[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 157 (Tuesday, November 9, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14366-S14370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT OF 1999--Continued

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, now be recognized to offer his amendment 
No. 2748, and he be recognized for up to 12 minutes for general debate 
on the amendment. I further ask consent that the amendment be laid 
aside, with a vote occurring on or in relation to the amendment at 5 
o'clock, with no second-degree amendment in order prior to the vote. I 
further ask consent that votes occur on or in relation to the following 
two amendments in sequence at 5 o'clock, with no second-degree 
amendments in order prior to the votes, and there be 4 minutes for 
explanation prior to each vote. Those amendments are No. 2521 offered 
by Senator Durbin and No. 2754 offered by Senator Dodd. I further ask 
consent that following the sequencing of the amendments, Senator 
Schumer then be recognized to call up an amendment and to speak for up 
to 2 minutes and the amendment then be laid aside.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 5 
o'clock be equally divided in the usual form. I further ask consent 
when the Senate resumes consideration of S. 625 tomorrow, I be 
recognized to call up our amendment No. 2771 on which there will be a 
4-hour time limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, if I could 
ask my friend, the manager of this bill, it is my understanding that 
the time between now and 5 o'clock would be evenly divided between the 
majority and minority?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. REID. During that period of time, Senators Dodd and Durbin would 
be able to speak on those two amendments?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. That is right.
  Mr. REID. Also, during that same period of time, it is my 
understanding--for example, Senator Schumer wanted to offer amendments 
during that period of time. He would be allowed to do that?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We have it stated here.
  Mr. REID. After the votes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. After the votes.
  Mr. REID. We want Senator Schumer to use some of the time of Senator 
Dodd and Senator Durbin prior to the 5 o'clock vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. To answer your question with a further question, this 
would be to call up, spend a little bit of time explaining them, and 
lay them aside?
  Mr. REID. That is right.
  Further, Mr. President, I ask my friend from Iowa, Senator Feingold, 
I am told, was not expecting a vote tonight.
  Is that true?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. He was not expecting a vote on his amendment tonight. So 
unless there is some reason the majority believes a vote should go 
forward on that, Senator Feingold would prefer

[[Page S14367]]

 not to go forward with the vote tonight. So we would still have the 
two votes on the Durbin and Dodd amendments at 5 o'clock.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We will modify the request accordingly.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, just so I understand it 
correctly, the two amendments that have been debated are the Durbin and 
Dodd amendments. We have debated those two amendments. This unanimous 
consent request, Mr. President, if I understand it correctly, would 
allow us some additional time to debate those two amendments between 
now and 5 o'clock, but the only amendments to be voted on at 5 o'clock 
are the Durbin and Dodd amendments?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. DODD. However, if other amendments were to be debated or raised 
for purposes of debate, and then laid aside, the manager of the bill is 
suggesting that would be allowable in the unanimous consent request?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We are suggesting for the Schumer amendment, according 
to the agreement, because the other side of the aisle had suggested in 
the preliminary negotiations that we had on this--negotiations which 
fell through--that it was very necessary to have a lot of time to 
devote to debate these amendments on which we had not had votes.
  Mr. DODD. Right.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. And we had not had debate on them either. So Members on 
that side of the aisle would be secure that they had an opportunity to 
thoroughly debate their amendments, that is why we reserved this time.
  Mr. DODD. Further reserving the right to object.
  Mr. REID. If I could say to my friend from Connecticut, we also have 
a subsequent unanimous consent request that we expect to propose, once 
we get this done, which would allow the Senator from Connecticut to 
offer an amendment that we talked about earlier today.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, I would like to clarify 
with either the Senator from Iowa or the ranking minority whip, I would 
be allowed to offer my amendments in the next hour and a half?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. And would be allowed to debate them, if time permitted, 
given how much time the Senators from Connecticut and Illinois took on 
their amendments; is that correct?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. It says here you shall have up to 2 minutes on the 
amendment, then lay it aside.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Iowa, that was contemplating his 
offering them tonight after the 5 o'clock votes. I do not know if we 
are going to be able to use all of our time, which is approximately 75 
minutes, on these two amendments. It would leave Senator Schumer time 
to offer his amendments and talk under the minority's allotted time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I think it would be fair, for the purpose of our 
responding to the desires of your side to have time for your folks who 
are offering the amendments to have adequate time, that we not let the 
Senator from New York go beyond what we have agreed to, or then I am 
going to be subject to criticism at 5 o'clock that somebody on your 
side did not get enough time to offer their amendment.
  Mr. DODD. That is good. Let's go.
  Mr. SCHUMER. So just clarifying, in other words, if the Senator from 
Connecticut and if the Senator from Illinois have extra time, we could 
debate the amendments that I would now offer; is that correct?
  Mr. DODD. Fine.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, will this mean we will 
have an opportunity this afternoon for debate by those who would be 
opposed to those amendments?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. We will have equal time on our side for this 
Senator to allocate to you.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request, as 
modified?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Those are the amendments I had asked for, not just one?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. Those are the amendments you spoke to me about 
this morning, banking amendments?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, another request. After the 5 p.m. votes, 
on behalf of the prime sponsor of the pending second-degree amendment, 
No. 2518, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment in order 
for the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, to offer a second-degree 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. If I may interrupt my friend from Iowa, we just received a 
phone call that we are going to have to wait a minute on that. So let's 
get started on the rest of it.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. OK. I will withhold and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2748

