[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 117 (Tuesday, September 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9951-S9955]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to again express my
disappointment in the refusal of Members on the other side of the aisle
to allow the Senate to proceed to S. 1301, the Consumer Bankruptcy
Reform Act of 1998.
This is a very important piece of legislation, and it will be an
enormous disservice to the American people if we fail to act on it this
year. We all know the time is short and the schedule is very crowded in
these last few weeks of the session. I just hope that, when the time
comes, my colleagues on the other side will vote for cloture on the
motion to proceed tomorrow and provide the Senate a fair chance to
debate this much-needed legislation. In fact, I hope that they will
waive their filibuster on the motion to proceed and will invoke cloture
on the bill itself, if that is needed.
In recent years, personal bankruptcy filings have reached epidemic
proportions in the United States. We simply cannot afford to continue
down this path because excessive bankruptcy filings harm every one of
us in America. Consumer bankruptcy ends up costing Americans almost $40
billion a year, or roughly $400 per household in this country. The
negative repercussions associated with consumer bankruptcy go far
beyond the debts owed to credit card companies and big businesses.
The reality is, contrary to what the critics of reform would lead us
to believe, this issue profoundly impacts the average American.
Bankruptcies end up harming small business owners, senior citizens who
rely on rental income to supplement their retirements, and of course
members of credit unions. Even the person who files for bankruptcy can
end up being hurt. Some filers, victims of so-called ``bankruptcy
mills,'' are neither apprised of their options nor informed of the
consequences of a bankruptcy filing. Ultimately, they suffer the
consequences of having filed, when a better alternative may have been
available to them.
This legislation is guided by two main principles: No. 1, restoring
personal responsibility in the bankruptcy system; and, No. 2, ensuring
adequate and effective protection for consumers.
There are individuals who can repay some of what they owe but,
instead, choose to use--rather, ``abuse''--the current bankruptcy
system or laws to avoid doing so. The bankruptcy laws need to be
reformed to prevent this from occurring. S. 1301 does this, while
delicately safeguarding the bankruptcy system so that it can provide a
``fresh start'' to those who truly need it.
I note that according to statistics from the American Bankruptcy
Institute, most States in this Union have seen a troubling rise in
bankruptcy filings. This is at a time when our economy has been doing
extremely well. While we must preserve bankruptcy for those who need
it, as legislators we must recognize that there are some unscrupulous
individuals who are able to repay some of what they owe but still use
the current bankruptcy laws to avoid doing so. In fact, to go one step
further, there are some people who can pay all of what they owe but opt
out through the bankruptcy system because of current loopholes in the
law itself.
[[Page S9952]]
This balanced legislation deserves to be considered. It is time for
the Senate to act on this legislation. We should not derail the fair
and balanced reforms proposed by this bill due to petty, partisan
politics. I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will
vote to allow the Senate to proceed to S. 1301 tomorrow. Furthermore, I
hope once we proceed to the bankruptcy legislation, they will not
prevent its passage by attempts to offer extraneous, politically
motivated amendments, all of which we are used to at this time of the
year but which I hope will not be the case on this particular bill, as
important as it is. There will be no greater failure to discharge our
duty as Senators if this legislation is held hostage for petty
political purposes or the petty political politics of the few.
It is time to debate this bill, debate any relevant amendments, and
it is time to vote on it. In the interests of all Americans and the
future of our economy, we need to end these partisan efforts to delay
consideration of this bankruptcy reform legislation. It is time to
fulfill our commitment to the American people and end the abuse of the
bankruptcy system and its attendant $400 tax on every American family.
Finally, I want to pay particular tribute to the distinguished
Senator from Iowa who has handled this matter through the Subcommittee
on the Courts and Administrative Oversight. He has brought it through
the full committee and on to the floor of the Senate, with the help of
some of the rest of us, but he has done a particularly good job on this
bill.
Yes, there are things that perhaps need to be corrected and might
need to be changed. Both Senator Grassley and I have been open to
changes and good ideas to improve this bill. And when and if we finally
get to debate this bill, we will remain open to new ideas. But the fact
of the matter is, it is very difficult to get a bill of this magnitude
through without listening to everybody and paying attention to
everybody's ideas. I think the distinguished Senator from Iowa has done
an excellent job in doing exactly that. I am very proud of the work he
has done. It is just typical of his service here in the Senate that he
not only grabs the bull by the horns, but he gets it done and he does
the things that really have to be done. He is a very valued member of
the Judiciary Committee, and is certainly valued by me, personally. I
just want him to know how much I appreciate the work he has done on
this legislation.
