Posted on 03/09/2005 1:45:09 PM PST by DannyTN
FRIST COMMENTS ON BANKRUPTCY DEBATE Floor Statement -- Remarks As Prepared For Delivery
Senator Bill Frist, M.D. March 8th, 2005 - Mr. President, we have made tremendous progress on the bankruptcy bill. Republicans and Democrats have stood together to support a bankruptcy reform package that the House will pass and the President will sign into law. The Senate has resisted attempts to renegotiate hard-fought compromises and legislate on unrelated issues. I commend my colleagues for staying focused.
There have been many attempts to sidetrack the Senate on this bill. Let me begin by reiterating why we need bankruptcy reform and what this bill really does.
The bill before us establishes a means test based on a simple, fair principle: those who have the means should repay their debts. Personal bankruptcies are skyrocketing and wealthy debtors are walking away from debts they have the ability to repay. Opportunistic debtors who have the means to repay use the law to evade personal responsibility.
This abuse doesn’t just hurt the creditor they owe, it hurts all of us who pay higher fees and prices as a result.
Every bill you and I pay includes a hidden “bankruptcy tax” of $400 a year per household. That tax is figured into in every phone bill, electrical bill, mortgage payment, furniture purchase, or car loan we pay.
Interest rates are higher, down payment requirements are larger, grace periods are shorter, and late payment penalties are astronomical – all because some people are shirking their debt obligations.
This legislation is targeted to ensure that wealthy debtors who can pay their debts do so.
It specifically exempts anyone who earns less than the median income in their state. And it also allows every consumer to show “special circumstances” if they cannot handle a repayment plan.
We know that one reason people file for bankruptcy is because of an unexpected medical emergency. Consequently, this legislation allows every filer to deduct 100% of their medical costs.
We also know that education is a big outlay for many families. Under bankruptcy reform, parents can deduct private school tuition to protect their children’s educational opportunities.
In addition:
The bankruptcy bill strengthens protections for child support and alimony payments.
It protects patient privacy and care during bankruptcy proceedings that involve health care facilities.
It protects consumers from deceptive credit practices that can lead to financial distress.
And it protects the system that allows America to be one of the most generous countries when it comes to bankruptcy.
There remain, however, some misconceptions about this bill that should be dispelled. The first regards our protections for active duty military personnel and veterans.
Some opponents of the bill charge that we do not adequately address the needs of our men and women in combat who may suffer financially.
Mr. President, it should go without saying that the United States Senate and the American people deeply honor our men and women in uniform. Everyday, these young soldiers sacrifice to protect us and defend our freedom. We are indebted to them for the dangers they face on the field and the families they leave in order to fight.
That is why last Tuesday, we passed the Sessions amendment to help clarify protections for our military and others under a safe harbor in the bill. This provision, which passed with 63 votes, makes explicitly clear that active duty military and low income veterans are protected by the safe harbor. In addition, it also protects debtors with serious medical conditions.
On this issue, the other side has created a red herring designed to score political points and shift the debate away from bankruptcy abuse.
Another red herring is the charge that the bankruptcy bill sacrifices consumers to benefit credit card companies. The truth is that the bill before us includes several carefully negotiated amendments that expressly protect credit card holders.
Among its beefed up consumer protections are:
Increased disclosure requirements for credit card statements and mandates that credit card companies assist borrowers in determining how long it will take to pay off their credit card balances;
Additional disclosures to borrowers buying and refinancing their homes;
And additional disclosures regarding credit card “introductory rates” and new disclosures related to credit card late fees.
These protections are the result of lengthy and careful negotiation. Additional measures should be properly addressed in the Banking Committee. As Senator Sessions has pointed out, we are debating a bankruptcy bill designed to create a fair and common sense process in the federal courts.
Moreover, the bill before us has passed this body three times with overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 105th Congress, it passed by a vote of 97 to 1. Again in the 106th 83 to 14. And again in the 107th by a vote of 82 to 16.