 (Purpose: To provide for an exception to a limitation on an automatic 
stay under section 362(b) of title 11, United States Code, relating to 
 evictions and similar proceedings to provide for the payment of rent 
that becomes due after the petition of a debtor is filed, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in a few minutes I will offer amendment 
No. 2748. This amendment concerns section 311 of the bill, which 
provides a complete exemption from the automatic stay for eviction of 
proceedings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is advised this 
requires the Senator to offer his amendment first and then begin 
debate.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would be happy to do that.
  I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments so I may 
call up amendment No. 2748.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2748.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 108, line 15, strike ``; and'' and insert a 
     semicolon.
       Beginning on page 108, strike line 18 and all that follows 
     through page 109, line 7, and insert the following:
       ``(23) under subsection (a)(3), of the commencement or 
     continuation of any eviction, unlawful detainer action, or 
     similar proceeding by a lessor against a debtor involving 
     residential real property--
       ``(A) on which the debtor resides as a tenant under a 
     rental agreement; and
       ``(B) with respect to which--
       ``(i) the debtor fails to make a rent payment that 
     initially becomes due under the rental agreement or 
     applicable State law after the date of filing of the 
     petition, if the lessor files with the court a certification 
     that the debtor has not made a payment for rent and serves a 
     copy of the certification to the debtor; or
       ``(ii) the debtor's lease has expired according to its 
     terms and the lessor intends to personally occupy that 
     property, if the lessor files with the court a certification 
     of such facts and serves a copy of the certification to the 
     debtor;
       ``(24) under subsection (a)(3), of the commencement or 
     continuation of any eviction, unlawful detainer action, or 
     similar proceeding by a lessor against a debtor involving 
     residential real property, if during the 1-year period 
     preceding the filing of the petition, the debtor--
       ``(A) commenced another case under this title; and
       ``(B) failed to make a rent payment that initially became 
     due under an applicable rental agreement or State law after 
     the date of filing of the petition for that other case; or
       ``(25) under subsection (a)(3), of an eviction action based 
     on endangerment of property or the use of an illegal drug, if 
     the lessor files with the court a certification that the 
     debtor has endangered property or used an illegal drug and 
     serves a copy of the certification to the debtor.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end of the flush material at the end 
     of the subsection the following: ``With respect to the 
     applicability of paragraph (23) or (25) to a debtor with 
     respect to the commencement or continuation of a proceeding 
     described in that paragraph, the exception to the automatic 
     stay shall become effective on the 15th day after the lessor 
     meets the filing and notification requirements under that 
     paragraph, unless the debtor takes such action as may be 
     necessary to address the subject of the certification or the 
     court orders that the exception to the automatic stay shall 
     not become effective or provides for a later date of 
     applicability.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.