There are others, as well, including the distinguished Senator from
Illinois, on other side of the floor. I hope he will counsel the people
on his side of the floor to quit playing games with this important
bill. He has worked very hard on this bill as well and deserves a lot
of credit for how far we have come on this. I hope that with the
leadership of these two fine Senators, Members on both sides of the
aisle will realize how important this legislation truly is. If we can
get this up through cloture, I have no doubt this will pass
overwhelmingly on the floor because it is that important. It is that
well done. It has the kind of backing that really it needs from the
people at large in the country, on all sides of the spectrum. It is the
type of legislation where literally all of us can go home and say we
did the right thing.
There is no question that we have to go to conference should we pass
this bill. Hopefully, through that process, we can perfect both the
House bill and this bill even more than we have right now. But the fact
is, these leaders on the committee have done a very, very good job in
getting it to this point, and I compliment them for it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might
consume. I thank the Senator from Utah, the chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, not only for the kind remarks he made about my
participation in this process on the bankruptcy law, but also to say
that it would not have been possible to get it out of the Judiciary
Committee without some compromises, which he helped shape in the
process, and also in making it a better bill as well. So this is a
cooperative effort not only in the subcommittee, but also at the full
committee level. The 16-2 vote by which the bill was voted out of
committee, I think, speaks better than anything I can say or even that
the Senator from Utah can say about how badly needed this legislation
is and what a significant compromise it is in order to get that type of
a margin out of the Judiciary Committee, which the chairman has already
referred to as a committee that can be very controversially oriented
from time to time. This is a piece of legislation that speaks to how
cooperative that committee can be when the need calls for it to be.
Mr. President, as I recall, we are in a situation on this floor where
there was an objection to the bill coming up. So the distinguished
Senate majority leader had to move that this bill be brought up. So we
have a debate going on now on a motion to proceed that is fairly
uncharacteristic of most processes of moving legislation on the floor
of the Senate. So I want to use this opportunity that we have of the
Senate deciding whether or not we should even debate the merits of this
bill to once again give reasons to my colleagues why we should move
beyond the motion to proceed to actual consideration of this
legislation. We will have that vote, as I am going to refer to in a
minute, hopefully tomorrow.
So I rise today to speak again on the importance and the need--the
very justified need--for fundamental bankruptcy reform. Last week, as I
stated, a member of the minority party objected to allowing the Senate
to consider this bill that was voted out of committee 16-2--even to
debate it. Tomorrow, we are set to vote on whether to proceed to the
bankruptcy bill. If we don't have a positive vote on this, then
bankruptcy will not be on the agenda this session. It is badly needed
legislation. It would be a sad consequence of that vote to not be able
to move forward.
In my view, the fact that there is an objection to even considering
bankruptcy reform shows just how scared and how reactionary the
opponents of bankruptcy reform are. The opponents of reform know that
the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act will pass overwhelmingly if allowed
to come to a straight vote. I think hearing the distinguished chairman
of the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Hatch, say that just a few minutes
ago fortifies what I have just said.
The opponents of reform know that the polls are absolutely clear on a
broad public support for bankruptcy reform. There is no way that a
minority of the Senate can fool 68 percent of the people nationally who
say that we need bankruptcy reform. And there is no way that a minority
of the Senate can fool 78 percent of the people of my State of Iowa who
were surveyed in a poll on the need and their support for bankruptcy
reform. So the American people know that our bankruptcy system is, in
fact, out of control. Obviously, the people know that it is out of
control much more than even a small minority of the minority in this
body know it is out of control. If they know it is out of control and
badly in need of reform, they would let us proceed to this bill. So I
hope that Congress will respond to what the people want and move
forward to consider and pass--pass overwhelmingly, as it did out of
committee--the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act. That is what
representative democracy is all about.
As I said on Thursday of last week when we were set to take up the
bankruptcy reform bill, the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform bill is a
bipartisan piece of legislation which passed out of the Judiciary
Committee by an overwhelming vote of 16-2. The goal of the bill is
simple and it is important: to restore personal responsibility to our
bankruptcy law, and to put an end to the many bankruptcies of
convenience which are filed every year in the United States.
