This part lists things Congress says are true. It is about people who run bankruptcy cases. Congress says their pay has not gone up since 1994. It says the rest of the law will raise that pay.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“while also fairly allocating the costs of the system among those who use the system.”
The first of the section's ten findings. Congress states that it has amended the laws governing bankruptcy fees as necessary to keep the bankruptcy system self-supporting, and to allocate the cost of the system fairly among the people who use it.
What the document actually says
“while also fairly allocating the costs of the system among those who use the system.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says it has split the cost fairly. The people who use the system pay for it.
What this is about
A person who cannot pay what they owe can ask a court for help. That court charges fees. Congress says those fees pay for the system.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Because of the importance for the bankruptcy system to be self-funded, at no cost to taxpayers, Congress has closely monitored the funding needs of the bankruptcy system, including by requiring periodic reporting by the Attorney General regarding the United States Trustee System Fund.”
The second finding. Congress states that it treats funding the bankruptcy system at no cost to taxpayers as important, and that it has watched the system's funding needs, one way being a standing requirement that the Attorney General report on the United States Trustee System Fund.
What the document actually says
“Because of the importance for the bankruptcy system to be self-funded, at no cost to taxpayers, Congress has closely monitored the funding needs of the bankruptcy system, including by requiring periodic reporting by the Attorney General regarding the United States Trustee System Fund.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says taxes should not pay for this system. So it keeps watch on the money. It makes an officer report on one fund.
What this is about
The fund is named in the law as a Trustee System Fund. This law does not say what it pays for. The officer who reports is the Attorney General.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Because the system governing bankruptcies of various types is interconnected, Congress has established fees, including filing fees, quarterly fees in chapter 11 cases, and other fees, that together fund the courts, judges, United States trustees, and trustees serving in bankruptcy cases under chapter 7 of title 11, United States Code.”
The third finding. Congress states that the different kinds of bankruptcy case are interconnected, and that the fees it has established, filing fees, quarterly fees in chapter 11 cases and others, fund the courts, the judges, the United States trustees and the trustees serving in chapter 7 cases as one system.
What the document actually says
“Because the system governing bankruptcies of various types is interconnected, Congress has established fees, including filing fees, quarterly fees in chapter 11 cases, and other fees, that together fund the courts, judges, United States trustees, and trustees serving in bankruptcy cases under chapter 7 of title 11, United States Code.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says the parts of this system are tied to each other. One set of fees pays for all of them.
What this is about
Chapter 7 is the kind of case where things are sold off. Chapter 11 is the kind where a business tries to keep going. Fees from both go into the same pots.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Trustees serving in bankruptcy cases under chapter 7 of title 11, United States Code, are vital to the functioning of the bankruptcy system, as they provide services at the front lines of the bankruptcy process, administering thousands of cases.”
The fourth finding. Congress states that trustees in chapter 7 cases are vital to how the bankruptcy system works, because they serve at the front line of the process and administer thousands of cases.
What the document actually says
“Trustees serving in bankruptcy cases under chapter 7 of title 11, United States Code, are vital to the functioning of the bankruptcy system, as they provide services at the front lines of the bankruptcy process, administering thousands of cases.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says these workers matter to the whole system. They handle thousands of cases.
What this is about
A trustee is put in charge of a case. They gather up what a person owns. Then they hand it out to the people owed money.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees provide valuable returns of assets to government creditors, including the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Small Business Administration, and other Federal, State, and municipal governments.”
The fifth finding. Congress states that chapter 7 trustees return assets to governments that are owed money, naming the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Agriculture and the Small Business Administration, along with other federal, state and city governments.
What the document actually says
“Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees provide valuable returns of assets to government creditors, including the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Small Business Administration, and other Federal, State, and municipal governments.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says these workers get money back for the government. Three offices are named.
What this is about
A creditor is anyone who is owed money. Governments are owed money too. Unpaid taxes are one example.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Due to the work of the chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees, millions of dollars are also disbursed annually to private creditors of all types, including medical providers, unsecured creditors, small businesses, and micro-enterprises such as domestic support providers.”