[[Page S14368]]

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment would limit the reach of 
section 311 of the bill, which I believe is far too broad. I think it 
is too harsh a solution for the limited abuse that its sponsors say 
they are trying to address.
  Since the Bankruptcy Code was enacted, the automatic stay that 
becomes effective upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition has always 
prohibited a landlord from evicting a tenant unless the landlord 
obtains permission from the bankruptcy court--what is called ``relief 
from the stay.'' The stay serves several purposes. In chapter 13, a 
tenant has a right to assume a lease and to cure a default by paying 
the accumulated back rent. In chapter 7, the stay was intended to 
provide the debtor a short ``breathing spell.'' Breathing room is 
especially helpful to debtors who want to remain in their homes. In 
many cases, when a chapter 7 debtor is relieved of other debts, he or 
she can use this brief period to catch up on the rent and avoid 
eviction.
  The right to avoid eviction by filing bankruptcy is obviously of 
great importance to tenants who at the very point when they have 
undertaken the difficult and draining bankruptcy experience would 
otherwise suffer the additional hardships of moving and having to find 
new housing. And then you have tenants in rent-controlled or rent-
stabilized apartments, who lose valuable property rights if they are 
evicted. Of course, an eviction would normally doom any hope of the 
tenant completing a chapter 13 repayment plan or getting much benefit 
from the fresh start bankruptcy is intended to provide.
  I understand that the applicability of the automatic stay to eviction 
proceedings has come under attack because of abuses. This is primarily 
due to the practice of debtors in a few cities, especially Los Angeles, 
of filing bankruptcy cases, sometimes repeatedly, solely for the 
purpose of delaying eviction and, in effect, ``living rent free.'' 
these debtors are often aided by nonattorney bankruptcy petition 
preparers and file pro se. I have seen the advertisements by some of 
these unscrupulous individuals, and I deplore this kind of abuse as 
much as anyone does.
  But to address this limited problem of abuse, what S. 625 does is 
totally eliminate the automatic stay for tenants.
  In fact, the bill contains an even more sweeping provision than the 
language adopted in the conference report last year and contained in 
the House bill this year.
  The problem of abusive bankruptcy filings by tenants in a few 
jurisdictions can be addressed by more limited, carefully targeted 
provisions. First, we can cut a whole area of abuse by simply lifting 
the stay in cases where there are repeat bankruptcy filings. My 
amendment includes that. These abuses inspired this amendment and they 
also point to its underlying goal: to eliminate the possibility that 
debtors can use the bankruptcy law to live ``recent free'' after they 
file. I agree that we should not let tenants take advantage of the 
bankruptcy laws to live ``rent free.'' But if a debtor is able to put 
together enough money to pay rent during the pendency of the 
bankruptcy, that goal is satisfied. Certainly, the landlord is not 
losing anything financially by allowing the tenant to stay.