In recent years, the number of bankruptcies has, in fact, very much
skyrocketed. Every year since 1994, records have been broken in terms
of the number of bankruptcies filed. Now we are at the point that we
had 1.4 million personal bankruptcies in 1997. So if this trend
continues, Mr. President, we must all shudder to think about the harm
to our economy and to the moral fabric of our Nation--to the economy,
with $40 billion of costs. There is no free lunch when it comes to
bankruptcy. There might be for the person
[[Page S9953]]
that declares bankruptcy, but as we know, in our society, somebody
pays; $40 billion is being paid by somebody in America and that figures
out to about $400 per family of four in America per year. Just think of
that. You, Mr. President, could be spending $400 less for your goods
and services if we did not have this high number of bankruptcies that
we have.
But more important, what does it do to the moral fabric of our great
country when, somehow, you can live high on the hog and not worry about
who is going to pay for it. You don't have to; you go into bankruptcy
and somebody else pays for it. There ought to be, and is, a rule for
America which is that we all ought to be personally responsible for the
actions we take. That is applicable not just to moral issues of family
and marriage, but it also involves the economic world we are in as
well, and that is, in fact, if you enjoy something, you want to pay for
it.
The interesting and alarming thing is that this unprecedented
increase in bankruptcy filings comes at a time when our economy has
been generally healthy. Disposable income is up, unemployment is low,
and interest rates are low. There is something that just doesn't make
sense about this situation. Common sense and basic economics say that
when the economy flourishes, bankruptcies should not be so high.
I had an opportunity over the weekend to look at an old U.S. News and
World Report from 1991 with the predictions of the decade of the 1990s
coming up. At the time that magazine came out, we were in the middle of
the recession of 1990. That recession was caused by one of the big tax
increases that President Bush proposed. It wasn't quite as big as the
tax increase that President Clinton got through in 1993, which was the
biggest tax increase in the history of the world, but that tax increase
had a detrimental impact on the economy and we were in a recession--
recession that, thank God, we have had years of recovery since without
going into another recession.
But in that magazine it made light of the fact that there was a
135,000 increase in personal bankruptcies that year because of the
recession. That is when we had the number of personal bankruptcies well
below 800,000 at that particular time.
Let's just think. There is going to be a recession around the corner
someday, hopefully not for 3 or 4 years down the road, as the economy
is going fairly strong. But it could be happening within a year from
now if things in Southeast Asia and Russia don't turn around, maybe,
and as the stock market is also indicating. We would be thinking in
terms of half a million to 1 million bankruptcies just because of the
economy turning south, if we are concerned about 135,000 increases in
bankruptcies in the year 1990 as an example.
It is an unprecedented time in our economy. Why is it an
unprecedented time, then, for the number of personal bankruptcy
filings? I don't know. I have said how it could be related to the
bank's sending out so many credit cards for people to be invited into
more debt. It could be because the Federal Government had 30 years of
deficit spending. Hopefully, we have that behind us now with this year
paying down $63 billion on the national debt for the first time in 30
years. It could be because the bankruptcy bar is very loose in their
advice, or the lack of advice, on whether people ought to go into
bankruptcy or not. There doesn't seem to be the shame that is connected
with bankruptcy as there used to be. There is probably a lot of other
reasons. At least we have those reasons to consider and those reasons
to deal with. Another reason is the 1978 bankruptcy law that made it
possible to get into bankruptcy. Hopefully, we have that turned around
with the passage of this legislation as well.
In the opinion of this Senator, of course, one of the main bankruptcy
crises is, as I just stated, the overly liberal bankruptcy law of 1978.
Remember, since 1978 I have had hundreds of people tell me it is too
easy to get into bankruptcy. And it shouldn't be that easy. I have not
had one person tell me that it ought to be easier to get into
bankruptcy. And I even have had some people tell me who have been
through bankruptcy that it is too easy to get into bankruptcy. That
sort of attitude of the public is what is behind the 68 percent
nationally and the 78 percent of the people in my State in polls who
say the bankruptcy laws should be reformed.
Quite simply, current law discourages personal responsibility. I want
to say that again. Current law actually discourages personal
responsibility. As a result, bankruptcy has become a first option, not
as a last resort for many with financial difficulties.
Bankruptcy is seen as a quick and easy way of avoiding debt.
