Fairness in Bankruptcy Litigation Act of 2005

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside any pending amendments. I send to the desk two amendments and ask they be immediately considered.

Madam President, I had the opportunity to talk with our floor leaders. Because my amendments are related, I am prepared to discuss or debate these issues and to consider them together, if it is agreeable with the other side. Then we could enter into a time agreement and leave that up to the leadership as to when we might move ahead and vote on them, hopefully back to back, with a brief interlude of, I think, probably 4 minutes evenly divided, so we would have a chance later in the day to describe them.

I do not offer that as a unanimous consent request at this time. I just mention on the floor now that it is my understanding that it will be worked out by the leadership, so Members have some idea as to how we are going to proceed.

These two amendments relate to the health care challenges so many of our fellow citizens are facing in with regard to going into bankruptcy. We know at the present time there are 1.5 million people who go into bankruptcy every year. Half of those people go into bankruptcy because of medical bills. About three-quarters of those individuals who go into bankruptcy because of the medical bills have health insurance, but nonetheless the explosion of costs in health care have added such a burden to these families that they have had to go into bankruptcy. It does seem to me if the purpose of this legislation is to try to deal with spendthrifts and those who are abusers of credit, we ought to be able to distinguish between hard-working Americans, basically middle- class working families who have health insurance or those right on the margin who wish they had health insurance, who perhaps lost their health insurance because of a change in their employment, and then suddenly are facing catastrophic health needs, and those who irresponsibly acquire debt.

What are those types of health needs? We start off with cancer. The average out-of-pocket expenditure, even for families who have insurance, is approximately $35,000. That often is enough to trigger a family to go into bankruptcy because of the limitations it puts on the income of the families. Often it is one of the breadwinners of the family who becomes ill, and it is the loss of that breadwinner's income, not only the medical bills, that in frequent instances drives that family into bankruptcy. I will give some examples of why that happens.

It does seem to me we should not apply the harsher provisions--and they are harsher provisions, what is called the means test--the harsher provisions that put an additional penalty on those families than already exists in the current bankruptcy law. That effectively is what one of the amendments addresses.

The second amendment says if those families are going to go into bankruptcy, then we are going to let them preserve their homestead to the extent of $150,000 of equity in their primary residence through a homestead exemption.

The average cost of a house in this country is $240,000. It is vastly more expensive in my part of the country. In Massachusetts the cost of housing is the second highest in the country. In many of the areas in the Northeast, in the coastal areas, and even in the heartland of this Nation, housing is much more than $150,000.

What we are trying to say is that it is hard enough, meeting the personal burdens of illness and sickness and disease--in the case I just mentioned in terms of cancer, but those conditions apply as well if you have heart disease, stroke, other kinds of serious illness, or if you have a child who has serious illness: autism, spina bifida, the whole range of challenges which infants have. More often than not, the health insurance proposals, most that I have seen, exclude any complications in the first 10 days of life. That is the time the illness or sickness is detected in many of these children, and that is when the economic spiral down starts.

What we are saying in these two amendments is, No. 1, it is difficult enough to face the pain and anxiety of a serious medical condition. You should not have the more punitive provisions under the means test. We can go into details about how they would be expected to pay a good deal more from the means test even though under the current law they would not have to. They would have their assets and their liabilities and there would have to be a determination for the payment, what assets they have, and then they could start fresh. Under the means test it would mean further obligations for the next 5 years, and the real question is how some of these individuals would be able to survive and, secondly, to say these families face a serious enough problem and they should not lose a home where they have equity of $150,000 or less.

There will be those who say this bill is not about our health care system, which has its good points and has its bad points. We are not debating that today. We ought to debate comprehensive health care for this country, and ways we try to get a handle on health care costs-- that is all well and good. But what we have to do if we are going to try to be honest to the consumers and families of this country is talk about what the implications of this legislation are going to be.

One of the serious facts that remains is for those people who have serious indebtedness through no fault of their own, who have worked hard, played by the rules, have gotten health insurance or in other instances lost their jobs, they are not going to be penalized and forced into indentured servitude, basically, for the credit card companies--because they are the principal beneficiaries of these provisions. So it is only fair we say that.

People will say we have homestead laws in this country. They apply across the Nation. The fact is, in most of the parts of the country, the homestead provisions are less than $25,000--$25,000 or less. The fact is, this legislation applies to 50 States, not to one State or two States. It applies to 50 States. It has application to all the people in all 50 States. So if we are going to apply something to all 50 States, why not at least have some uniformity? We think it is difficult enough and tragic enough that you are going to have a health challenge that is going to wipe out your family and perhaps even cause death; we are not going to take a home away that is worth $150,000.

Those are the facts. Those are essentially the provisions. I will mention them in greater detail.

