the reason I am supporting this bill is because it has the tendency of making loans more available and it has the tendency of bringing interest rates down. This amendment throws open the door for litigation every time there is a dispute as to whether a debtor's particular expenses are reasonably necessary. This will dramatically increase administrative burdens on the bankruptcy system. It also leaves the door open to indecision based on individual judge interpretation. Passing this amendment and doing away with the bill's more definite guidelines means those interest rates will not come down; it means that the increased availability of those loans will not be forthcoming until the lenders have decided what judges are going to do with the discretion that is added by the Hyde amendment. H.R. 833 does not incorporate the actual repayment test used by the IRS. Instead, it incorporates the categories identified by the IRS as necessary expenses. This is an important distinction because the means test of H.R. 833 is more flexible than anything used by the IRS. The ability to consider 'extraordinary circumstances' provided for under the bill is a better mechanism to establish fair and equitable reform than the amendment giving bankruptcy judges discretion to create their own tests of 'reasonableness'.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of an amendment to a bankruptcy reform bill.
Share
More from Nick Smith
reclaiming my time, although I support the intention of the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, my concern would be where the money comes from. So, in the MEP program, it is already sacrificing, and this also takes funds out of…
Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this is cut from one of the largest expenditures in the United Nations appropriations, that is, to the contributions to international organizations. I think the American taxpayer in general is not…
you know, we are certainly in the campaign season of an election year; and I think everybody, Mr. Speaker, needs to be on guard for the talent to spin. And I am reminded of a cartoon that was in our paper recently. And there were four…
I oppose H.R. 2828, the California Water Bill because it preauthorizes wasteful projects. It forces federal taxpayers to pick up more than a $1.5 billion tab for a California-only project. It would not prevent taxpayers from getting stuck…