Bankruptcy is now a matter of convenience rather than a matter of
necessity. The moral stigma that used to be associated with not being
able to pay your debt is now almost completely gone. I am not saying
that bankruptcy law serves no purpose. On the contrary, the ability to
have a fresh start--or you might say it is a principle of our
bankruptcy law that there are some people who are entitled to a fresh
start--it is a vital part of this American system. It is the right
thing to do in some instances. But what is important is that
we structure our laws so that bankruptcy is available to those who
truly need protection--people who maybe because of natural disaster,
maybe because of a catastrophic illness in their family, maybe because
of even divorce--there are several reasons that have been considered
legitimate. But we want to make sure that this process is not available
to those who want to abuse the system and find an easy irresponsible
way out.
The bill that we will hopefully get to consider after our cloture
vote tomorrow strikes a balance between personal responsibility on the
one hand and giving people an opportunity to get a fresh start who
legitimately deserve it on the other hand. That is why the Judiciary
Committee, which can be very partisan at times, approved this bill by a
vote of 16 to 2. Mr. President, I will have more to say on the problems
with our bankruptcy system if and when we get to consider the
bankruptcy bill.
I want to inform my colleagues about the deceptive practices of
bankruptcy lawyers who dupe unwary consumers into declaring
bankruptcies. The practices of bankruptcy lawyers have become
underhanded so much that the Federal Trade Commission has issued an
alert on that process. And in the process of issuing that order, they
criticized the bankruptcy bar.
If and when we get to consider the bill, I want to talk more about
how my bill enhances collection of child support. The National District
Attorneys Association, as well as numerous other organizations which
collect child support, have written to me to praise this bill--S.
1301--and the innovations in the bill for protecting child support.
Mr. President, supporting this bill is the right thing to do.
Approving a vote tomorrow to move to this bill so it can actually be
considered is the right thing to do, because the American people are
sick and tired of the avoidance of personal responsibility--not only in
the case of bankruptcy but so many other areas. It is one we can do
something about right now through the passage of this legislation.
The other body across the Hill has already passed an even more
sweeping version of bankruptcy reform, and they have done it by a veto-
proof margin. But here we are right now on the floor of the U.S. Senate
fending off a filibuster against bankruptcy reform. After the vote
tomorrow, if we win and can actually go to the debate of S. 1301, I
expect maybe even a second filibuster. I don't think these desperation
tactics work, and particularly in the case of something that is so
badly needed as bankruptcy reform.
It is interesting how the same people who criticize this Congress for
doing anything are the same ones who are blocking positive bankruptcy
reform. I have talked with many of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle. I know there is a real desire to see bankruptcy reform
happen this year. That is why the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act
received such broad bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee.
Quite simply, it is time to restore the sense of personal
responsibility that we Americans are famous for to our bankruptcy law.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed on S. 1301, and
then to support S. 1301 and move to a bill that is going to bring new
penalties for abusive bill collectors; it is going to
[[Page S9954]]
bring new penalties for illegal repossessions; it is going to bring
fines for inflated creditor claims; and it is going to bring penalties
for deceptive credit practices.
It seems to me that is a bill that not only will bring about
bankruptcy reform so that bankruptcy will be used only when people are
really entitled to a fresh start, fitting into a pattern that we have
had in our bankruptcy laws between 1998 and 1978--it has only been in
the last 20 years that this has turned bad--but to discourage
bankruptcy, to reimpose personal responsibility on debt, and that we
also do some things that even give some consumer protection in the
process. I only stress the new consumer protections to make the point
that we are going to have a very balanced piece of legislation pass
this Senate, if we get a chance to vote on it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grassley). The distinguished Senator from
Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to join Senator Hatch in
expressing my admiration and respect for Senator Grassley and the
members of his committee who have worked hard on this bankruptcy reform
legislation. It has obtained almost universal support. It passed the
committee 16 to 2, and it reflects a good step in our public policy.
As Senator Grassley says, the current liberalized bankruptcy law
discourages personal responsibility, that is, it makes it easy and even
encourages persons to avoid their responsibility. That is not good. A
Harvard professor has written a book which talked about how during the
first 150 years of this Nation's existence every law that came up for
consideration was judged on the basis of whether it made our people
more responsible and better citizens. I think that is a goal we have
lost sight of in recent years. What we need to do is make sure our
legislation sets standards that call people to their highest and best
ideals and not dumbing them down and encouraging them to cop out, to
take the easy way out, to avoid their debts when there is no real
justification for it.
