section 302, but to preempt it. The debtors argue that precluding conversion of pending cases defeats the purpose of the 1986 Act, pointing to legislative history indicating that the Act was meant to give relief to farm families in economic crisis. See, e.g., 132 Cong.Rec. H9001 (daily ed. Oct. 2, 1986) (remarks of Mr. Synar). However, the purpose of giving farm families relief is not inconsistent with a decision to make the provisions of the new chapter available only in cases filed after the effective date of the Act. Congress could rationally have chosen to avoid disrupting the progress of pending cases, while finding it preferable to change the law governing future cases. Cf. Central Trust Co. v. Official Creditors’ Committee, 454 U.S. 354, 102 S.Ct. 695, 70 L.Ed.2d 542 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Congress’ general intent to give farm
holding to the effect that a court must consider section 24 fifth in conjunction with the antidiscrimination provisions of the bankruptcy reform act of 1978 as amended which are codified at title 11 of the united states code holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective holding the broad jurisdictional grant given the bankruptcy courts under the 1978 bankruptcy act unconstitutional holding that the bankruptcy reform act effectively overruled wrenn holding that the bankruptcy reform act of 1978 publ no 95598 92 stat 2549 precluded dismissal of cases pending before enactment of the reform act in order to refile under the act