To provide for the potential disallowance of certain claims.

BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2005--
Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:15
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to a vote on a motion to
invoke cloture on S. 256. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 14,
S. 256, a bill to amend title 11 of the United States Code,
and for other purposes.
Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, Chuck Grassley, Judd Gregg,
Thad Cochran, R.F. Bennett, Wayne Allard, Lindsey
Graham, Jeff Sessions, Trent Lott, Rick Santorum, John
Warner, John Thune, Orrin Hatch, Lisa Murkowski, Mel
Martinez, Sam Brownback.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 256,
the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005,
shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 69, nays 31, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]

YEAS--69

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--31

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Clinton
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Murray
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 69, the nays are
31. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dole be
recognized for up to 15 minutes as in morning business, after which
Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island be recognized for up to 10 minutes as
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mrs. Dole and Mr. Reed are printed in today's Record
under ``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Illinois.

Amendment No. 40 Withdrawn

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Pryor, I ask
unanimous consent amendment No. 40 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, now that we are postcloture, the number of
amendments is limited, and the type of amendments will be limited. I
have three pending amendments before the Senate relative to the
bankruptcy bill.
For those of you who have not followed the debate on this bill, this
bill will change the bankruptcy law in America. Today, many people go
into bankruptcy court because they have no place to turn. They have
more debt than they can possibly pay.
One of the major reasons people reach this point in life, the No. 1
reason people go to bankruptcy court is medical bills. Three-fourths of
the people in bankruptcy court with medical bill problems had health
insurance when they were diagnosed with their illness. If you think, I
don't have to worry about bankruptcy court because I have health
insurance, so do these people. What happened? They got sick. The bills
started piling up. Maybe they lost their job and their health insurance
and couldn't afford to pay the COBRA premium, which people have to pay
once they have lost a job and health insurance. They gave up on their
health insurance, and the bills started stacking up. It reached the
point for these folks where they had nowhere to turn. They faced
$50,000, $100,000, or $200,000 in medical bills they could never pay
off for the rest of their lives. In desperation, and with some
embarrassment, people then went to bankruptcy court and said: I have no
place to turn. I just can't do it.
A court says: What do you owe? Give us all our assets. What do you
have in checking and savings? How much is your home and your car worth?
Furniture, everything--what is it all worth? Where are your debts? We
will let you walk out of bankruptcy court with very little left, but
your debts will be gone.
That happens to people. More often than not, medical bills drive them
there.
There are other reasons. You lose your job. How many people have you
met in their fifties in America--I have met many in Illinois--who had a
great career and a great job and lost it, then went out looking for a
comparable job only to learn they were ``too old for the market''?
There they sat, taking a job that paid less, trying to maintain a
family and household that was basically financed with a higher salary
not that long ago. In desperation, they try to keep things together,
and it starts to fall apart. The debts they incurred when they had a
good job they cannot handle anymore.
What else happens to people? Some people live on the margins already.
Some single mothers trying to raise kids are in a situation where
finally something happens to them--a medical bill, an unforeseen
circumstance--and they are stuck in bankruptcy court.
The credit industry comes in and says: We have to do something about
these payments. We have to make it more difficult for them to walk out
of that bankruptcy court having given up their assets with their debts
basically behind them. So the law is changed here in this 500-page bill
written by the credit card industry, written by the financial industry,
to make it more difficult for a person to walk out of court with their
debts behind them. They make sure in this bill that it is more likely
for many that they will walk out of court still paying, on and on. As
little as $165 a month is enough to say that you will never be forgiven
in bankruptcy. You will just keep paying and paying. The creditors will
keep calling and calling. That is what the credit industry wanted. They
worked hard for 9 years. They are going to win this battle.

We came to the Senate floor and said, at least let us carve out some
people who really should be treated differently. I am sorry that the
marines who were here earlier didn't stick around. I wish they could
have, I wish they could have heard the debate on the floor of the
Senate when I offered an amendment and said: If you activate a
guardsman or a reservist for a year or a year and a half and they go
over to serve their country as they promised, leaving behind a
restaurant or a small business which falls into bankruptcy while they
are gone--and it has happened--shouldn't we give them a break in
bankruptcy court? For goodness'

[[Page S2217]]

sakes, these people aren't morally deficient; they are our best, and
they are serving our country. They are protecting you, me, and everyone
else.
I put in an amendment that said, at least for the men and women in
the military who face this kind of bankruptcy--and it happens--let us
give them a break in this bill. Let us not put them through the
harshest parts of this bill. I lost the amendment 58 to 38. Many of the
Senators who go back home and cheer the troops and how much we love
them and how much we want to stand behind them couldn't wait to vote
with Visa and MasterCard and against the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air
Force, and Coast Guard. That is what it came to. We lost that
amendment.
Senator Kennedy came to the Senate floor and said: If you get swamped
with a medical crisis in your family and go into bankruptcy court
trying to get out from under something you will never pay off,
shouldn't you, when it is all over, at least be able to go home?
Shouldn't you have a roof over your head when it is all over if it is
medical bills that put you in bankruptcy court? He offered an amendment
and said: Let us at least protect $150,000 in equity in your home that
you can go back to after bankruptcy.
Think about that. What will $150,000 buy you? In Springfield, IL, it
buys you a nice little house. What does it buy you in Washington,
Boston, New York, and California? Not much. But when we offered that
amendment, only 40 Senators voted for it and 58 or 59 voted against it.
The argument behind this bill originally was that too many people
went to bankruptcy court because of their moral failure. They didn't
understand that they can't game the system, they can't use it in a way
that is fundamentally unjust and immoral by going to bankruptcy court
when you shouldn't go. But in the two examples I have given you, does
that argument apply? Is there something fundamentally wrong with the
values of men and women in uniform serving our country who can't keep
that business afloat back home? Of course not. Is there something
fundamentally wrong with a person who feels as if he is on top of the
world, goes in for a diagnosis at the doctor, and ends up with a life-
threatening disease which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars where
his health insurance fails him? Is that a moral failure? It is a
failing of Congress. It is a failing of your Government to deal with
the realities of the challenges of life, whether it is health care or
service in the military.

We went in and argued: What if you were the victim of an identity
theft? And it happens; it happened to me. What if someone steals your
identity and runs up bills in your name? It can happen to anyone
listening to this debate. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said, in that
situation; if all the bills that have swamped you are not even bills of
your creation, shouldn't we give you a break under this tough new
bankruptcy bill? Overwhelmingly, on a partisan rollcall, the answer
was, no. No. Ultimately you shouldn't be discharged from bankruptcy
even if those weren't your debts.
We said: What if the people lending the money to you break the law
while they are lending it to you? What if they take--and you know this
story; it happens in every community. What if they take advantage of an
elderly widow or widower living in that little home they have always
had? They knock on the door: Boy, you sure could use a new roof, Ma'am.
Luckily, I have a company out here that will do it if you just sign a
few papers.
The next thing you know, you have one of these phony, predatory
lenders coming in with a subprime mortgage with a balloon clause, and
grandma's little house disappears. He looked so trustworthy. He seemed
like such a nice man. He told me this was a standard contract. Yes, I
signed it. I should have called you, but I just signed it.
What about those people? Should they be able to take away her home;
go to bankruptcy court and stand in line with all the other creditors
and say, Treat me like another legal creditor? I didn't think so.
So I offered an amendment saying those people should not have the
advantage of going to court if they have broken the law in the way they
make the loan. I didn't have a chance on that amendment. Those who are
supporting this bill did not want to talk about that. One Republican
Senator supported me. Just one.
Time and again, whether we are talking about victims of bankruptcy
who deserve a little help, or whether we are talking about those gaming
the system from the creditor's side, we found this stone wall that
separates this Chamber. The Republican side does not want to consider
any changes to this bill. The credit card industry has written it, and
they are sticking with it.
The only perfect laws ever written were written by God and Moses, as
far as I am concerned. All of the rest are amendable. All the rest can
be improved. Here we assume that if it was generated by the largest
credit card companies in America, we cannot argue with them.
One of the best arguments that has been made is, this bill does not
apply to people who make less than the median income. That has been a
point made over and over and over again during the course of this
debate. Why is it important? Because this new law imposes a brandnew
set of requirements in bankruptcy court for those who are above the
median income. At least that is the argument.
Let me show this listing of all the documents that now have to be
filed in bankruptcy court. It is pretty long. I used to practice law. I
know it takes time to fill these out. You sit down with your client.
You say: Get your income tax returns. Get all the checks you can find.
Let's sit down. This will take some time. This is the current
requirement under the law. So it is not as if you walk into bankruptcy
court, sign your name, and wave and leave out the other door. It is a
long process.

During the course of the process, your creditors and the trustee in
bankruptcy decide whether you are telling the truth. If you aren't,
they will throw you out of court on your ear. That is the way it ought
to be.
Now comes this bill which says these papers are not enough. Here we
have the new means test. This is an example of what you have to do in
addition to all the current requirements to file bankruptcy. This is
the means test in this bill. It not only adds to the complexity of this
process, it adds to the cost. So here you are without enough money to
pay your bills, trying to figure out how to come up with a filing fee
of $200, how to pay that lawyer who is going to represent you in
bankruptcy, and along comes this bill which says let me give you some
more paperwork to fill out before you can qualify for bankruptcy.
The argument has been made over and over again in the Senate that
people below the median income do not have to go through this. My
amendment will clarify that, amendment No. 110. We want to make it
clear that if you have below the median income, you do not have to go
through the means test. In other words, on the first line up here,
``current monthly income,'' if you have proof your current monthly
income is in the lower income categories, supposedly protected from
this bill, that ought to be the end of the story.
It is not now. I want to clarify that. I want to make sure that
Members of the Senate who have come to the Senate and said people below
a median income could not have to worry about this bill, really mean
what they say. I emphasize and underscore my amendment does not in any
way relieve those filing for bankruptcy from meeting all the other
requisite steps. They still need to complete a lot of forms and
schedules outlining assets and liability. We add language that makes it
abundantly clear that a court may not dismiss a case based on any
formal means testing if the current monthly income of the debtor falls
at or below the median family income of the applicable State. The
language I offered merely reinforces what Members of the Senate on both
sides of the aisle, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle,
have said over and over and over again from the beginning of the
debate.
Let's look at the statement of my friend and colleague, Senator Orrin
Hatch. Here is what Senator Hatch said in the Senate:

It is possible that during this debate some may falsely
suggest that this bill unfairly treats low-income persons.
Let me tell you at the outset that the poor are not affected
by the means test. The legislation provides a

[[Page S2218]]

safe harbor for those who fall below the median income, so
they are not subjected to the means test at all.

But they are. Under the current language of this bill, it is not
clear that they are exempt from the means test, as Senator Hatch has
argued.
Now, let's take a statement from Senator Frist, the Republican leader
of the Senate. Senator Frist, on March 1, last week, said:

It [the Bankruptcy Reform Act] establishes a means test
that is based on fair principle, a simple principle, and that
is this, that those who have a means should repay their
debts. A simple principle: Those who have the means should
repay their debts. It specifically exempts anyone who
earns less than the median income in their State.