The first amendment exempts from the means test any debtor whose severe medical expenses have caused financial hardship and forced them to file bankruptcy. Financial hardship is defined in the amendment as one of the following: Being out of work for a month or more or unreimbursed medical expenses totaling 25 percent of your income. This is your out-of-pocket, after all the other expenses--25 percent of your income. We estimate that about 20 percent of all bankruptcy filers-- this doesn't even reach all of those who are going to be medically bankrupt, but it would reach about 20 percent of all bankruptcy filers in this category. They would be exempted from the means test through these provisions.

The proponents of the bankruptcy bill have said the goal of the bill is to force those individuals who run up bills irresponsibly to take greater personal responsibility.

They claim that people are going to the mall making frivolous purchases such as plasma televisions and designer clothes and then going to bankruptcy court to discharge their debts. Nothing could be further from the truth for the thousands of individuals who are forced into bankruptcy to deal with the debt they were forced to take on to cope with serious medical expenses and the loss of income when they are unable to work due to serious illness or injury.

We had testimony from Professor Elizabeth Warren of the Harvard Law School last week making clear that more than half of those filings for bankruptcy have been forced to do so at least in part due to medical problems and their aftermath. If the goal of the bill is to deal with those individuals who some feel are abusing the bankruptcy process, we ought to protect those individuals who are forced into bankruptcy through no fault of their own.

We will listen to the proponents of the bill say: Look, we want to have people responsible here in the United States of America. Those people who go out and buy the fancy yachts, go to the mall, run up bills, ought to be held accountable. Absolutely, I say. Put me on as a cosponsor. But that ain't what this bill does. As a matter of fact, there is an enormous loophole in this bill that ought to shame its proponents who have left it in there with regard to spendthrifts. We will come to that later.

Let me finish a brief description of these two amendments.

Those who go to bankruptcy court because of cancer or diabetes and heart attacks have not been irresponsible. Those who file for bankruptcy to deal with medical debts incurred when a child was born early with severe complications or an elderly parent needing costly prescription drugs or placement in a nursing home are not irresponsible. These clearly are not the type of debtor the proponents of this bill say they are; the kinds of debts that the proponents of the bill are trying to address. They deserve a chance to make a fresh start, and a specific exemption from the applications of the means test gives them that chance. They will still be subject to the bankruptcy law as it is today but not the additional kinds of punitive aspects that exist in this proposed bill under the means test.

The second amendment provides that medically distressed debtors be allowed to protect, at a minimum, $150,000 of the equity in their primary residence through a homestead exemption.

The enormous increase in medical debt and the bankruptcy cases caused by medical debts, along with the significant increase in real estate prices over the recent years, have led to a new and rapidly growing problem. Families who face insurmountable debt problems following serious medical problems are faced with obtaining relief from their debts in bankruptcy only if they give up their homes. A family should not have to lose their home to obtain relief from debts caused by serious medical problems. These families should not be forced to choose between debt relief and losing their modest homes.

In nearly half of all States, homestead exemptions are less than $25,000. Several States have no homestead exemption. People facing bankruptcy in these States are often forced to give up their home to obtain debt relief.

In a chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the family with equity greater than the State exemption limits can be forced to give up their home. In chapter 13, the family must pay the creditors an amount equal to the equity above the homestead exemption, which they cannot afford. The amount of equity a homeowner can protect in bankruptcy has not kept up with the rise in home prices. This change of $25,000 has been there for years and years. I don't know where you can find a home in this country for $25,000. With incomes of $800 or $1,000 per month, they could live in their current homes, which may be paid off, and have low monthly costs. If they are forced out of their homes, they can't afford to rent a decent place to live. Effectively, these homeowners have no bankruptcy relief available to them. They sell the home, and they are told, OK. They are on a fixed income of Social Security, getting $1,000, perhaps, a month. How are they going to be able to afford to rent the places available to them at $800 to $1,000 and have enough to live on?

The notion of forcing people out of their homes after an illness or an accident is made more outrageous by the fact that in a handful of States, debtors of all kinds--famous sports figures, doctors who drop their malpractice insurance, real estate tycoons--can shelter millions of dollars in homestead.

Do we understand that?

In this legislation, there is a handful of States where individuals can shelter their homes from creditors who won't be able to get access to it. Yet when we say, OK, let us just protect others in other States up to $150,000, they say, No, we are not going to do that, no, because you know the States ought to make the decision. This bill applies to 50 States. If you are going to take that position, why not wipe out the exemption that exists for these handful of other States? Where is the fairness in this bill? Where is the fairness? Why should wealthy individuals be able to shelter their income in half a dozen States and escape all of the harshness of this bill and other hard-working, decent people who have lived in their homes over a lifetime find out their housing disappears as it goes into bankruptcy? Please. Where is the fairness? Where in the world is the fairness?