Most people may not understand, but a person making $70,000 with
$30,000 in debts can walk into a bankruptcy court in America, at any
place, at any time, and file for bankruptcy. Even though he would be
perfectly able to pay off those debts, he can wipe them all out. This
is true even if, just a few months before, he or she had signed a
promissory note to pay those debts. This behavior vitiates contracts,
and it vitiates responsibility.
So I think, based on the fact that we have had a doubling of
bankruptcy filings in the last decade and we have seen a 60 percent
increase in bankruptcy filings since 1995, we do have a problem in this
country. This is not driven by the economy, because we are in good
economic times. In 1997, however, we now know that $40 billion in
consumer debt was erased by bankruptcy filings in this country.
Where does that debt go? Who pays that debt? What happens to it? It
is passed on to the other American citizens who are in debt but who pay
their debts, who pay their credit card bills, who pay their bank notes.
They have to pay higher interest rates, to the tune of $400 per family
per year, to balance out some of these people who are filing for
bankruptcy but do not deserve it. Many people, a majority of those
filing, do not abuse bankruptcy. But a significant number are abusing
the bankruptcy laws, and we ought to do something about it.
There was a recent article written by former Secretary of the
Treasury Lloyd Bentsen, former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate,
and former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. This is what he
said:
With growing frequency, bankruptcy is being treated as a
first choice rather than a last resort, as a matter of
convenience rather than necessity.
He goes on to note:
A rising tide of bankruptcies will sink all ships and hurt
those who need credit the most, those who have to borrow
money.
People do not understand--and many in this body do not recognize--
that many who have done well, such as a family making $30-$40-$50,000 a
year, will have debts. When they have a car payment that comes up, if
they have an $800 balance on their credit card, those interest points
make a difference to them--whether they pay 15 percent or 18 percent or
19 percent interest.
As former Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton, Senator
Bentsen, said:
In the United States, we believe that through hard work
anyone can become a success. America's bankruptcy laws
reflect a fundamental element of our Nation's entrepreneurial
spirit. Their intent is to ensure a fresh start for those who
try and fail, and they form an important thread in our social
safety net. But when some people systematically abuse the
system at great expense to the rest of the population,
twisting the fresh start into a free ride, Congress must step
in and tighten up the law to protect those who unfairly bear
the cost. When it comes to bankruptcies of convenience, this
time has come.
So I agree; it is a bipartisan issue. Senator Grassley has worked
diligently to gain the broadest possible support. This bill came out of
the Senate Judiciary Committee 16 to 2. A virtually unanimous vote on a
bill of this kind is unusual and should be noted.
Why is it necessary? I want to mention a few things that are in the
bill, and then I want to comment on the unusual and unfortunate
circumstance we are in now in which the minority party is attempting to
block even consideration of the bill that so many of their own members
have already supported in committee. They in fact filibustered the bill
before it could even come to the floor. People say this is a do-nothing
Congress. Maybe they are trying to make it so. This is a good bill. It
has been worked on for several years. It has been improved and refined.
It has very broad support, and we ought to pass it.
These are some of the things it does: It allows creditors, those who
are owed money, and panel trustees to participate in the review of the
debtor's decision to file a chapter 7 instead of a chapter 13.
Most people do not realize that when you go to file bankruptcy, you
have two choices, if you are a normal consumer who is in debt. You can
file under chapter 7--wipe out all your debts and not have to pay
anything. Your money goes into a pot and is divided up on a
proportional basis to creditors, and you walk away free and clear. This
permits a fresh start, which is a great American tradition. We are not
trying to eliminate that at all.
But there is another tradition, too. That is the tradition of chapter
13, which in fact was first created in my home State of Alabama, in
Birmingham, and it is still a very popular alternative there. It
provides the option for a debtor who wants to try to pay back his debt
to do so. The Court approves his plan, and he pays a certain amount of
money into the chapter 13 fund, and it is distributed to his debtors.
They give up the interest rates that they have been charging on it, and
at least they get something back out of it. And this person is able to
be discharged without having filed for bankruptcy because the debts
have, in fact, been honored.
This is a procedure that I think ought to be encouraged. What we are
finding is that in some areas of the country almost nobody files
chapter 13. But it is a high filing issue in Alabama. People want to
pay their debts, and they are taking this option.
So what this bill says is that if a person has $100,000 per year
income and he only owes $30,000 and he wants to file chapter 7, this
will give the creditors a chance to object and say, ``Judge, we think
you ought to review this. He doesn't need this bankruptcy. Why should
he be able to walk away from his debts when people who are making
$30,000, have three kids, and are trying to get by by the skin of their
teeth are paying their debts? Why doesn't he pay his?''