That is what my amendment says. If you earn less than the median
income, finish the forms that are already provided in bankruptcy court,
the new law does not affect you. But if you earn over the median
income, you have to fill out more forms. So it means the lower income
people, just as Senator Hatch and Senator Frist have said, will not
have to go through the extra expense and the extra time of going
through mountains of paperwork.
Let me also take a quote from Senator Sessions from Alabama who has
been on the Senate floor in support of this bill. Here is what he said:

Chairman Sensenbrenner pointed out that the means-based
test only applies to people with incomes above the median
state average. Anyone below the state median income does not
qualify on the means-based test and their bankruptcy petition
cannot be tossed out of chapter 7 and put into chapter 13
where some debts are paid back.

That is as clear as can be. Senator Sessions told us that. Now we
have another statement from Senator Sessions:

I remind all of my colleagues that people who are
economically distressed and if the income is below the median
income already will be exempt from the means test.

So my challenge to all those who made those statements is, prove it.
Prove it by voting for this amendment. Prove it that if you establish
that you have an income below the median income in your area, that you
do not have to go through this means test. They have all said it. Now
they will have a chance to vote on it.
Let me speak to one of my other amendments. I tried earlier in my
first amendment to protect the soldiers activated and fighting overseas
who lost their businesses. I failed, 58 to 38. I was surprised by that
rollcall, but I watched what happens. Virtually every amendment has
failed. As I said, some view this as holy writ. I just view it as a
product of the credit industry, their best hope of something they want
to pass in the Senate.
So I will offer amendment No. 111 to exempt certain veterans and
current members of the Armed Forces from the onerous administrative
burdens resulting from the means test. We say in this amendment it
applies to members and spouses of members of the Armed Forces on active
duty performing a homeland defense activity under title 32, veterans or
their spouses whose indebtedness occurred primarily during a 6-month or
longer period of active duty or performance of a homeland defense,
reservists of the Armed Forces or their spouses, same situation,
surviving spouses of those who died while serving as a member of the
Armed Forces.

We take a category of Americans to whom we all owe such a great debt
of gratitude and say if their debts overwhelm them because they are
serving our country, we are going to give them a break, a chance to
avoid this lengthy, expensive means test in this bill. I hope my
colleagues will reconsider their earlier vote against this amendment.
This is a much more compact, succinct, and limited break for those who
are serving.
The last amendment I will offer, amendment No. 112, is if I fail on
the previous amendment. Let me tell you what it says. It provides an
exemption from the means test only for disabled veterans who incurred
their indebtedness primarily during a period of service. It covers
service on active duty or during a National Guard homeland security
operation. Certainly we can give something of a break to these
Americans who have given so much to us.
I go out to Walter Reed Hospital. Many of the men and women who have
been injured are amputees. I remember one in particular. I said: How
are you?
He said: My rehab is coming along just fine. I think I will be great.
I have my new leg. I am learning how to walk on it. I would like to go
back to my unit, but I am going to go back home. I am a little bit
concerned. I had a job back home. I was an automobile mechanic. I don't
know if I will be able to return to that job.
That situation for that man and for so many others reflects this
change in their life. Yes, they will receive disability payments, but
some of them, because of the serious injuries they have faced--head
injuries, the loss of both hands, the loss of both legs--will not be
able to return to the life they had before. Some of them may find they
can't keep up with the debts that have been incurred while they have
served our country. Is it possible the Members of the Senate, for
disabled veterans, would give them a break if they are forced into
bankruptcy because of debts incurred while they served our country?
That is my last amendment.
I hope it doesn't reach that point. I hope all of us who come to the
floor to give important speeches in tribute to the men and women in
uniform will cast important votes on behalf of those men and women.
The credit card industry is important to America. I think they can do
a better job in the business in which they are involved. They ought to
take care, with the flood of credit cards that they send to everybody
under the sun--the 3-and-a-half-year-old little boy of an attorney on
my staff, a 9-month-old daughter of a friend of mine, all receiving
credit card applications. They are throwing them at America. Many
Americans, without thinking twice, are signing up, going more deeply in
debt than they should.
The monthly statement from the credit card company--I am telling you
this as a lawyer--flip that over and try to read the fine print.
Senator Akaka of Hawaii said: Shouldn't they tell you at least if you
make a minimum monthly payment how much it is going to cost you over
the period of time it will take to pay it off? Simple enough. The
credit card industry opposed it. It was defeated on the floor. The idea
of giving Americans more information so they can make the right credit
decisions was defeated on the floor.

You have to believe the industry that opposed providing that
information is an industry that doesn't care if you go head over heels
in debt. They think they are going to win. They are certainly going to
win if this bill passes because that credit card debt is going to hang
on for a lifetime. You won't be able to shake it. When we hear the
stories of people who are going to be victimized, I hope we will think
twice about the wisdom of this legislation.
The trustees in bankruptcy were asked to take a look at what
percentage of people filing for bankruptcy were fraudulent, had no
business in court. They came up with the number 3 percent, 3 out of 100
are fraudulent and should not be in court. Most of them are discovered.
The credit card industry said, no, it is much larger. It is 10 percent,
1 out of 10. This bill doesn't apply to the 10 percent of fraudulent
filers. This bill applies to every filer in bankruptcy. That is why
many of us think it is fundamentally unfair.
I can read the votes. I have been around Congress to know this is
going to pass. I certainly hope with these three amendments that my
colleagues will take some time and consider whether they want to live
up to what they have said. If they want to exempt lower income families
from the means test, my amendment lets them do it. If they do believe
we owe something to the men and women in uniform, my amendment gives
them a chance to vote that way. And if for no other reason they want to
show some sympathy and concern for disabled veterans who have given so
much to our country, they will have a chance with amendment No. 112.
I hope the solid wall of opposition to every single amendment will
break down. I hope my colleagues will take the time to read and
consider these amendments. It will be a lot easier to face the people
back home if we at least give some flexibility to this bill when it
comes to these important exceptions.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S2219]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am proud of the bipartisan bankruptcy
bill moving forward. We were excited over the strong vote for cloture
to bring this debate to an end, 66 or more votes for cloture. That was
a tremendous bipartisan show of support. I know my friend, the Senator
from Illinois, opposes the bill. He has offered a lot of amendments.
Fundamentally he doesn't like the bankruptcy bill. At one point he did.
At one point he was a sponsor of it. For whatever reason he is now not
supporting the bill. That is all right.
Our goal with regard to the bankruptcy bill was to continue the
historic privilege that Americans can wipe out debts and have a fresh
start. However, since the new bankruptcy bill was passed in 1978--that
is the new one we are now under, a big bankruptcy reform--then we had
about 200,000 filers in bankruptcy. Now there are 1.6 million filers in
bankruptcy. A lot of people are using bankruptcy as a way to avoid
paying their just debts. We wrestled with that. There was a lot of
concern that something is out of sync, that the classic American moral
value that you ought to pay your debts if you can ought to be honored.
At the same time we ought to create a circumstance in which people
can start over. As many Americans have learned, if they fall behind in
payment of debts, creditors call. You can have lawsuits filed against
you. Families get embarrassed. Court orders get issued. Those kinds of
things can be upsetting to a family. Sometimes you get so far behind
there is no way you can get out of it. That is what bankruptcy is for.
So we looked at it and tried to figure how we could reach the right
balance.
How do we crack down on those who want to get off scot-free, not pay
their debts, when they have the money to pay them, and do we protect
those who need a fresh start? First, let me tell you the power of
bankruptcy. A person making $200,000 a year, who owes maybe $150,000 in
various debts, can go into bankruptcy court and file bankruptcy today
and get all those debts discharged, when he or she could easily have
paid back most of them. That is the way the system works. You read one
of those ads and call one of those guys or ladies who advertises in the
free newspaper at the checkout counter, and they tell you to call your
bankruptcy lawyer and wipe out your debts. People do it--sometimes only
after talking to that lawyer who only gets paid, frankly, if the client
retains him to file a bankruptcy. They may have other alternatives to
get out of that financial difficulty and they may not understand that.
What I want to emphasize is that we decided to create a bright line,
a rule that would apply easily across the country in bankruptcy court,
and that is what we are doing--amending the law of bankruptcy court,
which is a Federal court, under Federal law. All bankruptcies are done
in Federal bankruptcy court, so it is our responsibility to deal with
the problems in that court. So we created a bright line rule.
If you make below median income and you owe debts, you can wipe them
out, as you always have. You don't have to pay your doctor, your
hospital, the automobile mechanic down the street who fixed your car,
your brother-in-law back for his loan, the credit card company, or
anybody else you owe--the bank, the credit union, wipe them out. So if
you make below median income, the law is basically still the same for
the debtor; he wipes it out. We had expert testimony in the Judiciary
Committee, of which I am a member, that said 80 percent of the people
who file bankruptcy make below median income, only 20 percent above. We
said what about people who make above median income, but they might
have special circumstances? Maybe they have a child who has a high
monthly expense. Maybe the debtor himself is disabled, with
extraordinary medical expenses, or things of that nature. We said we
would make an exception for those people who have extraordinary
expenses, and the estimates show that would add another 7 to 10 percent
who would be able to automatically file under the median income and,
therefore, would not have to pay any of their debts back under this
other provision of bankruptcy law, chapter 13. So we agreed on that.
That is the bill that passed. That means test philosophy passed this
Senate, one time, 97 to 1. It passed three times in this body. The last
time we voted on it, it was 83 to 15 to pass the bankruptcy bill. We
had the Schumer amendment on it--which we voted down recently--at that
time, and the House of Representatives refused to take the bill and
pass it. It died because of the Schumer amendment, which was a
maddening thing for those of us who had been working on it for 4 years.
I thought it was unbelievable that such a small but poison pill could
kill the legislation. I have heard a lot of times about how a poison
pill can kill a piece of legislation. Since I have been in the Senate,
I have never seen a more perfect example of a poison pill. It came back
up. Senator Schumer offered it and we voted it down earlier today.
This bill will not have the poison pill in it. We sent it over there
with bipartisan support every time and, for one reason or another, it
didn't become law. The House supports it. I am confident if we pass
this legislation, without the Schumer amendment, it will pass the House
of Representatives and go to the President for signature. I emphasize
all this to say there is nothing wrong with the means test. People who
make high incomes--lawyers, doctors and accountants are examples--and
file bankruptcy, wiping out all their debts, who don't care who
got hurt by their failure to pay and they care only about themselves,
this will crack down on those people who are abusing this system. I
don't think there is anything wrong with it. I believe it is the right
thing to do.

