Professor Elizabeth Warren

February 10, 2005

Testimony of Elizabeth Warren
February 10, 2005

My name is Elizabeth Warren. I teach bankruptcy law. As some of you know, I have followed this issue with interest for some time.

The overarching problem with this bill is that time and the American economy have passed it by. It was drafted--never mind by whom--eight years ago. Even if it had been a flawless piece of legislation then, and it surely was not, the events of the past eight years have dramatically changed the economic and social environment in which you must consider this bill.

In the eight years since this bill was introduced, new cases have burst on the scene. The names are burned in our collective memories.

? Enron
? Worldcom
? Adelphia
? United Airlines, USAirways and TWA
? LTV Steel
? K-Mart
? Polaroid
? Global Crossing

While the actual number of consumer bankruptcy cases has declined slightly in the past year, many of the largest corporate bankruptcy cases in American history have occurred since the Senate last reevaluated the bankruptcy laws, and some of those cases are already legend for the corporate scandals that accompanied them. Because it was written eight years ago, this bill has nothing to deal with these abuses, with these dangers, with the needs that these cases have made so painfully clear.

Problems not even on the horizon when this bill was written are now front and center.

? Companies in Chapter 11 that cancel pension plans and health benefits, leaving thousands of families economically devastated
? Companies that continue to pay executives and insiders tens of millions of dollars, while they demand concessions from their creditors.
? Military families targeted for payday loans at 400% interest, insurance scams, and other forms of financial chicanery.
? Scandals have rocked the so-called non-profit credit counseling industry, exposing how tens of thousands of consumers struggling desperately to pay their bills and not file for bankruptcy were cheated.
? Sub-prime mortgage companies, financed by some of the best names in American banking, have unlawfully taken millions of dollars from homeowners, then fled to the bankruptcy courts to protect their insiders and bank lenders.

In the eight years since this bill was introduced, there has been a revolution in the data available to us. Unlike eight years ago, we need not have a theoretical debate about who turns to the bankruptcy system. We now know:

? One million men and women each year are turning to bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious medical problem--and three-quarters of them have health insurance.
? A family with children is nearly three times more likely to file for bankruptcy than an individual or couple with no children.
? More children now live through their parents' bankruptcy than through their parents' divorce.

Unlike eight years ago, we need not have a theoretical debate about the homestead exemption because we have had example after example of abuse tied directly to the failure of American companies. Millions of jobs have been lost but not the Florida and Texas fortunes of their corporate executives. Others are welcome to use the unlimited homestead exemption as well.

? After he lost a $33 million dollar lawsuit in California, O.J. Simpson moved to Florida, explaining to a reporter that the unlimited exemption would permit him to protect a multimillion-dollar house.
? Abe Grossman ran up $233 million in debts in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, then fled to Florida to purchase a 64,000 square foot home valued at $55 million.
? Some physicians are reportedly dropping their malpractice insurance and putting all their assets in their homes--where they can't be touched by bankruptcy.

Under S. 256, they would still be welcome to file for bankruptcy and to keep their fortunes and properties intact while leaving their creditors with nothing.

Unlike eight years ago, we need not have a theoretical debate about the effects of the proposed legislation on small business.

? It takes time to negotiate a reorganization, even for a small company. The timelines in S. 256 would have denied reorganization to more than a third of the small businesses that eventually saved themselves--destroying value for the companies, their creditors, their employees and their communities.
? This bill would be the first in American history to discriminate affirmatively against small businesses. For the first time ever, Congress would pass a law that says companies like Enron and Worldcom don't have to file extra forms, Enron and Worldcom don't have to schedule meetings with the Office of the United States Trustee, and Enron and Worldcom don't have to meet fixed deadlines that a judge cannot waive for any reason--but every troubled small business in the Chapter 11 system would have to file those papers, undergo that supervision and meet those deadlines or be liquidated. No exceptions allowed--for small companies.

Unlike eight years ago, we need not have a theoretical debate about the economic impact of bankruptcies on credit card company profits.