The sixth finding. Congress states that the work of chapter 7 trustees also sends millions of dollars a year to private creditors, naming medical providers, unsecured creditors, small businesses and very small businesses such as domestic support providers.
What the document actually says
“Due to the work of the chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees, millions of dollars are also disbursed annually to private creditors of all types, including medical providers, unsecured creditors, small businesses, and micro-enterprises such as domestic support providers.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says millions of dollars go out each year. It goes to people and firms who are owed money.
What this is about
Doctors are one example. Small shops are another. So are people who care for others at home.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Despite the essential role of chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees, since 1994 the amount of compensation paid to these trustees has not been increased.”
The first claim in the seventh finding. Congress states that the amount paid to chapter 7 trustees has not been increased since 1994.
What the document actually says
“Despite the essential role of chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees, since 1994 the amount of compensation paid to these trustees has not been increased.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says the pay for these workers has not gone up. It has been the same since 1994.
What this is about
That is more than thirty years. Prices have gone up in that time. The pay has not.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“As in 1994, bankruptcy trustees receive only $60 per case (composed of $45 from subsection 330(b)(1), and $15 from subsection 330(b)(2), of title 11, United States Code) in nearly 90 percent of chapter 7 cases”
The second claim in the seventh finding. Congress states the figure: $60 a case in nearly 90 percent of chapter 7 cases, made up of $45 under section 330(b)(1) of title 11, United States Code, and $15 under section 330(b)(2). Section 3 of this Act raises the first of those two amounts.
What the document actually says
“As in 1994, bankruptcy trustees receive only $60 per case (composed of $45 from subsection 330(b)(1), and $15 from subsection 330(b)(2), of title 11, United States Code) in nearly 90 percent of chapter 7 cases”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says the pay is sixty dollars a case. That is the pay in almost nine cases in ten.
What this is about
The sixty dollars comes from two rules. One rule pays forty five dollars. The other pays fifteen.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“bankruptcy trustees receive no compensation at all for cases in which the filing fee is waived by the bankruptcy court.”
The third claim in the seventh finding. Congress states that where the bankruptcy court waives the filing fee, the trustee is paid nothing for the case.
What the document actually says
“bankruptcy trustees receive no compensation at all for cases in which the filing fee is waived by the bankruptcy court.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says some cases pay the worker nothing. Those are cases where the court waived the fee.
What this is about
A court can waive the fee for someone with no money. Trustee pay comes out of that fee. So there is nothing to pay them with.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Since 1994, there have been significant increases in salaries, attorney fees, budget appropriations, filing fees, and court-related fees associated with chapter 7 bankruptcies. In contrast, the $60 paid to chapter 7 trustees has remained the same and has not even been increased for inflation.”
The first claim in the eighth finding. Congress states that salaries, attorney fees, appropriations, filing fees and court fees tied to chapter 7 cases have all risen significantly since 1994, while the $60 paid to trustees has stayed the same and has not been adjusted for inflation.
What the document actually says
“Since 1994, there have been significant increases in salaries, attorney fees, budget appropriations, filing fees, and court-related fees associated with chapter 7 bankruptcies. In contrast, the $60 paid to chapter 7 trustees has remained the same and has not even been increased for inflation.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says other costs in these cases went up a lot. The sixty dollars did not go up at all.
What this is about
Pay, court fees and lawyer bills all rose. Prices in general rose too. The trustee pay stayed where it was.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“In 2021, Congress attempted to implement a mechanism that would give chapter 7 trustees a raise, but the trustees only received increased compensation for 1 fiscal year. Based on Consumer Price Index estimates, the $60 paid to trustees in 1994 would be the equivalent of over $125 today.”
The second claim in the eighth finding. Congress states that a mechanism it set up in 2021 raised chapter 7 trustee pay for one fiscal year only, and that on Consumer Price Index estimates the 1994 figure of $60 would be worth more than $125 now. The 2021 measure is not named, and is not a document indexed here.