As a matter of fact, I hear even those who oppose the bill say they
don't oppose the bill, but they have spent all the time trying to
confuse this, suggesting that poor people are going to have to pay
something back. The chances are, if they are poor and are making below
median income in America, they won't have to pay back anything. What if
they make above median income? Perhaps they will have to pay back a
portion of their debts. The bankruptcy judge, under certain
circumstances, may order that they pay back a certain percentage. They
can be made to pay a certain percentage of those debts back through the
court, and it is distributed on a fair basis to the creditors who have
claims against the debtor for a period not to exceed 5 years. That is
what is commonly and legally known as chapter 13.
A lot of people all over America choose chapter 13 and agree to pay
back their debts because they think it is the right thing to do, and it
has some personal advantages. A lot of people find it hard to believe,
but in my home State of Alabama, about one-half of the filers in
bankruptcy court choose to file under chapter 13. What happens when you
go into chapter 13? All the phone calls have to stop. You cannot be
sued. If a lawyer tries to execute a judgment against your property
after you filed in bankruptcy under either chapter 7 or 13, they are in
contempt of court immediately. The family gets to calm down. The court
helps set up a repayment schedule for a part of the debts the debtor
owes, and their paycheck may go to the bankruptcy court and they parcel
it out to the various creditors, and the debtor gets to keep a certain
amount to live on, whatever he or she needs. That is the way chapter 13
works. It is not oppression to go into chapter 13. Almost half of the
people in my State who file bankruptcy choose to file under chapter 13.
Well, Senator Durbin quoted me. I was impressed that out of all those
out here, he quoted me. I suppose he quoted me correctly, but maybe he
was a little bit incorrect in interpreting what I had to say, or
perhaps I spoke in a way he did not understand. I thought I was clear.
I said in my remarks that if you make below median income, you are not
subject to the means test. I guess that technically may be a
misspeaking. What I meant was you are not required to pay anything back
under chapter 13. He said, well, why fill out the forms? Well, you fill
out the forms to see whether your income falls below the median income
in America; that is why

[[Page S2220]]

you fill out the forms. Surely, people would expect you, if you want to
ask a U.S. bankruptcy court in whatever State in America you are in and
you want to ask them to discharge your debts, and you want them to
order that you do not owe anybody you have been owing for the last 10
years, and your debts are built up and you don't want to pay any of
them a dime, surely it is not too much to ask somebody to show what
their income is, to bring in a payroll stub to see what your paycheck
is, and bring in an income tax return to see what you have been showing
on your income tax. What is wrong with that? They say, oh, we have all
these documents. I am telling you, I don't think we ought to be shocked
that before a court wipes out maybe hundreds of thousands or tens of
thousands of dollars in debt, they at least find out how much income
the guy has and how much property. What if they own 500 acres of land
out in the country? Should they not have to declare their assets?
Why should they keep property, stocks, bonds, or anything else of
value and not pay the people they solemnly committed to pay? If they
have assets, let's find out what they are. That is all we are talking
about.
How are you going to tell whether a person qualifies for a means test
if you do not have them produce some information about their income? I
do not think that is oppression, and I do not think people are being
oppressed if a credit card company lets them have $5,000 and they do
not pay a dime of it back. I do not think a person is being oppressed.
This is not some sort of anti-capitalist body. People get money all the
time. They borrow money. They promise to pay it back. If nobody pays
back their debts, everybody who uses a credit card will find their
costs going up. Every bank loan will go up; every housing loan will go
up. We have to have integrity, but we are going to give people--1.6
million of them a year last I heard--the ability to wipe out their
debts. For probably 90 percent of them, they can wipe out all of them
if they choose, and for the remaining 10 percent, they may have to pay
some back. Some of those people absolutely ought to be paying back some
of their debts.
We are all just victims here. It is so discouraging to me to hear
skilled Members of this body talk about the American people as if they
are just victims and pawns. I have seen the polls. Overwhelmingly, the
American people believe you ought to pay your credit card debt back
rather than pay other things because they know their interest rates are
higher there. Frankly, I think everybody ought to reduce their credit
card debt. They ought to chop them up and throw them away.
I was glad that my children--my two daughters and son--when they were
off at college had a credit card. I told them not to use it unless they
had to, but if they were out on the road and the car broke down, or
something happened, I trusted them to use that credit card. What a
wonderful thing. Anywhere in America--actually anywhere in the world--
you can stick that card in a machine and out pops money. And if you pay
it on time, you hardly pay any interest.
I am not here to condemn the credit card companies, and I reject and
am offended by the repeated suggestion that this bill is supposed to do
nothing but protect credit card companies. That is false. It demeans
the integrity of the Members of this Senate, in my view, who have
worked hard on a bipartisan basis, 85 to 15, the last time we passed
this legislation. I guess that is all they have to say when they
complain about the bill.
We talked about the military, and I am concerned about our military.
I offered--and I was pleased that the President made part of his
supplemental appropriations bill--an amendment to increase the death
benefits of our soldiers, raising the basic death benefit from $12,000
to $100,000 and increasing the SGLI, Servicemen's Group Life Insurance,
to $400,000 from $250,000, retroactive to the beginning of the war on
terrorism. It will help all those families.
I, like other Senators, visited soldiers in the hospital at Walter
Reed. I visited them in Germany. I have been in Iraq three times. I
have talked with all the families from Alabama who have lost soldiers
in the war. I served in the Army Reserve for 10 years, missing by
several years being activated in the first Gulf War. Some of my best
friends are still in the Army Reserve. I understand what they are going
through. I talked with them in Iraq in January of this year. Some have
suffered financial difficulties as a result. We know that.
I offered the amendment that would make clear and explicit that a
service man or service woman who has been activated and is not able to
pay their debts would, in fact, be a special circumstance that could
keep them from having to pay back their debts under chapter 13, and
they would be able to wipe out all their debts. No matter what their
debts are, if their income is below median income, they get to wipe
them out anyway. It is just in that top 20 percent, they may need
special circumstances.

I defined it, and we passed--at the same time, Senator Durbin's
amendment was voted down--to give them that special protection. I think
that was the right way to do it. Senator Durbin had an automatic
guaranteed set-aside for them in a way that I think was not as
appropriate as the route the Senate chose to take. But he got a vote on
his amendment and I got a vote on my amendment.
I also recall, for those who are listening, that we do have a
powerful Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act that has been updated. That is
the new title. The old, classical Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act says
if you are off on active duty serving your country, you cannot be sued,
they cannot take a judgment against you, they cannot foreclose on your
home, and there are a host of other protections for them.
They have those protections. Plus, when you come back, you can
bankrupt against any of the debts you may have. If you make above
median income, the judge can consider and should consider military
service as a special circumstance. I think that is the right way to do
it. I believe we did the right thing on that issue.
It really hurts me to hear people suggest, because they are unhappy
with this bill and they filed an amendment that was not adopted exactly
like they wanted it, that we who adopted the amendment to deal with
this issue are insensitive to military men and women serving America.
Those are some of my thoughts, Mr. President. I think the bill does a
lot of good. There are some things about which we have not talked. We
had the critics dominate the debate and point out everything they think
is wrong and offer amendments. Senator Feingold has 15 amendments.
Remember now, this is the fourth time this bill has been on this floor.
The last time, we debated over 2 weeks on the legislation with
amendment after amendment. This time we are going to be 2 weeks on it.
I think we debated 2 weeks the other two times. There has been
extensive debate. We have had debate and amendments offered in the
Judiciary Committee likewise on these issues where Senator Feingold,
Senator Durbin, and others serve.
We have tried to be fair and open. Everybody has had a chance to
raise their concerns, but it is time to vote and get this bill in the
barn and move on to other issues.
I want to mention a couple points that are so important for people in
America who are having a hard time. Women and children who are victims
of divorce and separation, deadbeat dads--what about that issue?
In the course of our deliberations, we made a bipartisan commitment
to raise the top debts that arise from alimony or child support to the
highest level of a bankruptcy court. In other words, when there is a
limited amount of money, the bankruptcy judge decides who gets paid
first. In the past, they have always paid the lawyers and the court
fees, and then they had some other things, and then women and children
came along. We raised women and children to the top of the list. Of
course, that is one reason they are unhappy with the bill--trust me. We
also put some other provisions in it to reduce some of the litigation
that goes on in bankruptcy court.
We raised women and children to the top of the list. The National
Child Support Group and the National District Attorneys Association
that handles child support issues said it is absolutely a fact that
women and children have a substantial benefit under this

[[Page S2221]]

act. One person said it is a veritable wish list for helping women and
children who are owed child support and alimony to collect those debts.
And they get paid even above so many other people.
Also, I note that secured creditors are next, and the unsecured
creditors, such as the credit card people, and those with personal
notes and bills, such as your local gas station. Those debts come in as
unsecured debts, and they are further down the list.
We do not raise credit cards above people. We actually raised women
and children up to the highest group. So I think there are a lot of
good things in it, including a requirement that people who want to pay
their debts, cannot handle their money and manage it well, must attend
a financial management course before being discharged from bankruptcy.
We want to see people manage their money well, get rid of those credit
cards, contain their spending and manage their money wisely. That is
what we would like to see them do. That is what the bill requires.
It also says a person at least ought to talk with a credit counselor.
These exist all over America. Many times they can help people manage
their money. They get the whole family around the table, they talk
honestly about what their financial situation is, what their debts are,
and how they would have to be paid back. They have the ability to call
the bank, the credit card company, or the mortgage company and say: We
believe this client could file bankruptcy, but if you will allow them
to reduce their payment to you for the next year and pay down some of
these critical debts they owe, we will get back to you in full speed.
We will help them achieve that. We will work out a budget with them.
Many creditors agree to extend--some even forgive a part of their
debts in order to help debtors so they do not have to file bankruptcy,
and they learn something in the process. They do not have to go into
credit counseling. They can go straight to the lawyers and file
bankruptcy in the traditional way. I think some may decide that maybe
this is the better alternative for them.
If they go in response to one of those late night ads on television,
or one of those newspaper ads to the bankruptcy mill, they are not
going to get that information in most instances, although some lawyers,
I am sure, do give them advice.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. We are having an exchange, and maybe since we are both in
the Chamber we can at least come to an agreement on our disagreement.
And I will yield some of my own time if it reaches the point where the
Senator thinks it is taking advantage of his time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I was about to yield the floor, but, please, go ahead.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would stay for a few moments, I would like
to see if we can get to an agreement on our disagreement.
Right now, under current law, when I go into chapter 7 filing for
bankruptcy, I am bound by the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code under
section 521 to file a list of my creditors, unless the court orders
otherwise, a schedule of assets, liability, current income, current
expenditures, and statement of debtor's financial affairs and more when
it comes to consumer debt currently. That is what happens when one goes
into bankruptcy court--and that is this sheath of paper--they have to
fill these things out. These are the documents that get one into court.
Mr. SESSIONS. I would just add, one has to list those debts, and if
they do not list them they are not discharged and they can still be
liable for them. So the debtor has to list his or her debts.
Mr. DURBIN. So one has to be careful. They better put all of their
debts down if they want to have them discharged.
Mr. SESSIONS. Right.
Mr. DURBIN. In comes the new law, and the new law says if one is
below median income, that is the end of the story. They continue as
currently required under chapter 7. They do not have to go through and
prepare and file this means test which is required here because they
are not required to.
Page 18 of the bill, no one can challenge a person if in the case of
a debtor in a household of one person, the median family income of the
applicable State is applicable. So this is the point that has been made
over and over, again that having filed the basic documents in
bankruptcy, if it is then established that one is below the median
income, end of the story. This bill does not apply. That is the way I
understood it.