  If the landlord again begins collecting rent on the apartment after a 
bankruptcy filing, it is in the same position as it would be if it 
evicted the debtor and began collecting rent from a new tenant. So 
under my amendment, relief from the automatic stay is only available if 
the debtor fails to pay rent that comes due after the bankruptcy 
filing.
  I also believe that it is important to keep the bankruptcy court 
involved and aware of the lifting of the stay as it is under current 
law when a landlord applies for relief from the stay. There does seems 
to be good reason, however, to provide expedited relief from the stay 
if the debtor does not pay rent while the proceeding is pending.
  So my amendment creates a simple and straightforward process. Once a 
debtor misses a rent payment after filing for bankruptcy, the landlord 
can immediately file a certification with the court that the payment 
has not been received. It must also serve a copy of the certification 
on the debtor, to make sure that the debtor is aware that the landlord 
intends to seek to have the stay lifted. After that certification is 
filed and served, the debtor has 15 days to cure the default. The 
exemption from the stay will become effective 15 days after the 
certification is filed and served, unless the court orders otherwise. 
And one reason for the court to order otherwise is that the rent has 
been paid.
  This certification and expedited exemption process also applies to 
evictions based on property damage or illegal drug use. By giving 
discretion to the court to delay or stop the eviction proceeding from 
going forward, the amendment protects against these provisions being 
abused by landlords. We don't want landlords alleging property damage 
for the most minor scratches on the wall in order to take advantage of 
these expedited procedures.
  The expedited procedures also apply to one other situation, which the 
Senator from Alabama raised during our consideration of this amendment 
in the Judiciary Committee. The Senator from Alabama sketched out a 
hypothetical situation where a landlord who has rented his or her own 
house or apartment to someone wants to move back in after the 
expiration of the lease. Under the amendment that I offered in 
committee, the landlord could theoretically be prevented from moving 
back in to his or her own house if the tenant files for bankruptcy and 
keeps paying rent.

  I think the Senator from Alabama raised a good point in committee, so 
I have addressed it in this amendment. Again, the underlying goal is to 
allow tenants the benefits of the automatic stay as long as landlords 
are no worse off. In the usual case of a landlord who would simply rent 
to someone else after an eviction, renewed and continuous payment of 
rent after the bankruptcy filing protects the financial interests of 
the landlord. But in the case sketched out by the Senator from Alabama, 
landlords have other rights, namely the right to reoccupy their own 
homes, that we need to protect as well.
  So my amendment contains an additional circumstance in which a 
landlord can seek expedited relief from the stay--when the lease has 
expired according to its terms and the landlord intends to occupy the 
property after the eviction. Once again, the landlord must simply 
certify that these circumstances exist and 15 days later, the stay is 
lifted, unless the tenant demonstrates to the court that the 
certification is erroneous.
  It should be remembered that this amendment does not effect the 
landlord's ability to seek relief from the stay under the procedures 
provided by current law. Expedited procedures are available for 
nonpayment of rent after filing for bankruptcy, for evictions based on 
property damage or drug use, or when a lease has expired and the 
landlord wishes to reoccupy the property. For all other types of 
evictions, the landlord may continue to pursue remedies under current 
law.
  As in so many parts of our debate on this bill, the main issue is 
balance. To the extent there are abuses they should be addressed, but 
the solutions should be narrowly targeted so that they do not eliminate 
the rights of honest debtors who need the fresh start that bankruptcy 
is designed to provide. In this case, I truly believe that the solution 
is S. 625 for the problem that landlords say they are concerned about 
goes too far. I am not comfortable with provisions that would kick 
people out of their apartments even if they can pay rent during the 
time that they are trying to get their financial house in order. To me 
that is not constructive, it is punitive. It is not really helping 
landlords, it is just punishing people who may be trying their very 
best to keep their heads above water. Shame on us, if we can't see 
that.
  I hope my colleagues will support this modest and balanced amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2748 be 
laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, in response to the remarks of the 
Senator from Wisconsin, I will not be able to support this amendment, 
although I do believe he has put some parts in it that

[[Page S14369]]

