[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 178 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES TECHNICAL AMENDMENT ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JUDY BIGGERT

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 19, 2001

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a common-sense 
technical amendment to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. I am 
pleased that this bipartisan legislation is being cosponsored by my 
colleagues, Mr. Sandlin of Texas, Mr. Moore of Kansas, and Cantor of 
Virginia.
  For more than two decades, The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act of 
1978 has successfully regulated and promoted ethical practices on the 
part of debt collectors throughout the United States. The Act prohibits 
abusive or harassing methods of debt collection, and it requires that 
debt collectors treat consumers fairly.
  In 1986, the law was amended to include standards for attorneys who 
engage in debt collection, and in general, these new rules have worked 
well to protect consumers. But there is one small provision in the Fair 
Debt Collection Practices Act that inadvertently has made it more 
difficult--if not impossible--for an attorney to act as a debt 
collector and file documents with a court of law.
  Under current law, attorneys face a ``Catch-22'' when they file a 
lawsuit against a debtor, and here's why.
  The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires the inclusion of a 
specific warning notice in every document related to the debtor, 
including those filed with a court. This warning notice makes good 
sense; it provides the debtor with information about his or her rights 
and responsibilities.
  But the inclusion of the information required by the Act often 
renders the document non-compliant with the rules of the court. As a 
result, attorneys are caught between a rock and hard place. They can 
include the warning on court documents and risk being in violation of 
the rules of the court, or they can exclude the warning and be in 
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
  Even the agency responsible for enforcement of the Fair Debt 
Collection Practices Act, the Federal Trade Commission, has repeatedly 
acknowledged this dilemma. But the FTC cannot fix the problem 
administratively. The agency has recommended a narrowly tailored 
technical amendment to remedy the conflict between Federal law and the 
rules of the court. It is this technical amendment that I offer the 
House today.
  Under my bill, attorneys no longer will be forced to choose between 
violating the rules of the court or violating the Fair Debt Collection 
Practices Act. They still will be required to include warning notices 
on all correspondence with debtors, but they will be allowed to omit 
the warning notices only on documents presented to the court. This 
simple and straightforward solution maintains the spirit and the intent 
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act while allowing attorneys to 
remain in compliance with the law and their professional standards.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

                          ____________________