My amendment is trying to clarify it to make sure that is the way the
Senator understands it. In other words, if I have done all of the basic
filing and I disclose my monthly income and I am below median income,
then I do not have to fill out the forms for the means test; it does
not apply to me.
I quoted the Senator earlier, Senator Frist, and Senator Hatch, who
have all said that on the Senate floor. My amendment clarifies that and
says that unequivocally, after someone has filed their basic documents,
if they demonstrate their monthly income is below the median income,
they do not have to fill out the forms for the means test as to what
they can pay over the next 10 years. They are not covered by that.
Is that the Senator's understanding of what this law says?
Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is my understanding of it.
Mr. DURBIN. Well, my amendment is only trying to clarify that. That
is all it is doing. What I just described to the Senator is to say
unequivocally, if someone files the initial documents currently
required under chapter 7 and demonstrates to the court that their
monthly income is below a median income, they do not have to fill out
all of the additional paperwork required in the means test, which is
substantial and expensive. If the Senator feels as I do, that that is
what the law says or should say, I hope the Senator will look at my
amendment. It is not a trick amendment. It is just trying to clarify
that point.
Mr. SESSIONS. I would be glad to review the amendment. It would
appear clear to me that one does need to meet certain basic filing
requirements.
Mr. DURBIN. Absolutely.
Mr. SESSIONS. So the income can be determined, and we did step that
requirement up to require more in connection with income tax return
filings and things of that nature.
I know the Senator is a member of the Judiciary Committee and has
worked hard on this bill, so I respect his concern over this issue. I
am not one who believes we have a problem, but I will be willing to
look at it.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would be kind enough to review my
amendment, I would appreciate it very much.
I yield to the Senator.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 89

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 89 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is once again
pending.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Kerry, who is the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, be
added as a cosponsor to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we have spent a great deal of time
debating and trying to improve provisions of this bill that affect
consumer bankruptcies. Most of my colleagues may not even be aware that
this bill actually contains provisions that make significant changes to
portions of the Bankruptcy Code that relate to small businesses. They
may not realize it, but it does. Subtitle B of title IV of the bill is
entitled ``Small Business Bankruptcy Provisions,'' and I doubt more
than a handful of people in this body have any idea what is in the
subtitle.
The subtitle includes a number of new restrictions and requirements
for small businesses that want to reorganize under chapter 11. That is
right, these are requirements and restrictions for small businesses
that do not apply

[[Page S2222]]

to large companies. I was shocked when this came to my attention, but
there it is in black and white, subtitle B, ``Small Business Bankruptcy
Provisions.''
These are not provisions to help small businesses, as one might
expect from a bill that is going through the Senate. No, these
provisions penalize small businesses. They make it harder for small
businesses to reorganize in order to survive.
Here is an example. Section 434 would require regular reports on the
small business's profitability. They will have to report all kinds of
things: profitability, cash receipts and disbursement, requirements to
be in compliance with postpetition requirements, timely filing of tax
returns, and ``such other matters as are in the best interests of the
debtor and creditors.''
This is a mountain of information. Mom-and-pop operations will have
to spend a great deal of time pulling these reports together, and the
reports probably will not even be useful. Creditors and judges
examining a debtor's profitability rely on cash disbursements and
receipts, not self-reporting, because they are more informative and
less subject to manipulation. It seems to me these reports will not be
of much use to anyone, but they will be quite burdensome for a small
business to produce on a regular basis.
What is the penalty for failure to jump through this bureaucratic
hoop? Dismissal. Again, not for large corporations, mind you, which
have armies of accountants to handle paperwork like this, but for the
small entrepreneurs who could be spending that time keeping their
businesses afloat instead of producing these piles of paper for some
government file which basically no one will ever use.
I do not want to have to go back to Wisconsin and have to explain to
a grocery store owner who is already working late into the night,
trying to pull her business through a financial crisis, that the
Federal Government has decided to keep her even longer to put together
a report that nobody even plans to read. I am very concerned, almost
ashamed of this Chamber to think I would have to tell her that if she
were a big corporation, if she were the big chain of huge grocery
stores, then the law would not require this of her. It would not treat
her this way.
Professor Elizabeth Warren wrote, when the same language was proposed
during the 107th Congress:

A decision by Congress in 2001 that small businesses should
bear greater costs, face shorter deadlines, file more papers
and lose any flexibility that a supervising judge might
provide is a decision to shut down small businesses simply
because they are small.

That is what Professor Warren wrote.
I can see no justification for imposing burdens on small business in
the bankruptcy code that will not be imposed on large corporations. It
has always been our responsibility as legislators to protect small
businesses. My amendment calls on us to fulfill that responsibility in
a very significant way. It would simply strike a number of the
provisions in title IV, subtitle B of the bill.
Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. According
to the Small Business Administration, small firms represent 99.7
percent of all employers and pay 44 percent of the total U.S. private
payroll. Small businesses have generated from 60 to 80 percent of the
net new jobs created annually over the last decade. I can't figure out
why, for the life of me, we are trying to make life harder for small
businesses.
What is particularly puzzling is that I have heard a number of my
colleagues complain about the burdens that they believe federal
regulations impose on small businesses. The head of the Small Business
Administration recently testified before the Small Business Committee
that ``[s]ome of the heaviest burdens borne by small business in
America are the result of unnecessary federal regulation and redtape.''
If my colleagues share that belief--and even if they don't--why would
we want to impose further Federal regulations and red tape on small
business chapter 11 bankruptcies?
The worst thing about this attack on small business is that it is
utterly unprovoked. Another provision of this bill would impose harsh
deadlines on small businesses seeking to reorganize under chapter 11,
but these deadlines are apparently designed to solve a problem that
doesn't exist. The bill's drafters perhaps believed, back in 1998, that
chapter 11 offers a shelter for failing small businesses, allowing them
to delay the inevitable and die a lingering death to the detriment of
their creditors. But this is just not the case.
The bill would impose an arbitrary 300-day hard deadline for a small
business to file its reorganization plan. But a recent study of small
business bankruptcy cases by Professor Douglas Baird of the University
of Chicago Law School and Professor Edward Morrison of Columbia Law
School shows that this deadline is completely counterproductive.
According to this study, more than half of small business chapter 11
cases that fail--in other words, those that are dismissed, or converted
to chapter 7 liquidations--are terminated within 4 months of filing.
Over 70 percent are terminated within 6 months. By 300 days more than
90 percent have already left the system. In other words, the 300-day
deadline imposed by this bill will affect a very small percentage of
small business plans that are actually bound for failure. It constrains
the discretion of bankruptcy judges, without any apparent justification
for doing so, since reorganization cases without merit are already
being terminated in a timely manner.
Instead of protecting the system against abuse by small businesses
doomed to eventual failure, this bill will punish primarily small
businesses that would otherwise succeed. Professors Baird and Morrison
found that of the small businesses that successfully reorganize under
chapter 11, nearly 40 percent need more than 300 days to do so. In
other words, the facts show that by 300 days, most failing small
businesses have already failed but many viable small businesses are
still struggling. We should be helping them, not terminating them.
Forcing small businesses capable of successfully reorganizing into
chapter 7 liquidation proceedings is bad for their creditors, and
tragic for the entrepreneurs who will see their livelihoods and their
hard work over years or even generations needlessly destroyed.
Compare the hard deadline in the bill to what happens in the
bankruptcies of large corporations. United Airlines filed for chapter
11 protection in December 2002. That is over 2 years ago. And the court
has continually allowed the effort to come up with a reorganization
plan that the creditors can accept to continue rather than force the
airline to liquidate. We still don't know what will happen in that
case, but clearly it is worth trying to save that company, with all its
employees and devoted customers. Why don't we want to allow the courts
to exercise the same flexibility for small businesses? Are they just
not as important as the big corporations like United? Is that the
message the Senate is trying to send with this bill? I can hardly
believe that my colleagues want to send that message. But this could
have a big impact on the ability of small businesses across the country
to survive, so I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this
amendment.
These new burdens on small businesses are simply wrong. Congress
simply should not be in the business of forcing viable small businesses
into liquidation. And why are large corporations seeking to reorganize
not similarly burdened? Do the bill's drafters think that large
businesses are more important than small businesses, so we should give
them extra time to reorganize?

There is an additional irony here when you compare the requirements
we put on large and small businesses in bankruptcy that my colleagues
should consider. Large companies are often subject to a variety of
reporting requirements by the federal securities laws that are not
applicable to small businesses. But the SEC often exempts companies in
chapter 11 from those requirements. At the same time that large
companies are often excused from onerous reporting because of their
bankruptcy, this bill puts additional reporting requirements on small
businesses. Where is the fairness in that?
If there is a crisis with small business bankruptcies, I am not aware
of it. Professor Warren, one of the country's leading bankruptcy
experts, was one of the authors of a 1999 Small Business Administration
study. That study

[[Page S2223]]

found that one-third of bankrupt businesses had less than $100,000 in
debts and almost four out of five had less than half a million dollars
in debts. What is more, almost half--45 percent--of the small
businesses had one or no employees when they filed for bankruptcy.
These numbers don't give me any reason to think that small business
bankruptcies are such a serious problem that we need to enact special
provisions targeting them.
Bankruptcy experts tell me that these small business provisions are
just crazy. But they have been in the bill forever, and most of the
focus is on the consumer provisions when we debate this bill. Someone
needs to stand up and say, ``Wait a second. Why are we discriminating
against small businesses in the bankruptcy laws?'' I can't think of a
single bill in my entire time in the Congress--over 12 years--where a
single law on the books treats small businesses worse than big
corporations. That is the opposite of what we usually do in this body.
We always protect small businesses. Why is this bill any different?
When I offered this amendment in the Judiciary Committee, I heard two
arguments against it. The first was that the provisions were
recommended by the National Bankruptcy Commission. This is a very odd
argument, coming from the same people who completely ignored the
commission's work on consumer bankruptcy issues and drafted a bill
largely in response to the credit industry's recommendations. But more
importantly, I have been told that the commission provisions were
created by certain commissioners who wanted to reform chapter 11 for
all companies, large and small. The big companies came in and said:
``No, don't do that to us. Those deadlines are too restrictive.'' Here
is what happened. The recommendation was amended to apply only to small
businesses. There was no showing that there are more abuses in small
business bankruptcies than in chapter 11 filings for large companies.
Small businesses apparently just didn't have the right lobbyists
watching the process. So they got stung by these wrongheaded provisions
that live on year after year in this bill without anyone coming forward
to explain why they are necessary or useful.