make it superior to what had originally been offered in this regard.
  I will share with Members some of the reasons I believe we need to 
reject this amendment and why this is a classic problem with the 
current bankruptcy law that we need to fix. We haven't had a major 
reform of bankruptcy law since 1978. It is time for us to look at it to 
see how it is working out in the real world. Are there abusers? Are 
there loopholes, with clever lawyers zealously representing their 
clients able to utilize some of these loopholes and situations to abuse 
the fair workings of the bankruptcy court?
  Remember, a bankruptcy reform bill sets the law for an entire court. 
That is the court that handles bankruptcy.
  Senator Grassley's bill, with this amendment involving landlord/
tenant that I helped sponsor, simply clarifies existing law. It simply 
makes real and more effectual the existing law. The amendment offered 
by Mr. Feingold changes the current law; it moves us in a direction 
that will enhance and encourage litigation and delay and undermine the 
rule of law as we ought to see it in the country. There are some good 
lawyers out there practicing bankruptcy law. That is all they do. They 
know how to work the system and work it well.
  Under current law, if a landlord files an eviction against a tenant 
before the bankruptcy petition is filed by the tenant, that eviction 
can continue. If an eviction is filed by a landlord based on the fact 
that his lease has terminated--he has a 1-year lease; we are now in 
month 14, he files to evict the tenant; he can't just go and throw him 
out physically--he files a lawsuit in State court to evict the tenant, 
he will prevail in bankruptcy court. That is not the kind of action the 
bankruptcy court will permanently stay.
  What is the problem? Why are we having a problem? The problem is that 
when a person files for bankruptcy, all litigation is stayed; there is 
an automatic stay. So if you file for bankruptcy in Federal court, any 
lawsuits filed against you in the State court system for collection of 
your debts, including landlord/tenant, are automatically stayed. So 
what happens is, the landlord has to hire an attorney, send him down to 
Federal bankruptcy court, at great expense to himself, to file a motion 
and ask for a hearing to lift the stay and to say to that bankruptcy 
judge: Judge, we don't need you to stay this eviction case because the 
person is clearly in violation of his lease; he hasn't paid his rent, 
and/or the lease is terminated. It is time for him to be removed from 
his premises. He has to argue that.
  Uniformly, the courts will rule in his favor, and he can then take 
the matter to State court. In State court, the tenant has all the 
rights and privileges he has always had to defend himself against 
eviction. He gets a hearing in court. He just doesn't get a double 
hearing in Federal court and State court.
  This is a great cost to the landlords who have to go through this 
process. It also deals with landlords who have just a few apartment 
complexes or maybe just one and maybe the lease is coming up and they 
don't want to just occupy the premises themselves. Maybe they have 
already executed a lease with another tenant to take over this 
apartment. All of a sudden they find the tenant won't leave under his 
lease. Then he files a petition in bankruptcy. The court stays the 
efforts to evict and months go by. That is the kind of problem we are 
having.

  How does this abuse occur? We have seen advertisements and pulled 
them from phone books and newspapers. Here is one: ``Seven months free 
rent.'' It goes on to talk about how you can file bankruptcy--it has 7 
calendar months here--and not be evicted for up to 7 months, even 
though your lease may have already expired. You have a 12-month lease, 
and that means you can stay there 19 months by the time you can get 
around to getting somebody removed from the premises, when you may have 
already agreed with your son, daughter, or some other possible tenant, 
that they can take over the property at a given time.
  The Feingold amendment, as I understand it, would protect the 
landlord who wanted to move in himself but not from leasing it to 
somebody else or letting a family member take over the property.
  Here is another one to a tenant organization, a flier that was passed 
out: ``We have more moves, when it comes to preventing your eviction, 
than Magic Johnson. Call us,'' the law firm says, ``and we will take 
care of you.'' ``Need more time to move? Stop this eviction from 1 to 6 
months.''
  And there are others we have seen here, quite a number of those kinds 
of activities. So I say to you that this is not just an imagined 
problem; it is very real. And still attorneys are advertising around 
the country, and they are disrupting legitimate landlord-tenant 
situations. It is an abuse.
  Eventually, under the current law, when they go to bankruptcy court 
and ask that the stay be lifted so they can continue with their 
eviction, they always win--but they always lose. They win on the law 
eventually, but they lose because they have been delayed in taking 
control of their own property and because they have had to pay an 
extensive legal fee. This is the kind of thing that is driving people 
mad who are dealing with bankruptcy on a regular basis. They are coming 
to us in Congress and saying: Jeff, these things are not healthy; they 
are frustrating, and they are hurting our ability to commercially 
operate in an effective way.
  So how often does it happen? I would like to read a report from the 
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office--just in one county in America. 
This is what the L.A. County Sheriff's Office said. They estimate that 
3,886 residents--3,886--filed for bankruptcy in 1996 alone--in 1 year, 
in that county--to prevent the execution of a valid court-ordered 
eviction notice. Think about that. You can even have won your eviction 
case in court, and an order has been issued to have this person 
evicted, his or her lease is up, and this stay in bankruptcy stops 
that.
  It goes on to say that 7 percent of the eviction cases handled by the 
Los Angeles County sheriff's department are stayed as a result of 
bankruptcy filings. Losses are estimated at nearly $6 million per year. 
They advertise in many of the publications ``Live Rent Free.'' That is 
really what has been happening. ``More moves than Magic Johnson'' to 
prevent a legitimate execution of an eviction order.
  Remember, we are not saying a landlord can just go remove somebody. 
Every State has protection for renters. They have to go to court and 
get a valid eviction order. Many times, they are entitled to other 
delays before they can be evicted. So I think that is significant.
  Another matter that I think is important is the quote from a judge in 
the Central District of California who is concerned about these cases. 
He sees them very frequently. Judge Zurzolo in the Central District of 
California had this to say about bankruptcy and efforts to delay 
eviction. This is a quote from his opinion in court:

       The bankruptcy courts are flooded with chapter 7 and 
     chapter 13 bankruptcy cases filed solely for the purpose of 
     delaying unlawful detainer eviction. Inevitably and swiftly 
     following the filing of these bankruptcy cases is the filing 
     of motions for relief of stay by the landlords. They have 
     hired a lawyer and they have to file a motion for relief of 
     stay. These landlords are temporarily thwarted by this abuse 
     of the bankruptcy court system.

  This judge calls it an abuse of the system. These relief from stay 
motions are rarely contested and never lost. That is, the lawyer who 
filed the bankruptcy rarely even contests them, and never are they 
ruled against the landlord. It is never ruled against the landlord, but 
they are filed and delay has already occurred. He says this:

       Bankruptcy courts in our district hear dozens of these stay 
     motions weekly, none of which involve any justiciable 
     conflicts of fact and law.

  So it is pretty clear. We have a national problem that ought to be 
fixed. We can fix it.
  What does the current legislation, the bankruptcy reform bill, say 
about it? It simply says that the automatic stay is not available when 
an eviction proceeding has already started prior to the filing of a 
bankruptcy. In other words, if the eviction has started before, you 
don't get that stay. If an eviction proceeding is based on the fact 
that the lease is already terminated, you don't get a stay. Otherwise, 
you would have the same stay. This will stop a lot of wasted effort, a 
lot of unnecessary costs, a lot of frustration for tenants and those 
kinds of problems.

[[Page S14370]]

  I believe this law is good public policy--the way it is written in 
the Grassley bankruptcy bill--because a bankruptcy court only has 
control over the assets of the person filing bankruptcy. A lease that 
has already expired, by its very definition, is not an asset. A lease 
that has clearly been terminated because of nonpayment of rent is not 
an asset of the person who is filing bankruptcy. Therefore, the 
bankruptcy court does not have legal power to control an asset that is 
not theirs; it is the landlord's. So that is why the courts always rule 
in favor of the landlord in these cases. The landlord may have another 
tenant who would want to take over, and that tenant's life may be 
disrupted if the landlord can't deliver the premises.
  In conclusion, the changes suggested in the Feingold amendment alter 
current law substantially. They allow the tenant to stay in the 
premises on which the lease has expired and for which they have been in 
default for lack of payment, or other reasons. This is unacceptable, 
and it is not sound law. You ought not to have a law that says you can 
stay in the premises when the lease has expired, for Heaven's sake. 
This would be the Federal bankruptcy court overruling State law that 
says when your lease expires, you are out. If we can't have honesty in 
the effectuation of contracts in America, we are in sad shape. I 
believe this is a poor amendment and it should not be approved.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 23 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from 
North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________