BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2001 --
(Extensions of Remarks - March 05, 2001)
[Page: E274]
---
SPEECH OF
HON. EARL POMEROY
OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 1, 2001
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 333) to amend title 11, United States Code, and for
other purposes:
- Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 333, the
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001. I share my
colleagues' belief that personal bankruptcy filings impose a cost on all of
us, and that debtors should not be allowed to use bankruptcy as a financial
planning device. I also believe, however, that this legislation does not
adequately address an important factor in bankruptcy reform--the sometimes
predatory practices of creditors selling unsecured debt.
- Mr. Chairman, there is little dispute that the increase in bankruptcy
filings represents a disturbing trend that must be addressed. When debtors are
able to ``game the system'' and walk away from the consequences, the cost is
transferred to creditors, and ultimately, to all American taxpayers. Congress
can and should restore integrity to the bankruptcy system while ensuring that
the system is fair to debtors and creditors. H.R. 333 would make several
appropriate adjustments toward that end.
- While H.R. 333 does make important adjustments to the bankruptcy system, I
believe that it fails to address several important issues. First and foremost,
H.R. 333 provides inadequate relief for consumers from the misleading and
often intentionally deceptive practices of some credit card companies. While
there are many responsible creditors in this country, those that engage in
predatory lending cause considerable harm, often to unsophisticated and
moderate-income debtors. Such companies have become more aggressive in selling
unsecured credit, using tactics like hidden fees and inadequate disclosure
statements. Not surprisingly, according to the Office of the Comptroller of
Currency, the amount of revolving credit outstanding (including credit card
debt) increased seven-fold during 1980 and 1995. Between 1993 and 1997, during
the sharpest increases in the bankruptcy filings, the amount of credit card
debt doubled. It is simply illogical to me to address bankruptcy reform
without also examining the marketing practices that lead to high rates of
consumer debt.
- I am also concerned that this legislation includes an extraneous provision
that would prevent U.S. courts from enforcing certain civil judgments rendered
in foreign courts. This provision, Section 1310, is inconsistent with U.S.
trade policy, interferes with state insurance regulation, and unnecessarily
intrudes into private business dealings.
- Mr. Chairman, this provision was offered to protect a number of American
investors from liability for monetary judgment imposed by British courts. The
New York State Supreme Court for New York County and the U.S. District Court
in Northern Illinois both found these judgments to be valid. The American
investors are currently appealing these findings to, respectively, the
Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals. As the cases are currently pending before U.S. courts, I
believe that Congressional interference is unwarranted. Eight U.S. circuit
courts, including the Seventh Circuit, have previously held that the original
dispute between these investors and Lloyd's should be heard in English
courts.
- In addition, this provision, if enacted, would have serious repercussions
for international trade policy and could invite retaliation by our trading
partners. When U.S. businesses enter into international contracts, they often
negotiate for U.S. courts to have jurisdiction over disputes that may arise.
We cannot reasonably expect other countries to respect the judgments of U.S.
courts if we override the decisions of foreign courts by legislative fiat. In
fact, the U.S. State Department has said that this provision would interfere
with its efforts to negotiate a new international convention on the
enforcement of civil judgments.
- The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) opposes this
provision as an unwarranted intrusion on the traditional authority of states
to regulate insurance. The NAIC is specifically concerned about the effect
this provision could have on the large number of American insurance companies
that depend on foreign insurers for insurance and reinsurance
coverage.
- Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, I do support reform of the bankruptcy
system, and will cast my vote in favor of this legislation. I am disappointed,
however, that this legislation does not do a better job of addressing the
[Page: E275]
concerns I have raised. I am hopeful that
those concerns may yet be satisfactorily addressed during the 107th Congress,
and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
bring that about.
END