The second argument that came up in the committee was that small
businesses support this bill. That is true, at least for some small
businesses. But they don't necessarily support the particular
provisions that I am talking about. They may not even know about these
provisions. Small businesses, like large businesses, support the bill
because it makes it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy. But I
doubt very much that they want the law changed to make it harder for
struggling small businesses to reorganize under chapter 11.
This is an important example of how this bill fails to reflect
lessons we have learned in the years since it was first proposed. Given
the recent history of large-scale corporate bankruptcies and scandals,
the way this bill cracks down on small businesses is not only
misguided, it is shocking. We should be focusing our energies on the
real problem, not penalizing small businesses.
I urge adoption of this amendment, and I hope that small businesses
all across this country will be watching this debate. Those people who
think the Senate is devoted to the interests of small businesses may be
in for a rude awakening if this amendment is not agreed to.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in
morning business and I also ask unanimous consent that the time be
counted as postcloture time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. DeWine and Mr. Dodd are printed in today's Record
under ``Morning Business.'')
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 67

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 67.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is pending.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment--we have checked with the
Parliamentarian--is a germane amendment to the bill. It was filed prior
to the appropriate time, at the hour of 2:30 p.m. yesterday. Let me
explain what this amendment does and why I am offering it this
afternoon.
I am offering this amendment to enable parents to meet the needs of
their children. We just heard our good friend and colleague from Ohio
talk about Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the problems that occur
with underage drinking. It is appropriate, after that discussion, that
I offer this amendment because it is not unrelated, we know the
difficulty of single parenthood, of how hard it is for single parents,
the overwhelming majority of whom are women, to try to raise children
on their own, all of the pressures of holding down jobs and managing a
family. It will not come as any great surprise to my colleagues to know
that a significant percentage of underage drinking and children who
have problems with the juvenile justice system and other related issues
come from broken homes, unfortunately. The tremendous pressures of a
single head of household holding down a job and keeping their family
together is not easy.

This amendment I am offering today on this bankruptcy bill relates to
these familial circumstances, and it comes in several parts. I am going
to take a few minutes and explain this amendment and why I believe it
is important.
Very simply, during the financial crisis of living through a
bankruptcy, children should be protected to the maximum extent
possible. That is my strong belief. I believe it is the belief of all
of us. Regardless of one's politics or ideology, I think we all
understand that when a family is going through bankruptcy, we ought to
do what we can to protect the innocent. Whatever one's feelings may
have been about the parents, about their responsibility or
irresponsibility, children should not be penalized because of the sins
or the faults of their parents. This amendment is designed to at least
attempt, under those trying circumstances of a family going through
bankruptcy, to protect those who are innocent--the children--to the
maximum extent possible.
About 39 percent of those filing bankruptcy in the United States are
single women raising children, almost 40 percent. About 29 percent,
almost 30 percent of those filing for bankruptcy are men, and 32
percent of households filing for bankruptcy are married couples. So we
are talking about 70 percent of those who are filing fall into the area
of single parents and their problems related to it. While there may be
some people who are trying to scam the system--and there certainly are,
and I do not argue with that point at all--I believe most people do not
file bankruptcy lightly. It is a highly emotional time and one of
financial crisis.
The most common reasons for 90 percent of women filing for bankruptcy
include medical emergencies, job loss, and divorce. Women are
especially vulnerable because they tend to have lower incomes and fewer
assets and are more likely to be caring for children on their own.
If my colleagues truly cared, and I believe they do, about protecting
mothers and the innocent children who are caught up in the tremendously
disruptive time of bankruptcy, I think they will end up supporting this
amendment. At least I hope they do. If our colleagues truly care about
marriage and strengthening marriages, they also would support this
amendment. I cannot think of many more things more stressful on a
marriage than filing bankruptcy.
My amendment covers four main areas to protect children during this
turbulent and emotional time. The amendment would modify the means test
to provide greater flexibility and reasonableness when calculating a

[[Page S2224]]

debtor's ability to pay. Allowable expenses are broadened to ensure
that parents, whether married or divorced, can still support their
children as they live through a bankruptcy.
For example, the amendment would allow a single mother, recently
deserted by her husband, raising children who has filed for bankruptcy
to continue paying education expenses for her child. Let us say that
the mother, being a religious person and from a family that had used
parochial schools for generations, is struggling to keep her child in
one of these parochial schools. In this case, her 10 year old son has
gone to a parochial school since kindergarten. It is where his friends
go. After being fairly shy and withdrawn, he has begun to thrive there,
has developed close relationships with several of his teachers.
The mother was able to obtain a hardship reduction in tuition from the
archdiocese, reducing the tuition to $3,500 a year.

Under the means test in the pending legislation, under our bankruptcy
bill, this mother could not file chapter 7 or chapter 13 if she
continued to send her son to parochial school. The means test allows
only $1,500 for tuition and any other education expenses--not enough
for any religious school. We are not talking about some fancy prep
school or boarding school; we are talking about a basic parochial
school education, which in many areas of the country costs around
$5,000 per year, sometimes even slightly more. One of my neighbors told
me that the parochial high school his son attends costs roughly $8,000
a year.
The child did not file for bankruptcy. Why during this turbulent time
should the child be ripped away from his circle of friends and moral
mentors? This should be a time when the child needs his friends and
trusted teachers the most, his circle of security, particularly during
a time of separation by parents and a bankruptcy.
The amendment would allow expenses associated with employment, such
as child care, and it would allow alimony and child support to be used
as intended to cover the needs of children in the household.
Particularly with children, there are emergency expenses that arise,
and any means test ought to reflect that reality.
Second, this amendment would ensure that support payments and other
funds, such as refunds from the earned income tax credit or child tax
credit, intended for the current needs of children do not become the
property of the bankruptcy estate with the corollary potential of being
distributed to creditors. Money intended to support children and their
needs should go to children who need it, not creditors, in my view. Why
should the earned income tax credit or the refundable child credit be
yanked away from supporting children so that the depth of poverty in
which they may live becomes even greater?
Thirdly, the amendment enables debtors going through bankruptcy to
keep personal property normally found in or around the home, excluding
automobiles. This would ensure that in bankruptcy situations, families
with children are able to keep, without fear of repossession, household
goods that typically have no resale value.
Fourth, the amendment would ensure that debtors are not forced into
bankruptcy court to seek to prove that some of these items have any
value for resale and would necessarily have to be added, forced into
bankruptcy court to prove these items were not luxury goods.
This amendment, which I had hoped the managers of the bill would
agree to, it is more technical than anything else. I am sorry it is not
being accepted, because it goes to the very heart of what many of us
have talked about and tried to accomplish over the years since
bankruptcy laws were first modernized and adopted over a century ago in
1903. This amendment deals with families and spouses, with child
support issues and where they come into context of priorities when it
comes to discharging responsibilities under the Bankruptcy Act.
In 2003, as much as $95 billion in child support payments remained
uncollected in the United States. It is a staggering sum of money and
makes a huge difference to children growing up under adverse
circumstances. It is estimated that one out of every other child living
in poverty could be taken out of poverty if we were able to collect
child support. Forget about appropriations or tax provisions we may
adopt. if we could just collect the $95 billion in unpaid child
support, we could virtually eliminate poverty in one out of every two
children growing up under those circumstances in the United States.
The bankruptcy bill before us is going to make it more difficult in
many ways for those families out trying to find those spouses who owe
this child support to make it available. Thus, I believe we are going
to exacerbate the problem of children who rely on child support and
families who rely on alimony being able to get those resources to
minimize the effects that a divorce and separation can cause.

When one excludes the ability to receive the financial support
necessary to make ends meet, the problem becomes, obviously, even more
pronounced, and children bear the price. Again, I repeat, whatever one
may feel about the parents and their irresponsibility, putting
themselves and their families in jeopardy, we ought to be highly
sensitive to what happens to children. It is not their fault that their
parents are filing bankruptcy. I do not believe necessarily it is the
parents' fault either in many instances, with medical expenses, with
divorce and job loss being the reason a large percentage of
bankruptcies occur.
Putting aside that for a moment, whether one agrees with those
numbers, I do not know of a single person in this Chamber who would
disagree with what I am about to say. Children should not have to pay
the price of their parents' mistakes, and yet that is what we are going
to do with this bill if we do not take some steps to try to correct the
situation.
Since 1903, our Nation's bankruptcy laws have been guided by the firm
principle that women and children must be first in the distribution
line of available assets during a bankruptcy proceeding. For over a
century, debt owed to children and families has been nondischargeable.
Thus, if a head of a household fails financially, whatever remaining
assets he has could be used to spare his spouse or ex-spouse and his
children from impoverishment. We do this because those who are most
vulnerable in our society deserve the most protection.
Today's bill, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act, would fundamentally alter this delicate balance achieved after a
century of jurisprudence. We are altering the bankruptcy landscape for
the benefit of credit card industry without understanding or
recognizing what the consequences for families will be. Women and
children will be disproportionately affected by this legislation unless
it is amended, which is what I am trying to do with the amendment now
before us.

Whether as debtors filing for bankruptcy themselves or as creditors,
three-quarters of a million women will be affected this year by the
bankruptcy system, and it is estimated that as many as 1 million women
will be affected in the coming year. I agree with those of my
colleagues who think the bankruptcy law needs to be reformed and
tightened. I do not disagree at all with that. But in my view it is
possible to enact legislation that tightens the laws without depriving
debtors and their families of reasonably necessary living expenses to
care for their children.
As this legislation is currently drafted, however, the credit card
industry is protected, more protected than they have ever been.
Unfortunately, families are not, in my view. This bill could turn the
lives of children and families literally upside-down.
I think it is enough of an emotional roller coaster for a parent to
file bankruptcy, but I think to elevate the needs of the credit card
companies over the needs of children is simply wrong. I am greatly
concerned about the means test, which requires the trustee in
bankruptcy to review all chapter 7 cases for ability to pay debts under
a rigid IRS formula devised originally for delinquent taxpayers, now to
be applied to bankruptcies. These standards neither take into
consideration differences in the cost of living from region to region,
nor do they ascribe rational expenses for the use of individual
families. In my view, these rigid standards will deprive children and
families of reasonably necessary living expenses.