Yes.

The Senator is absolutely correct. The average cost of a home in America is $240,000. We are only talking at $150,000. I am sure the Senator can relate to us the kinds of situations that I see of these three-decker houses, not only in Boston but in many of the older cities and in my State where families have lived there for years and years. They see the increase in the water rate of $50 to $75, and they wonder how they are going to be able to afford it.

What we want to say is to those individuals who are faced with hardship, worked hard all of their lives, more often than not have been able to get health insurance but find out that health insurance is not enough. As a result of cancer, serious heart failure, serious illnesses, diabetes, or a child that needs special kinds of attention, they go in to debt--after it is all said and done, let them list their assets and their liabilities and pay what they need, but don't take their home away from them.

Perhaps the Senator can explain how that meets any definition of fairness, how that meets any requirement of treating people equitably.

We have the proponents in the Senate Chamber; they ought to be able to explain that. They have resisted treating the families the same in all parts of the country. This is one of the fatal failures in this one area, the homestead area.

The Senator is absolutely correct. As the Senator knows, we are talking about individuals who have worked hard more often than not, have gotten health insurance and tried to provide for their families, but then that incident occurs, the cancer occurs, the heart failure occurs, the diabetes occurs.

We have a growing aging population. Increases in bankruptcy among the elderly have risen by two or three times in the last 5 years. The basic projections are increasing because they will have increasing health care needs.

We are saying to these individuals who have been part of this American fabric and have helped more often than not in fighting our wars, they have built this country, saved for their children, now they will end up getting thrown out of their home through no fault of their own because they are blighted with some form of cancer.

The Senator is absolutely correct. He gives an enormously persuasive argument.

These are hard-working people, as the Senator has pointed out, affected by an illness. They are getting caught up in the system.

This bill was supposed to be about spendthrifts. This bill does not take care of the sheltered income, as the Senator from Illinois points out. It does nothing about the corporate irresponsibility where the corporations go into bankruptcy and leave their workers high and dry and they walk off with the golden parachutes.

We see health care coverage lost for these families who have paid in for 20 or 30 years. WorldCom closed down, Polaroid closed down, Enron closed down, their health benefits are cut off, they get cancer, the bills run up, and what does this bill do? It puts them into indentured servitude to the credit card companies.

We call that fairness? That may be the priority of some in this body, but it is not mine. Who do we in this body represent? The credit card companies who make record profits? They are the principal beneficiary of this legislation: $30 billion in profits last year, and they want $35 billion. The best estimate is the credit card companies are going to get $5 billion more out of this bill.

Who are they going to get it out of? They are going to get it out of that family the Senator from Illinois just discussed.

That is what we are about in the Senate? We have the problems of unemployment, the escalating costs of prescription drugs, 8 million of our fellow citizens unemployed, school tuition going through the roof, and we are talking about an additional $5 billion for the most profitable industry in America. Hello. Hello. That is what we are debating here. It is extraordinary.

I heard this morning that some of our friends on the other side went up to the press to announce their poverty program. Imagine that. This will drive more and more people into poverty, and our friends on the other side announce how they will address poverty in this Nation. And what are we seeing happening with the increase of poverty for children? For the first time, again, infant mortality is going up for minorities in the inner cities.

We have an explosion of asthma in the inner cities of this country, twice the deaths we had 5 years ago as a result of deterioration of conditions. My gosh, and we are debating the credit card company profits. This is what we will do to our fellow citizens?

Let me mention who else is affected. Christopher Heinrichs was diagnosed with melanoma in 2002 after visiting a dermatologist for a routine consultation after discovering a small discoloration. He was given a prognosis of 5 years to live. He was director of operations for a truck parts company. His wife Deborah was a $14-an-hour office worker. They had a joint income of $140,000.

Listen, middle America, listen to what happened to this family. Christopher had good health insurance that covered 90 percent of his hospital costs. He also had disability benefits and life insurance through his employer. The 10 percent cost sharing on Christopher's prescription drugs cost $100 a week. Copayments for three surgeries, seven rounds of chemotherapy added up. Christopher continued to work but was laid off from his job a year after his diagnosis. He had to pay $969 per month to keep his health coverage after he lost his job. Christopher's health insurance had a $100,000 maximum benefits cap which they reached at the same time they learned the cancer had spread to his colon. They had to give up the family car and were ultimately forced to file for bankruptcy in the summer of 2003 and discharge their debt. Christopher died in April 2004 at the age of 47, leaving his widow and two sons, Joshua, 17, and Travis, 14,

and left an additional $90,000 in hospital bills for costs after bankruptcy. They also have had a bill for $3,100 for Christopher's cremation.