? In the eight years since this bill was introduced, credit has not been curtailed. Minors--under 18 years of age--with no incomes and no credit history are now described as an "emerging market" for the credit industry. Credit card solicitations have doubled to 5 billion a year. Bankruptcy filings have increased 17%, while credit card profits have increased 163%, from $11.5 billion to $30.2 billion.
? Some courts have demanded that credit card companies disclose how much of their claims are the amounts actually borrowed and how much are fees, penalties and interest. Companies have admitted that for every dollar they claim the customer borrowed, they are demanding two more dollars in fees and interest.
? With increased fees and universal default clauses that drive up interest rates even for customers paying on time, a growing number of people have no option but to declare bankruptcy. Cases continue to surface like In re McCarthy, in which a woman borrowed $2200, paid back $2010 in the two years before bankruptcy, and was told by her credit card company that she still owed $2600 more. Ms. McCarthy had two choices: She could either declare bankruptcy or she could pay $2000 every year for life--and die owing as much as she owes today.

The means test in this bill, Section 102, has been one of its most controversial provisions. Proponents like to say that the means test will put pressure only on the families that can afford to repay. And yet, the bill has 217 sections that run for 239 pages. The means test aside, virtually every consumer provision aims in the same direction. The bill increases the cost of bankruptcy protection for every family, regardless of income or the cause of financial crisis, and it decreases the protection of bankruptcy for every family, regardless of income or the cause of the financial crisis.

There are provisions that will make Chapter 13 impossible for many of the debtors who would file today, provisions that make it easier than ever to abuse the unlimited homestead provisions in some states and yet at the same time hurt people with more modest homesteads in those same states. Other provisions will compromise the privacy of millions of families by putting their entire tax returns in the court files and potentially on the Internet, making them easy prey for identity thieves. Women trying to collect alimony or child support will more often be forced to compete with credit card companies that can have more of their debts declared non-dischargeable. All these provisions apply whether a person earns $20,000 a year or $200,000 a year.

But the means test as written has another, more basic problem: It treats all families alike. It assumes that everyone is in bankruptcy for the same reason--too much unnecessary spending. A family driven to bankruptcy by the increased costs of caring for an elderly parent with Alzheimer's disease is treated the same as someone who maxed out his credit cards at a casino. A person who had a heart attack is treated the same as someone who had a spending spree at the shopping mall. A mother who works two jobs and who cannot manage the prescription drugs needed for a child with diabetes is treated the same as someone who charged a bunch of credit cards with only a vague intent to repay. A person cheated by a sub-prime mortgage lender and lied to by a credit counseling agency is treated the same as a person who gamed the system in every possible way.

If Congress is determined to sort the good debtors from the bad, then it is both morally and economically imperative that they distinguish those who have worked hard and played by the rules from those who have shirked their responsibilities. If Congress is determined to sort the good from the bad, then begin by sorting those who have been laid low by medical debts, those who lost their jobs, those whose breadwinners have been called to active duty and sent to Iraq, those who are caring for elderly parents and sick children from those few who overspend on frivolous purchases.

This Congress wants to set a new moral tone. Do it with the bankruptcy bill. Don't press "one-size-fits-all-and-they-are-all-bad" judgments on the very good and the very bad. Spend the time to make the hard decisions. Leave discretion with the bankruptcy judges to evaluate these families. Based on the Harvard medical study and other research, I think you will find that most debtors are filing for bankruptcy not because they had too many Rolex watches and Gameboys, but because they had no choice.

You have a choice. It's a choice that you're making for the American people. Adopt new bankruptcy legislation. Establish a means test that targets abuse. But do not enact a proposal written to address myth and mirage more than reality. Do not enact a proposal written for 1997 when the problems of the American corporate economy in 2007 deserve far more attention and the problems of the American middle class can no longer be ignored.

Overwhelmingly, American families file for bankruptcy because they have been driven there--largely by medical and economic catastrophe--not because they want to go there. Your legislation should respect that harsh reality and the families who face it.