[[Page S2225]]

While moving child support to a first priority among unsecured
creditors in chapter 7 sounds good, it is virtually meaningless,
however.
Listen to this. Fewer than 4 percent of chapter 7 debtors have
anything to distribute to unsecured creditors. Listen to that again.
Fewer than 4 percent of chapter 7 debtors have anything to distribute
to unsecured creditors. That is to say 96 percent of these debtors have
nothing to give out. So saying under chapter 7, ``you are first in
line,'' means absolutely nothing except to 4 percent of those debtors.
First in line when there is nothing means nothing. This is not a
protection for women and families. It sounds good, but it is totally
hollow when it comes to seeing to these children and these families
whom, for 100 years, we have done a better job of protecting.
Additionally, because the means test increases the potential for
dismissing chapter 7 cases, this bill channels many debtors into the 5-
year, chapter 13 repayment plans, even though we know for a fact that
two-thirds of such plans fail today. What will families live on during
this time? What are proponents of this legislation going to do, go back
to the time of Charles Dickens or debtors prisons?
Under chapter 13, the bill would require that larger payments be made
to credit card companies. As a result, payments of past-due child
support would be made in smaller amounts and over a longer period of
time, thus increasing the risk that children will not receive the
support they need and the full debt would never be paid.
Mothers and children would be in direct competition with credit card
companies employing well-financed collection departments. How do you
think mothers and children will fare when it comes down to competing?
It is hard enough under the present system for these people to collect
the $95 billion they are owed in one single year in child support, when
they now are going to also have to compete, under chapter 13, with
credit card companies who are well heeled and in a far better position
financially, with teams of lawyers, to go after these debtors. I do not
believe anybody could rationally conclude that a mother raising two or
three children on her own, with limited resources, is going to be able
to hire the lawyers to compete with the credit card companies going
after the debtor husbands in these cases.
Those are the practical realities. So for children and families, this
bill makes life a lot worse because of exactly what I have explained:
we are moving people out of chapter 7, where there was nothing much to
give anyway, into chapter 13, where it becomes far easier for larger
amounts of these resources, larger payments, to be made to the credit
card companies.
I am very concerned about the provisions of the legislation that make
certain credit card debt nondischargeable. While the family support
provisions added to this legislation are positive improvements, they
have not cured the problems caused by the other provisions of the bill.
In fact, they are negated by them, in my view. These are provisions
that give far greater collection rights to the credit card lenders and
fewer, in my view, to families and children.
This bill elevates credit card debt to a presumed nondischargeable
status. If a debtor purchases items or services on credit from a single
creditor within 90 days of bankruptcy, and such items exceed $500 in
value, these items would be presumed luxuries.
Listen to that again. Within 90 days, if you make purchases from a
single creditor exceeding $500, they are presumed luxuries--in 90
days--3 months.
Again, if you are a single parent with two or three kids, over 90
days $500 is not a huge amount when you are talking about groceries or
other essentials. Over a 3-month period--stretch it out and do the
math--$500 over 90 days is really, in 21st century dollars, even if you
go to the best discount stores, not going to be enough to make it.
Current law allows up to $1,225 to be discharged within 60 days of
bankruptcy. The bill as reported would limit it to $500 within 90 days,
as I have said. The amendment I will offer when the time comes to vote
on it will allow not $500 but less than $1,200 to $1,000 within 70
days. So it is less than 90, a bit more than 60. It is less than $1,200
under current law but certainly more than $500 to get you to $1,000.
Again, I don't think this is any great luxury. You are trying to meet
the needs of your family. To declare them to be luxuries--it doesn't
seem a lot to me. Over a 90-day period it is not that hard to spend
$501 at Wal-Mart to meet kids' needs. Most would agree such purchases
are not luxuries. In 90 days alone, a family with children could exceed
$500 on other expenses that arise with children.
My amendment requires creditors to prove at a hearing that such items
were not reasonably necessary for the maintenance and support of the
debtor and her dependents, shifting the burden to creditors rather than
the parents. If the creditor wants to make the case, let them do it,
but don't lay the burden for $501 on a single mother with young kids to
hire lawyers to go in and make the case these are not luxury items. I
shift the burden over to the creditors. If they want to make the case,
they can do so.
I don't know what the proponents of this legislation are intending
here, other than to protect the credit card companies at the expense of
children. If you have $501 of food, medicine, and clothing expenses,
and it is incurred within the last 90 days, then you have to go to
court and spend money to prove these are not luxuries--food, medicine,
and clothing. This point is one I find stunning in its potential
implications. By the very fact that you are in bankruptcy court, how
are you going to hire a lawyer to go in and prove that $501 was for
necessities and not luxuries? We need to be far more practical than
that, it seems. To go to Wal-Mart and buy food and clothes for your
children, necessities they may need, that is considered a luxury if it
is more than $500.
If you are a single woman as a creditor, then you must wait until
your ex-husband tries, or does not try, to defend a similar purchase.
If he is unsuccessful, there will be less money for him to pay child
support.
So on either side of the equation, if you are the woman raising
children on your own, either as a debtor or a creditor, this places
tremendous burdens on your family. If this section is sustained in the
bill, then I urge the President to veto it, which I am told he would
not do, but I hope he would. This legislation, regardless of what else
is here, I think putting credit card debt ahead of kids is just wrong.
I think all my colleagues are probably familiar with the popular TV
ad where a father takes his son to a baseball game, they rack up maybe
$100 in costs--tickets, parking, hot dogs, sodas, maybe a popcorn to
share and a small souvenir. The tag line in the commercial says: ``Cost
of the memory--priceless.''
What the commercial doesn't tell you about is the memory may be
priceless, but if the next day that dad is unlucky enough to lose his
job, have a heart attack, incur enormous hospital expenses without
health insurance, and can't make his minimum payments on time, the
credit card companies are only too happy to turn priceless into pricey.
Unfortunately, pricey for the family with finance charges, overcharges,
penalty fees, and other means, can turn a dream into a nightmare.
This bill allows families to take a backseat to lenders, if lenders
say their claims are secured by the debtors' property. For the first
time in over 100 years, we have allowed these heretofore unsecured
creditors to get into the bankruptcy courthouse. Currently, child and
family support, taxes, and student loans are not dischargeable debts.
For the first time in a century, the proposed legislation before us
would bring into this unique category these other creditors--i.e.,
credit card companies--which will make the competition for scarce
assets that much more fierce. These creditors have historically been
unsecured because they have received the benefit of high interest and
finance charges. Now they are becoming effectively secured creditors.
With all of these concerns in mind, the amendment I am offering this
afternoon seeks to address some of these problems. I hope these efforts
will win broad bipartisan support. I have been terribly disappointed
that there has been no willingness to even talk about some of these
amendments. I don't know why we can't do this. This is not the end of
the session. We are only in the month of March.

[[Page S2226]]

This is an important bill. I understand that. But it is going to have
huge implications for years to come if we don't sit down and listen to
each other carefully to try to work out some of these matters so we can
put a bill together. Yes, it may require a conference; it may require
some negotiation. But isn't that a wiser course to follow than to
rubberstamp a proposal because the other body doesn't want to sit down
in conference on the bankruptcy bill, particularly when we are talking
again about the most vulnerable in our society; that is, our children?
Again, I emphasize what I said at the outset. We are talking about
the innocents here. I don't want them to fall prey to the claim that
people taking bankruptcy are guilty of something somehow.
Again, if you accept the notion that most people who file bankruptcy
are not doing so lightly, I don't know of anyone who likes to admit
they are so messed up in every way possible that they put themselves in
that situation. Are there people who take advantage? Yes. I know that
is true. As we try to cure that problem, let us not create more
problems for those who through no fault of their own find themselves in
that situation; and, even worse yet, those who are completely innocent
who find themselves so disadvantaged that the ability of parents--
particularly single women raising children--to find it harder and
harder to collect those child support payments they desperately need to
lift these children out of poverty, to make ends meet in the 21st
century, with companies going bankrupt every day. We must see to it
that those families who are already going through an awful lot don't
find themselves going through even more.
This amendment is a modest attempt to readjust this section of the
bill, to inject some practicalities, to say that as we consider the
rights of credit card companies we are not going to forget the rights
of children, so we will put some reasonable ceiling in here to make it
possible for everyone to be a winner, so people can go to bankruptcy
court to get themselves out of debt, get on their feet again, see to it
that creditors are going to have an opportunity to collect the
obligations that are owed them, and not penalize those who ought not be
a part of this debate in any consideration.
I urge my colleagues to think about these amendments. I know it means
changing the bill. I know it may mean going to a conference for a day
or two. But I urge my colleagues to at least look at these proposals.
If they make some sense, as some of them do, can't we sit down and try
to resolve some before we go ahead and pass a bill that I think many
may regret down the road when we consider the implications for those
who are going to be adversely affected by this legislation?
I also would like to add as part of the Record a couple of pieces of
correspondence that speak to these particular issues. One is from the
National Women's Law Center, a letter dated February 23, 2005. I will
not read the whole letter. Let me read a couple of paragraphs, because
they go to the heart of what I am talking about here.
The letter reads:

S. 256 would make it harder for women to access the
bankruptcy system because the means test requires additional
paperwork of even the poorest filers, harder for women to
save their homes, cars and essential household items through
the bankruptcy process and harder for women to meet their
children's needs after bankruptcy because many more debts
would survive. The bill also would put women owed child or
spousal support who are bankruptcy creditors at a
disadvantage by increasing the rights of many other
creditors, including credit card companies, finance
companies, auto lenders and others. The bill would set up an
intense competition for scarce resources between mothers and
children owed support and these commercial creditors during
and after bankruptcy.

The letter goes on.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the National Women's Law
Center be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

National Women's Law Center,

Washington, DC, February 23, 2005.
Re oppose S. 256, the Bankruptcy Act of 2005.

Dear Senator: The National Women's Law Center is writing to
urge you to oppose S. 256, a bankruptcy bill that is harsh on
economically vulnerable women and their families, but that
fails to address serious abuses of the bankruptcy system by
perpetrators of violence against patients and health care
professionals at women's health care clinics.
This bill would inflict additional hardship on over one
million economically vulnerable women and families who are
affected by the bankruptcy system each year: those forced
into bankruptcy because of job loss, medical emergency, or
family breakup--factors which account for nine out of ten
filings--and women who are owed child or spousal support by
men who file for bankruptcy. Contrary to the claims of some
proponents of the bill, low- and moderate-income filers--who
are disproportionately women--are not protected from most of
its harsh provisions, and mothers owed child or spousal
support are not protected from increased competition from
credit card companies and other commercial creditors during
and after bankruptcy that will make it harder for them to
collect support.
The bill would make it more difficult for women facing
financial crises to regain their economic stability through
the bankruptcy process. S. 256 would make it harder for women
to access the bankruptcy system, because the means test
requires additional paperwork of even the poorest filers;
harder for women to save their homes, cars, and essential
household items through the bankruptcy process; and harder
for women to meet their children's needs after bankruptcy
because many more debts would survive.
The bill also would put women owed child or spousal support
who are bankruptcy creditors at a disadvantage. By increasing
the rights of many other creditors, including credit card
companies, finance companies, auto lenders and others, the
bill would set up an intensified competition for scarce
resources between mothers and children owed support and these
commercial creditors during and after bankruptcy. The
domestic support provisions in the bill may have been
intended to protect the interests of mothers and children;
unfortunately, they fail to do so.
Moving child support to first priority among unsecured
creditors in Chapter 7 sounds good, but is virtually
meaningless; even today, with no means test limiting access
to Chapter 7, fewer than four percent of Chapter 7 debtors
have anything to distribute to unsecured creditors. In
Chapter 13, the bill would require that larger payments be
made to many commercial creditors; as a result, payments of
past-due child support would have to be made in smaller
amounts and over a longer period of time, increasing the risk
that child support debts will not be paid in full. And, when
the bankruptcy process is over, women and children owed
support would face increased competition from commercial
creditors. Under current law, child and spousal support are
among the few debts that survive bankruptcy; under this bill,
many additional debts would survive. But once the bankruptcy
process is over, the priorities that apply during bankruptcy
have no meaning or effect. Women and children owed support
would be in direct competition with the sophisticated
collection departments of commercial creditors whose
surviving claims would be increased.
At the same time, the bill fails to address real abuses of
the bankruptcy system. Perpetrators of violence against
patients and health care professionals at women's health
clinics have engaged in concerted efforts to use the
bankruptcy system to evade responsibility for their illegal
actions. This bill does nothing to curb this abuse.
The bill is profoundly unfair and unbalanced. Unless there
are major changes to S. 256, we urge you to oppose it.
Very truly yours,
Nancy Duff Campbell,
Co-President.
Marcia Greenberger,
Co-President.
Joan Entmacher,
Vice President and Diretor, Family Economic Security.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to quote a letter from the Children's
Defense Fund, again expressing their concern about these sections of
the bill. I will read from this letter as well.