It is time to take action on a much needed reform that is supported by both sides of the aisle.
I am confident that by working together we can get this done in this Congress, this week, and see bankruptcy reform signed into law.
It is long past time to stop abuses of the bankruptcy code. The legislation before us is thoughtful and well considered. It offers the opportunity to give the system, and the people it is designed to help, a fresh start. In short, it promises to deliver meaningful solutions that keep America moving forward.
« Previous Speech | Next Speech »
March 2005 Speeches « February April » « 2004 2006 » Radio Clip | Television Clip 8th - current Speech 7th - Frist Reflects on 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday [ ] 3rd - Frist Statement on Social Security 2nd - Jackie Robinson Congressional Gold Medal Award Ceremony 2nd - Frist Introduces Medicine, Health, and Safe Water: Currency for Peace Act of 2005 1st - Frist Statement on Bankruptcy Bill
About Senator Frist | Services for Tennesseans | About Tennessee | Issues and Legislation | Teachers and Students | Sitio en Español | Text Only Version | Republican Leadership | Home
Pay.
Your.
Bills.
On.
Time.
It still doesn't give them the right to change the terms.
The founding fathers were familiar with the way creditors oppressed people. Bankruptcy laws was one of the first things they implemented.
I agree with you. But it's kind of hypocritical for someone to claim that he wasn't competent enough to make financial decisions for himself, yet considers himself perfectly capable of obtaining a driver's license, applying to college, securing financial aid, etc.
Now I hear that a lot of high schools are filled with credit card ads.
Most high school students aren't old enough to sign binding contracts anyway, so these offers probably include some kind of requirement for an adult to co-sign the application. Anyone who co-signs a loan for a teenager is asking for trouble.
Read the terms of your agreement very carefully. If your agreement clearly states that the maximum interest rate is 20%, then you would be on solid legal grounds to sue them when they raised it to 27%. I suspect there is something more to this than what's been posted here, since this just seems such a clear a case of bank fraud to me.
Read the terms of your agreement very carefully. If your agreement clearly states that the maximum interest rate is 20%, then you would be on solid legal grounds to sue them when they raised it to 27%. I suspect there is something more to this than what's been posted here, since this just seems such a clear a case of bank fraud to me.
Yea, just use your credit cards sensibly.
It's weird though. The illiterate, uneducated, and lazy alway forget to act sensibly when, like, their 7-year old gets cancer and needs treatment they can't afford.
Then again, if anyone had any concern for banks not exploiting people, well, Kerry would be in the White House and no one would be whining about this bankruptcy "reform."
No the problem is once they are into you, they sell the account to someone else and they send you a notice of new terms. Your choice is to either pay off the debt immediately or live with the new terms.
That's how they get the rate up to 27% and current law allows them to do it. And they don't have to sell the account to change it. All they have to do is send the notice. But often they will sell it.
Another ridiculous part is that people with incomes under 50,000 are treated differently than over that amount. I suppose this is a sop to the Dems who can highlight they're helping the poor while maintaining the joint Republicrat project of squeezing the middle class.
The most you are liable for is $50 if someone else used your credit card or identity. And most credit card companies and banks will waive even that. I've been there.
But trust me - the whole process is much easier if you have a record of paying your bills in full and on time.
In other words, people who are spending more than they can afford. Many of us have had times in our lives when we have had to cut spending because of some adversity. Most of us do it.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who think they "deserve" to have all of the things they can't afford.
i will stipulate based on your representation that you have a higher breaking point than others. But you have a breaking point. And there but for the grace of God circumstances have not yet pushed you to it. But if that should ever happen God forbid, we will be waiting there to make a lot of additional money off you with this new bill, and MBNA et al will be there waiting to make more money off you with this new bill. And why should the law be changed so us lawyers and MBNA can make more money off you? You tell me.
