Coons on the passage of legislation that will reauthorize 30 temporary bankruptcy judgeships in districts around the country. I was pleased to support Senator Coons' very strong and persistent efforts on this important legislation. The Judiciary Committee reported this legislation favorably on December 15, 2011. I am glad to see the Senate finally being allowed to act.

The bill we pass today, when enacted, will reauthorize 30 temporary judgeships in 14 States and Puerto Rico. All of these positions have already expired, and without this legislation, upon retirement or departure of the judges in these positions, they could not be filled again. Needlessly reducing the resources of our bankruptcy courts does nothing but put more pressure on Americans who are already navigating a difficult economic environment. This legislation should help avoid that and provide some small degree of relief to overburdened bankruptcy courts around the country. Quite frankly, I think we should be doing more.

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I will note one concern with the legislation the Senate passes today. In order to secure passage of this legislation, Senator Coburn insisted upon adding a section to the bill that purports to tell future Senate and House Judiciary Committees how to conduct their business. Senator Coburn's amendment would dictate that before any of these 30 judgeships could be reauthorized again, the Senate and House Judiciary Committee's would be required to take certain steps and require a report from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO). As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Coburn knows this is precisely what committees do in the ordinary course of the consideration of legislation, and what was done during the development of this legislation. Senator Coons worked with the AO, which made recommendations, and with bankruptcy judges in a variety of districts to determine where need was greatest. To codify an unenforceable mandate nominally imposed on future Congresses is unnecessary and unwise.

I thank and congratulate Senator Coons for his hard work and attention to this issue. This would not be passing without his diligence, focus, and legislative skill. He has done what has seemed impossible.

I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1021.

I ask unanimous consent that a Coons amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.