I think that is fundamental, and we need to get away from this
automatic deal in which the filer has total power to choose whether or
not he files under 7 or 13.
The bill also requires consumers to receive information concerning
credit counseling before filing. Many people do not know that there are
tremendous credit counseling centers in almost every community in
America. These persons help the families. This differs from when a
debtor goes in to see a bankruptcy lawyer who simply has his secretary
asks the person to fill out a form. The debtor may not even see the
lawyer; the lawyer has probably hundreds of these cases. The secretary
has
[[Page S9955]]
you fill out a form, and he files a bankruptcy, and he hardly even
talks to the client. That too often happens.
In credit counseling, the person sits down with the credit counselor.
They go over their income. They talk about how they can pay that off.
Maybe the banks or the credit card companies would reduce their
interest rates if the person could make regular payments and not go
into bankruptcy. They help them deal with problems in families such as
gambling addiction. I have been talked to credit counseling people
across this country. They are telling me that gambling is a big factor
driving bankruptcy filings. Maybe Gamblers Anonymous would be the right
thing for them.
Maybe there is a mental health problem, depression in the family or
other things that these people who are not sophisticated in finance did
not know would be available to them to help them overcome their debt
problem. So I think that would be a great thing. It is not going to
eliminate huge numbers of filings, but I assure you, I believe we will
have a number of families helped by this personally, maybe marriages
saved. And it will help them develop a plan to pay off this debt and
avoid the stigma of bankruptcy. It would be a good thing and is an
important part of this bill. I am confident of this because on my study
of this issue. I offered an amendment to this bill which was adopted.
The bill also requires, during bankruptcy, that people who do declare
bankruptcy participate in a debt management class. We found in some
districts as much as 40 percent of the bankruptcy filings are by people
who filed bankruptcy before. We need to educate them on some basic
principles of how to manage their money and hopefully they will not
come back again and other debts will not be abrogated.
This legislation would require debtors to provide more financial
information, including tax returns. It provides for random audits
requiring referrals for possible criminal prosecution. I was a Federal
prosecutor for 15 years and we formed a bankruptcy fraud task force to
deal with this problem. The truth is that there are very, very few
bankruptcy fraud prosecutions in America. This is Federal court. We
expect people to be truthful in what they submit, and those who are not
honest must suffer criminal sanctions, or the word will get out among
the bankruptcy lawyers that it doesn't make any difference and that
nothing will ever happen to you if you are not candid and truthful in
filling out your statements.
It also allows creditors to represent themselves; that is, people to
whom money is owed can go down to bankruptcy court to represent
themselves without a lawyer. The Presiding Officer here today, Senator
Grassley, felt very strongly about that provision. And the truth is, it
is a key issue. If you have a $500 debt owed to the garage, the
furniture store, the jewelry store, or whatever, you may spend that
much on a lawyer to go down there and represent you. What kind of
relief is that, if you cannot go yourself, if you have to spend more on
collection than what you collect? Senator Grassley has been very
steadfast in believing that we need to change that situation. It is a
good step in this bill, because most of these matters are not that
complicated. All you really need is a verified claim from the person
who is owed the debt.
So I believe this bill represents a major step forward. It is a bill
that seeks to lift our standards as Americans to encourage people to
pay their debts if they are able to, to train and educate them so they
will not get in financial trouble in the future. That is something we
ought to do, to perhaps reduce this ever-increasing spiral of
bankruptcy filings.
It is a good bill. I am disappointed, shocked, and really stunned
that we are now at a point where we cannot even get the bill up for
debate and we have to deal with a filibuster and we are going to have
to have a cloture vote on whether or not we even consider this
legislation. It is not controversial. It is good legislation. It is
carefully crafted. It is good for America. It is good public policy. It
calls people to a higher standard, eliminates abuse and fraud and
criminality, and ought to be something that will go through this
Congress with the most minimal objections.
I do not know what politics are behind the objection here. Sometimes
I think it is just a desire to keep this Congress from passing anything
and utilizing every rule and technical objection that can be made to
frustrate the normal working through of good legislation. At any rate,
I believe we will prevail on this motion, we will get the bill up, and
I believe it will pass in this chamber as it did in the House, and then
we will have done something good in this Congress: We will have
reformed a bankruptcy system that is out of control.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Missouri.
____________________