Utah, Tennessee, Georgia, Nevada, Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Ohio, Mississippi and Idaho are the top 10 states for filing bankruptcy.
Notice how Red they are? This is going to bite the GOP in the ass. Usury is immoral, anti-biblical, and yes people are fools to allow themselves to be shafted. That does not let the usurers/loan sharks off the hook though.
This bill does that for them.
You tell me why people shouldn't pay for their own obligations.
Yes, some people do need charity. But they should get only the charity we are willing to provide, not all of the charity they want. That's what they are doing by running up credit card bills and then defaulting.
Do you think it wise to cite a website maintained by the only openly socialist member of Congress as support for your position? It's hardly a conservative one.
I suppose your question to me really boils down to why should debt discharges or asset exemptions exist at all. In my mind charity really should have nothing to do with it. Rather the real reason is macroeconomic benefit to the country.
Under the current system, when debtors reach the point of insolvency where the amount of the unsecured debt principle cannot be paid off from the disposable income of the debtor within a reasonable period of time or ever (because of accruing default rate interest, fees, and penalties) they can file a Chapter 7. The essential deal in a Chapter 7 is that the Chapter 7 trustee takes all of the debtors non-exempt assets and liquidates them for the benefit of creditors and the debtor gets a discharge of debt.
If we had no such thing as a discharge there really would be no point in federal bankruptcy law and state collection laws would prevail. That debtor would be wage garnished in perpetuity and the creditor that was the fastest with the wage garnishment would be preferred over other creditors and a race to the courthouse would ensue. The creditors' legal transaction costs would be added to debt and in the race to the courthouse scenario, the increased collective transaction would eat up (and likely exceed) the wage garnishment proceeds.
If you eliminate asset exemptions, all the debtors assets could be attached and sold by creditors to pay debts. You have the same race to the courthouse issues and increased transaction costs. And you would have a debtor perpetually in debt without any assets and unable to function effectively in the American economy or society.
I submit that the existing Ch 7 deal with exemptions I outlined above (what is known as the "fresh start") is better for the American economy as a whole than the alternative where we would get hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of perpetually dysfunctional participants in the economy.
With respect to paying obligations, you don't have a choice (its not a matter of should or shouldn't), you have to pay your obligation per the contract for debt you entered into with the CC lender or will be sued and the cycle I describe above occurs. Note that when all the contracts for debt were entered into by CC lenders and debtors over the past 11 years (the last code overhaul) the existing Bankruptcy Code and exemption laws, pro and con for lenders and debtors, were defacto incorporated into those contracts. The CC lenders entered into these contracts for debt under these terms. Now, after the fact, after the contract has aleady been entered into, they want to rewrite those terms dramatically in their favor.
The responsive question to you would then be, why shouldn't CC lenders honor the obligations they entered into when they entered into the loan agreement with the debtors which included the then prevailing bankruptcy code and exemption laws?
I have used some space with this post because these aren't facile, knee-jerk issues, contrary to what the Frist/Biden rhetoric would have you believe.
Oh and by the way I just shouldn't just pick on Frist/Biden. Grassley says the most stupid things about this issue I have heard from anyone.
No that's probably not wise. I'm not really familiar with him. I didn't realize he was socialist.
But Bankrate.com should be a fairly independent source. And I know the problems are true, because I've seen the tactics myself.
That's your assertion, now expand on it please. People use CC's of their own free will, and they promise to pay off the balances with interest and late fees. I haven't had a CC in years where I didn't have to agree that they could increase the interest rate if I didn't pay at least the minimum required payment each month, and on time.
It is a simple fact that if some people don't pay their obligations, the rest of us will be charged more for the risk the lenders are assuming. Either the defaulters pay, or the rest of us do - and that is enforced charity, IMO.
And I don't have a lot of sympathy for most perpetual debtors. They are people who aren't realistic about their life styles. The ones who truly have an unexpected crisis deserve our help and our charity, and there are ways to get it to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.