today, joined by colleagues, Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy, Senator Feingold and Senator Sarbanes, I am introducing the bankruptcy reform bill that passed the Senate last year by a vote of 97-1. A constant theme that has guided me throughout the consideration of bankruptcy legislation is balanced reform. You cannot have meaningful bankruptcy reform without addressing both sides of the problem-- irresponsible debtors and irresponsible creditors. Unfortunately, the bill we worked so hard to develop, was decimated in conference and the result was a one-sided bill designed to reward the credit industry and penalize American consumers. I could not support it. I hope this year will be different. The bankruptcy code is delicate balance. When you push one thing, almost invariably something else will give. For that reason, it is crucial for bankruptcy reform to be thoughtful and for the changes to be targeted and not create more problems than they attempt to solve. This year, Senator Grassley has introduced S.625, the bankruptcy reform bill of 1999. This bill has more similarities to last year's conference report than the bipartisan measure that passed the Senate last year by an overwhelming margin. The Durbin-Leahy bill is fairer. S.625 uses a means test adopted from IRS collection allowances. The test would require every debtor, regardless of income, who files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy to be scrutinized by the U.S. trustee to determine whether the filling is abusive.
Editor's note · Context
Introducing the bankruptcy reform bill and discussing its implications during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Dick Durbin
Nominations hearings, like this one today, are an essential part of the Senate’s role in providing advice and consent on presidential nominees. This constitutional duty is a critical check on the Executive Branch. And it has never been…
A farmer in Nebraska expects to pay for his wife and himself $32,000 this year for health insurance premiums.
I have threatened some of these for-profit schools as a way of getting them to drop the loans that they were enforcing on these students, because I know what happens in the end.
The Trump administration has not provided transparency into the use of federal funds for the East Wing project, and they have limited congressional oversight, meaningful public input, and adherence to established federal processes.