What the document actually says
“In 2021, Congress attempted to implement a mechanism that would give chapter 7 trustees a raise, but the trustees only received increased compensation for 1 fiscal year. Based on Consumer Price Index estimates, the $60 paid to trustees in 1994 would be the equivalent of over $125 today.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says it tried to raise the pay in 2021. The raise lasted one year. It says sixty dollars then is worth over a hundred and twenty five now.
What this is about
Money buys less as time goes by. One way to track that is a price index. Congress used one here.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“increase the compensation of chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees to the level that is appropriate, overdue, and proportionate with the level that was intended in 1994, by increasing the total compensation of trustees to $120 per case;”
The first of three things the ninth finding says this Act and its amendments do. Congress states that the Act raises total chapter 7 trustee pay to $120 a case. Section 3 of the Act is where that change is made, by raising the section 330(b)(1) amount from $45 to $105.
What the document actually says
“increase the compensation of chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees to the level that is appropriate, overdue, and proportionate with the level that was intended in 1994, by increasing the total compensation of trustees to $120 per case;”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says this law raises the pay. The new total is a hundred and twenty dollars a case.
What this is about
The old total was sixty dollars. Part three of the law makes the change. It is the part that does the work.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“ensure adequate funding of the United States trustee system through the increase of certain fees, which will also apply to districts that are not part of a United States trustee region as required by existing law; and”
The second of the three. Congress states that the Act funds the United States trustee system by raising certain fees, and that the raised fees reach districts outside a United States trustee region as well, which it says existing law requires. The law it refers to is not named here.
What the document actually says
“ensure adequate funding of the United States trustee system through the increase of certain fees, which will also apply to districts that are not part of a United States trustee region as required by existing law; and”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says this law raises some fees. That money keeps the trustee system running. The higher fees reach every court district.
What this is about
Most districts sit inside a trustee region. A few do not. Congress says the fees apply in both.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“support the preservation of existing bankruptcy judgeships that are urgently needed to handle existing and anticipated increases in business and consumer caseloads.”
The third of the three. Congress states that the Act supports keeping bankruptcy judgeships that already exist, which it says are urgently needed for current and expected growth in business and consumer caseloads. Section 5 is where the Act extends those judgeships.
What the document actually says
“support the preservation of existing bankruptcy judgeships that are urgently needed to handle existing and anticipated increases in business and consumer caseloads.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says this law keeps judge posts that already exist. It says more cases are coming.
What this is about
A judgeship is a post for a judge. Part five of the law is where this is done. It changes a term of five years to ten.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“This Act will not alter the filing fee under chapter 7 of title 11, United States Code, and will not modify, impair, or supersede the current authority of the district courts of the United States, or of bankruptcy courts, to waive the payment of filing fees by indigent individuals.”
The tenth and last finding. Congress states that the Act does not change the chapter 7 filing fee, and does not touch the power the district courts and the bankruptcy courts already hold to waive filing fees for people who cannot afford them. This is a statement in the findings section rather than a rule of construction placed in the operative text.
What the document actually says
“This Act will not alter the filing fee under chapter 7 of title 11, United States Code, and will not modify, impair, or supersede the current authority of the district courts of the United States, or of bankruptcy courts, to waive the payment of filing fees by indigent individuals.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress says this law does not change the fee to file. It does not change who can skip the fee.
What this is about
A court can let a person with no money skip the fee. That power stays as it was. This statement sits in the list of reasons, not in a rule.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
Each of the ten findings Congress states in the section. Findings 7, 8 and 9 carry more than one claim apiece and are recorded claim by claim.
Nothing in the section is left out. What is recorded is what Congress stated, not the site's own account of the bankruptcy system: the dollar figures, the percentages and the inflation comparison are the section's, and the site has not checked them against any other source.
A findings section states reasons. It requires nothing of anybody, and sections 3 through 5 are the operative sections of this Act. The findings describe title 11 and title 28 of the United States Code, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and a 2021 change to trustee pay; none of those is a document indexed here, so nothing recorded says what any of them holds beyond the words this section prints.