The Children's Defense Fund is writing to urge you to
oppose S. 256, the bankruptcy bill, that would hurt many
Americans facing financial problems through job loss,
divorce, child rearing, lack of medical insurance, or
predatory lending practices. This bill would inflict hardship
on more than 1 million economically vulnerable women and
families who are affected by the bankruptcy system each year.
Medical emergency, job loss and family breakup are important
factors which account for nine out of ten filing for
bankruptcy. The bill would also hurt women who are owed child
or spousal support by men who file bankruptcy. The bill would
make it far more difficult for women to collect support
because credit card companies and other commercial creditors
will have greater claims to the debtor's resources during and
after bankruptcy. Being first among unsecured creditors in
chapter 7 bankruptcy is meaningless when over 95 percent of
debtors have no resources to pay unsecured creditors.
In chapter 13, the bill would require larger payments to be
made to many commercial creditors resulting in smaller
payments to past-due child support over longer periods of
time increasing the risk that child support debts will not be
paid in full. And after the

[[Page S2227]]

bankruptcy is over, more and more debts owed to commercial
creditors will survive, and mothers and children owed support
are not a match for the collection departments of the
commercial credit industry.
S. 256 contains a number of provisions which would have a
severe impact on families trying to regain their economic
stability through the bankruptcy process.

The letter goes on. Those are pertinent paragraphs when it comes to
the amendment which I am offering here today.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Children's Defense Fund,

March 3, 2005
Re Oppose S. 256, The Bankruptcy Act of 2005.
Dear Senators: The Children's Defense Fund is writing to
urge you to oppose S. 256, a bankruptcy bill that would hurt
many Americans facing financial problems due to job loss,
divorce, child-rearing, lack of medical insurance, or
predatory lending practices. This bill would inflict hardship
on more than one million economically vulnerable women and
families who are affected by the bankruptcy system each year.
Medical emergency, job loss or family breakups are factors
which account for nine out of ten filings.
The bill would also hurt women who are owed child or
spousal support by men who file for bankruptcy. The bill
would make it more difficult for mothers to collect support
because credit card companies and other commercial creditors
will have greater claims to the debtor's resources during and
after bankruptcy. Being first among unsecured creditors in
Chapter 7 bankruptcy is meaningless when over 95 percent of
debtors have no resources to pay unsecured creditors. In
Chapter 13, the bill would require larger payments to be made
to many commercial creditors, resulting in smaller payments
of past-due child support over a longer period of time,
increasing the risk that child support debts will not be paid
in full. And after the bankruptcy is over, more more debts
owed to commercial creditors will survive--and mothers and
children owed support are not a match for the collection
departments of the commercial credit industry.
S. 256 contains a number of provisions which would have a
severe impact on families trying to regain their economic
stability through the bankruptcy process. S. 256 would make
it harder for women to access the bankruptcy system. Low and
moderate income families are not protected from many of the
bill's harsh provisions. Parents who desperately need to
preserve their homes from foreclosure or prevent their
families from being evicted, or keep a car to get a work,
would find it more difficult to do so. And, when the
bankruptcy process was over, parents already facing economic
disadvantage would find it harder to focus their income on
reasonable and necessary support for dependent children
because many more debts would survive.
Passage of the bankruptcy bill would make it harder for
families struck by financial misfortune to get back on track.
It would benefit the very profitable credit card industry at
the expense of the modest-income families who represent the
great majority of these who declare bankruptcy. Congress
should not enact reform that puts women and children at
greater risk. The bill is profoundly unfair and unbalanced.
Unless there are major changes to S. 256, we urge you to
oppose it.
Very truly yours,
Deborah Cutler Ortiz,
Director of Family Income and Jobs.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Association for Children for Enforcement
of Support is supporting this amendment and opposes the legislation.
The American Association of University Women, American Medical Women's
Association, the Business and Professional Women of the United States,
the Center for Law and Social Policy, the Center for the Childcare
Workforce, Child Welfare League of America, the National Council of
Jewish Women, the National Organization for Women, the National
Partnership for Women and Families, the YWCA of the United States--all
are groups which support the amendment and oppose this legislation.
Again, I realize the hour is late. We are getting closer to passage
of this bill. I don't think it is so late, however, not to try to make
some modest changes in this legislation that I think would go a long
way to providing some relief for families.
Again, this is one of the areas of law that is written into our
Constitution. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, drafted
back in the 18th century, specifically provided and called upon the
Congress of the United States to enact bankruptcy laws. To understand
why they did so, go back and look at the Federalist Papers. They talked
about doing it as an opportunity for people to get back on their feet
again. That was the idea--to see to it that creditors could be
compensated to the maximum extent possible, but that also those filing
for bankruptcy would begin a new chapter in their lives, to get on
their feet again.
It seems to me we ought to be trying to do that with this
legislation, not only helping the creditors collect what is due them,
but simultaneously making it possible for good people to get a fresh
start.
If in the process of helping the creditors get paid we make it more
difficult for people to get on their feet again, we are lacking the
balance which I think we ought to be striking with this bill.
I urge my colleagues not to necessarily rely on what I have said here
today, but to review these sections of the bill and ask yourself
realistically whether in this day and age the kind of caps we are
putting on, kind of forcing people into the chapter 13 category, if we
are not exactly undoing what we have done for 100 years to modern
bankruptcy laws.
The modern bankruptcy laws put not only families first but they also
left them alone. If you were dealing with child support and alimony,
once you paid those, or set up a payment schedule, whatever is left
over, you dispensed to your creditors, you were not only the first in
line, you were the only one in line. This changes that. You can be
first in line under this bill, but you are not the only one in line,
and other people in line have far more resources and strength to be
able to compete for those debtors' funds to compensate these creditors.
It puts families at a disadvantage.
There are a lot of other reasons to be concerned about this bill. I
know my colleagues care about children. I know they care about
families. They want to see these innocents have a chance for a decent
life. This bankruptcy bill, if not amended, will make it far more
difficult to achieve those goals.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask consent that at 5:45 today the
Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Feingold amendment
No. 89, with the time equally divided in the usual form until the vote;
provided further that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior
to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask the action we just took be vitiated. I will wait
until Senator Durbin gets to the floor and I will reoffer the consent
agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:45
today the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to Feingold
amendment No. 89, with the time equally divided in the usual form until
the vote; provided further that no amendments be in order to the
amendment prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. If the majority whip would yield for a question, I have
three germane amendments pending. I think others are in the same
position, including Senator Feingold. It is my hope to move as quickly
as possible to a quick, limited debate, for just very short periods of
time, and then to vote on these amendments in an effort to keep the
bill moving forward. I ask the Republican whip whether or not there are
plans to call any other votes today or early tomorrow.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I might say to my friend from Illinois,
we have been reviewing amendments. I am hopeful we can have some
discussion between now and the vote about how we proceed from here.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S2228]]

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 89

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold have 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, we are about to vote on an amendment that will tell
this Nation's small businesses whether we stand with them. This bill
includes a number of new restrictions and requirements for small
businesses that want to reorganize under chapter 11. These requirements
and restrictions for small businesses don't apply to large companies. I
was shocked when this came to my attention, but there it is in black
and white: Subtitle B, Small Business Bankruptcy Provisions. And these
are not provisions to help small businesses as one might expect from a
bill that is going through the United States Senate. No, these
provisions penalize small businesses. They make it harder to reorganize
in order to survive.
These new provisions are entirely unnecessary. There is no crisis in
small business bankruptcies. And a new study shows. that most failed
attempts at chapter 11 reorganization are concluded within 300 days,
which is the hard deadline in the bill. But 40 percent of
reorganizations that succeed take longer than 300 days. That means that
this bill is going to make some small businesses fail that don't have
to. That is an absurd result. Remember the United Air Lines Chapter 11
reorganization is over two years old and it is still going on. Why
shouldn't small businesses get that kind of leeway if there is a chance
they can pull through?
These provisions haven't received nearly the attention in this body
that the portions of the bill that deal with consumer bankruptcies have
received. We need to take these provisions out. Doing so won't have any
effect on the core provisions of this bill. But it will prevent a real
injustice from being done to small businesses. Forcing a small business
to liquidate rather than reorganize is bad for creditors, bad for
consumers, and bad for small businesses. I urge the adoption of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Chairman Grassley would ask for a no vote,
as would Senator Hatch.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Feingold
amendment No. 89.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson.) Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 59, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]

YEAS--41

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--59

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 89) was rejected.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we
are making great progress on the bill. We are in the cloture period. We
will not have further rollcall votes tonight, although we will keep the
clock running in the cloture period and we will continue debate over
the course of tonight. So we are here. We do encourage people who do
want to speak on the bill to come and speak.
Tomorrow morning we will, after discussion on both sides of the aisle
with the managers, have a series of stacked rollcall votes in the
morning in order to not have rollcall votes tonight. But we are on the
bill. The clock will continue to run, and debate should continue. There
will be no rollcall votes tonight, stacked votes tomorrow. We would
expect to finish this bill in all likelihood sometime tomorrow, late
tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 62, and then I
will ask it be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator restate her request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The clerk will
report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) proposes an
amendment numbered 62.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Would the Senator propound her unanimous consent
request again?
Mrs. BOXER. I think it has already been agreed to.
Mr. SESSIONS. I sought recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair did not hear the Senator originally;
however, precedent allows the Senator to reserve the right to object at
this time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator restate her unanimous consent? There
was noise on the floor, and I just did not hear it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend a moment.
Will the Senator from California restate her request.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set
aside so I may call up amendment No. 62. It would then be my intent to
ask it be laid aside. I believe we have an agreement that I be given 10
minutes in the morning, followed by a vote at a time both sides can
agree to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I object at this time, but I would check with our
colleagues, and if that is acceptable--I could check that, but I would
object at this time.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 111 Withdrawn

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask consent my pending amendment No. 111
be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 62

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendments be set aside so that Senator Boxer may call up amendment
numbered 62.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 62.

[[Page S2229]]

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the potential disallowance of certain claims)

On page 132, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

SEC. 234. DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM IF BASED ON EXTENSION OF
CREDIT TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS UNDER 21 YEARS OF
AGE.

