[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 125 (Friday, September 18, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10573-S10574]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT OF 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3565

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, with regard to the Feingold amendment 
that deals with the waiver of filing fees for those who file 
bankruptcy, I think we need to be very cautious about that amendment. 
It has very serious implications. It has been considered by this Senate 
numerous times and rejected.
  It has been the argument that this is somehow unfair and denies 
access to

[[Page S10574]]

the court system. Courts themselves have denied this argument 
repeatedly. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has rejected this 
position. Fees run from around $110 to $160. By that time, the filer 
would have already hired a lawyer, probably for much more than that.
  I have here an ad of a lawyer in Texas who says: ``Bankruptcy can be 
a smart financial move.'' He does not say that bankruptcy is a way to 
take care of unacceptable debts that you have no chance of paying. This 
is the what we used to think bankruptcy was for: to help those who, 
through various circumstances, have found themselves hopelessly in 
debt. This man says: ``Bankruptcy can be a smart financial move.''
  It can be a smart financial move. You can legally--under the current 
law--defeat legitimate debts. You can just walk away from them, as this 
man says ``For $350 total.'' And the truth is, that is why we have 
increased filings of these kinds of advertisements in phone books, in 
newspapers, in magazines, in the yard sale publications that are passed 
out free in this country.
  These people go to their lawyers and they quit paying all their 
debts, and they then file for bankruptcy. Virtually every court filing 
in America requires a fee. And this is a reasonable fee. This fee has 
so been upheld by the courts. Somebody will pay for the cost of these 
filings, if it is not going to be those who use this system, then the 
taxpayers will pay for it. We are talking about a large amount of money 
and a drain on the system. Also, it would create a large number of 
court hearings, adding to an already crowded docket.
  I am a critic of our court systems on occasion, but I must say that 
the bankruptcy courts have, done an outstanding job, Mr. President, in 
handling an ever-increasing caseload. The caseload has doubled. We have 
not had a doubling of the judges, but they have used computers, they 
have used staff people, they have used sophisticated measurement 
techniques, and they have been able to keep up with their caseloads 
without a massive expansion of the number of bankruptcy judges. If 
bankruptcy courts are going to have a hearing on everybody that comes 
before them to determine whether or not there is any way they can pay 
their filing fee, then we are going to have to add severe costs to the 
system and more overloading. Judges, along with lawyers and clerks 
representing people on both sides will run up expenses that could, in 
fact, exceed the real cost of the filing fee in this matter.

  I understand the sentiments behind this amendment. It is something 
that has been considered for years, rejected consistently, and upheld 
by the courts. It is a road we should not go down.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Feingold amendment 
to the bankruptcy bill.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, has the Pastore rule expired for today?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Pastore rule will expire at 12:32 p.m.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak out 
of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________