Title 11, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is
further amended by inserting after section 112 the following:

``Sec. 113. Disallowance of claim if based on extension of
credit to certain individuals under 21 years of age

``(a) In General.--In making a determination of whether to
disallow a claim under this title, the court shall consider
if the claim is based upon an extension to an individual of
unsecured credit and the factors listed in subsection (b) are
present. The factors listed in subsection (b) may be the
basis for a disallowance of a claim under this title.
``(b) Factors.--The factors under this subsection are the
following: if the individual, at the time unsecured credit
was extended--
``(1) was under 21 years of age;
``(2) did not have a co-obligor on such unsecured credit
who was a parent or spouse of the individual;
``(3) had an income level that was below or at the poverty
line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and
revised annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the
Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))); and
``(4) already had 6 or more unsecured credit cards.''.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleagues very much.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate resumes the bankruptcy bill tomorrow morning, the Senate begin
10 minutes of debate equally divided on each of the following
amendments in the order mentioned below; provided further that
following that debate the Senate begin a series of votes on or in
relation to the amendments in that same order; provided that no
amendment be in order to the amendments prior to the ordered votes. I
further ask that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate between
the votes after the first vote and, lastly, that all votes in this
sequence after the first vote be limited to 10 minutes in length.
The amendments are Durbin, No. 110; Harkin, No. 66; Boxer, No. 62;
Dodd, No. 67.
I further ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adjournment
of the Senate, all time overnight until the Senate resumes
consideration of the bill be counted under the provisions of rule XXII.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my amendment, cosponsored by my friend and
colleague, Senator Cantwell, would greatly assist the many victims of
domestic violence whose physical well-being or whose children's
physical well-being would be threatened by summary eviction as a result
of filing or bankruptcy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our
amendment be printed in the Record after my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEAHY. The connection between domestic violence, economic abuse,
and housing is overwhelming. Women and children who are fleeing
domestic violence make up a significant portion of the homeless
population. According to the United States Conference of Mayors, 57
percent of cities surveyed identified domestic violence as a primary
cause of homelessness.
These women and children are homeless because in their desperate
attempt to leave their abusers they find themselves with few, if any,
funds with which they can support themselves. Victims of domestic
violence have a tough time finding room at emergency homeless or
domestic violence shelters, and often fail to find adequate housing
because affordable, long-term housing is not available in so many
communities. If housing is available there are often long waiting
lists. Victims face unique causes of their financial hardships due to
the fact that batterers frequently harass their victims at work, and
survivors are often fired or cannot maintain steady employment
resulting in losing the ability to pay for housing. Faced with the lack
of stable housing, finances and services, victims must choose between
life with an abusive partner and life on the streets.
Our amendment would provide leniency for women and children who are
affected by domestic violence and would, in fact, help victims to move
forward and start new lives. Without the threat of losing their
housing, women and children who are survivors of domestic violence will
not be forced to a situation where they are homeless or returning to
their abuser.
This amendment would modify the bankruptcy code to ensure better
protection for victims of domestic violence by granting them relief
from summary eviction from their rental housing. Relief may be granted
only under the condition that the debtors certify under penalty of
perjury that they are victims of domestic violence whose physical well-
being or whose children's physical well-being would be threatened
through eviction. our amendment would not allow families to take
advantage of the system, but it will be a life-saver for those who
would face danger if they lost their homes.
This amendment is supported by the National Coalition Against
Domestic Violence, the National Network To End Domestic Violent and the
Family Violence Prevention Fund. I ask unanimous consent to print in
the Record letters from those groups voicing that support.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

March 7, 2005.
Dear Senator: As national organizations working to address
the varied needs of victims of domestic violence, we urge you
to support Senator Leahy's proposed amendment to the
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of
2005, S. 256. This provision is essential for the many
victims of domestic violence whose physical well-being or
whose children's physical well-being would be threatened by
summary eviction as a result of filing for bankruptcy.
Economic abuse is an integral part of domestic violence.
Abusers often assert economic control by forbidding their
victims from working, giving them little or no access to
family finances, or destroying their credit. Many battered
women have current or former partners who actively interfere
with their efforts to work, harass them at work, threaten
them and their children, withhold transportation or
childcare, or beat them so severely that they cannot work.
These victims are sometimes pushed into filing for bankruptcy
as a result of this abuse.
Evicting these victims from their homes not only
exacerbates an already difficult situation, but also puts
many families in direct danger. On average, it takes six to
ten months to secure housing. During this time, victims would
be forced to stay at emergency homeless or domestic violence
shelters. Unfortunately, those shelters are often full; in
2003, 32% of the requests for shelter by homeless families
went unmet due to the lack of emergency shelter beds
available. Even when space is available, most shelters limit
the length of stay to 30 days.
Faced with this lack of housing and services, victims must
choose between life with an abusive partner or life on the
streets. Studies indicate that victims of domestic violence
often return to their abusers because they cannot find long-
term or transitional housing. At the other extreme, more than
50% of homeless women and children are homeless because they
are fleeing domestic violence. Once homeless, women are at
high risk for experiencing further violence. Many studies
have found that 90-100% of homeless women have been
physically or sexually assaulted.
The tremendously negative impact of such evictions becomes
greater when victims with children are forced out of their
homes. Children without a home are in fair or poor health
twice as often as other children, and

[[Page S2230]]

have higher rates of asthma, ear infections, stomach
problems, and speech problems. Homeless children are also
more likely to experience mental health problems, such as
anxiety, depression, and withdrawal. They are twice as likely
to experience hunger, and four times as likely to have
delayed development. School-age homeless children face
barriers to enrolling and attending school, including
transportation problems, residency requirements, inability to
obtain previous school records, and lack of clothing and
school supplies.
Individuals claiming relief under this provision would be
required to testify, under penalty of perjury, that they were
victims of domestic violence and that they or their children
would be in physical jeopardy if they were evicted. Thus,
this amendment will not allow families to take advantage of
the system, but will be life-saving for those who would be in
danger if they lost their homes.
We urge you to support Senator Leahy's amendment and
provide this much needed assistance to domestic violence
victims.
Sincerely,
Allison Randall,
National Network to End Domestic Violence.
Jill Morris,
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Kiersten Stewart,
Family Violence Prevention Fund.
____

National Coalition Against

Domestic Violence,

February 28,2005
Senator Patrick Leahy,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: It is with great support that I write
to you on behalf of the National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence and the more than 3,000 local shelter programs that
we represent to thank you for your efforts to assist those
individuals that are or have been impacted by the vast
epidemic of domestic violence. '
Women fleeing domestic violence make up a significant
portion of the homeless population. According to The United
States Conference of Mayors (December, 1999) 57 percent of
cities surveyed identified domestic violence as a primary
cause of homelessness. Therefore, amending the bankruptcy
code, as proposed in S. 256, with a provision that provides
leniency on persons who are affected by domestic violence
would, in fact, help victims to move forward and start new
lives. Without the threat of losing their housing victims
will not be forced to a situation where they are homeless or
returning to their abuser.
Victims of domestic violence often cannot find adequate
housing. One very important--reason is that affordable, long
term housing is not available in their communities. If
housing is available there are often long waiting lists or
the abuser is able to quickly locate and begin abusing the
survivor at her new residence. Secondly, due to the fact that
batterers frequently harass their victims at work, survivors
are often fired or cannot maintain steady employment
resulting in loss ability to pay for housing. Lastly victims
of domestic violence are forced to remain in abusive
relationships because of financial dependency and the lack of
stable housing. The amendment to S. 256 recognizes that
victims of domestic violence are in a dangerous situation and
should not be forced from housing due their financial
difficulties.
We commend you on your efforts to ensure that those who are
affected by domestic violence are taken into consideration
when the Senate reviews this legislation.
Sincerely,
Jill Morris,
Public Policy Director.

Mr. LEAHY. Congress must recognize that victims of domestic violence
face dangerous situations and should not be forced from housing due to
their financial difficulties. We cannot force women and children who
have endured domestic violence from safe spaces that provide the
stability needed to make a new life.

Exhibit 1

(Purpose: To protect victims of domestic violence who file for
bankruptcy from summary eviction if their physical well-being is
threatened)

On page 156, line 18, insert ``, unless the debtor
certifies under penalty of perjury that the debtor is a
victim of domestic violence whose physical well-being or
whose children's physical well-being would be threatened if
relief from the stay is granted'' before the semicolon.

regulating credit cards

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate the willingness of the chairman and
ranking member of the Banking Committee to work with Senators Kyl,
Brownback, and me on this important issue. And I understand that the
Banking Committee has an interest in regulating credit cards.
I would like to state here, for the record, the key points of the
agreement that we have arrived at:
Senators Shelby and Sarbanes have agreed to hold a hearing within 6
months on the substance of the amendment to the Bankruptcy Bill that
Senator Kyl, Brownback, and I offered, on increasing notice to credit
card holders who pay only their minimum monthly payments. I understand
that this hearing will address a set of issues relating to credit cards
and consumer rights. However, I also understand that Senators Shelby
and Sarbanes will ensure that the substance of agreement, will be
directly considered, and will be an area of focus, during that hearing,
and that I will be afforded the opportunity to testify.
I understand that Senators Shelby and Sarbanes will work with me,
with Senator Kyl, and with members of the Banking Committee to ensure
that this issue and my bill are carefully considered. My bill would
give those consumers who make only the minimum required payments for 6
months detailed notice about the interest and length of time that it
will take them to pay their own individual debt and interest.
Because the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee
agree to take these actions, I will agree to withdraw my amendment. Do
Senators Shelby and Sarbanes agree?
Mr. SHELBY. I absolutely agree with Senator Feinstein and look
forward to working with the Senator.
I say to Senator Sarbanes, through the course of the debate on the
bankruptcy bill it has become clear that there are many Senators who
have concerns about numerous aspects of the credit card industry.
I want to indicate for the record that I share many of these
concerns. Furthermore, I want to point out that I am aware of his
particular concerns as well as those of Senators Kyl and Feinstein.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank Chairman Shelby and Senator Feinstein. I
appreciate their interest in this matter and believe these are serious
issues that merit further attention.
Mr. SHELBY. I fully agree and therefore I am willing to commit to
holding a hearing in the Banking Committee to examine the practices
within the credit card industry. I believe it is our responsibility to
develop a complete record on these matters so that we can make informed
judgments as to whether we need to take any specific actions.
I look forward to obtaining input from Senator Sarbanes and from
Senators Kyl and Feinstein in putting together this hearing.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank Chairman Shelby for his leadership on this
issue. I look forward to working with the Senator on developing a
hearing at which the Banking Committee will receive testimony on credit
care disclosures and other practices. A number of Senators have raised
significant issues regarding the credit card industry and I appreciate
the Senator's willingness to examine them and hear all interested
Senators.
Mr. SHELBY. I agree.
Mr. SARBANES. I will support the Chairman's efforts.

____________________