And we are going after this family with a means test, an additional kind of burden to squeeze out whatever this family is going to be able to try and put together for the next 5 years? That is what the means test does.

Where do you think you get the next $5 billion for the credit card companies? They get it by squeezing these families for $35, $50 a month, $75 a month for the next 5 years.

Kelly Donnelly was diagnosed with skin cancer, September 2003. Her family lived in Oswego, NY, with a joint income of $32,000. They owned a three-bedroom house with a daughter and a second on the way. When Kelly, 26, became too weak to work, she had to quit her drugstore job, leaving the family with only $20,000 in income. Even though Andrew received health insurance from his job, copayments from Kelly's treatment and medication for the new baby who was delivered prematurely so Kelly could undergo cancer surgery, totaled $330 a month. The couple lost their house, filed for bankruptcy in August 2004, were forced to move to an apartment, had to give up the family dog because pets were not allowed there. Because they had defaulted on electric bills they had to put down a $500 deposit to turn on the power in their new apartment. Their medical bills totaled $20,000.

This is what is happening. We are going to put additional burdens, besides the existing bankruptcy law, on those people? This bill does.

I am going to speak about two individuals whom I will call ``TT'' and ``ST'' from Minneapolis, MN. They do not want their names mentioned. They had good medical insurance from ``T'' 's job with the State of Minnesota, but when ``T'' retired, he could not afford the $941 per month for his health insurance. He paid for a few months, and then he couldn't anymore. ``S'' was diagnosed with breast cancer in February 2004, after being misdiagnosed in September 2003. ``S'' was misdiagnosed, as I mentioned, in September 2003, when she had health coverage. The first 3 months of her cancer treatment cost $26,000, and they have no health insurance. They were forced into chapter 13 bankruptcy to try to save their home. Unfortunately, they were unable to make enough to pay the chapter 13 payments to save their home, and they ultimately had to sell it for less than it was worth before it was foreclosed and convert their chapter 13 filing to a chapter 7 case.

We have constant examples. We know one out of four people die from cancer, and we know about one out of four die from heart disease. We know that today. We can look around at any kind of group. These are the statistics. If you have good health insurance, with the exception, perhaps, of the health insurance we have in the Congress of the United States, which we do not extend to the American people--we are pretty well protected, but not those people out there. I am tired, when one person tries to extend the same kind of health care we have to people out there, of people on the other side who say: Well, we are not going to support you. The problem is the health care problem, and we ought to deal with that. This is a bankruptcy issue.

Come on. Come on. They oppose us when we try to pass health care legislation, and then they oppose us when we try to deal with the health care problems that are going to be impacted by the bankruptcy bill. It does not work that way. At the same time, we have all the circumstances that take place in the corporations.

I want to mention the various groups, once again, that are supporting us. We have the American Bar Association. We have about 80 percent of the representatives of the trade union movement, the Alliance for Retired Americans. We have the Consumer Federation of America. We have the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, which understands that this, as well, affects many minorities in this country. We have the National Women's Law Center because of the impact of this legislation on women. We have Physicians For A National Health Program, some 2,000 doctors-- 2,000 doctors from across this country--who understand and say: Do not pass this bill because of the health implications. Don't do it, Senate, if you care about what is happening to your fellow citizens out there across this country. They are facing enough challenges with the explosion of health care costs, the explosion of prescription drug costs, and the dramatic decline in health care coverage. Don't do this to them. It is too unfair. It is unwise. But no, no, we are going ahead.

We have support from group after group after group. I think it is time we give consideration and priority to the workers in this country.

I will mention, quickly, a final couple of points to give a bit of an overview about where we are in these medical bankruptcies. Annually, half result from illness; nonmedical causes, 54 percent; medical causes, 46 percent.

This is from the Health Affairs study that was done this year.

We know there is a dramatic increase in the number of uninsured. So it makes a good deal of sense we are going to have an increased number of medical bankruptcies because we are seeing the total number of individuals who are not being covered dramatically increase. Now it is up to 45 million. With all respect, the reason it did not go up higher, is because we had the CHIP program that enrolled several million children. If we had not done that, these figures would be right up through the roof.

Here is the cost. We have not only the coverage issue, but you see the cost of single coverage in 2000 at $2,400; in 2004, $3,600. For families, it has gone from $6,300 to $9,950. There has been an explosion in the costs, an explosion in the number of companies that do not provide coverage, and an explosion in the number of companies switching to part-time employees who do not get benefits like insurance.

We see the difference in the cost for Medicare premiums and Social Security. You wonder why this is a particular burden on seniors? Listen to this. Basically, seniors paid for their Part B premiums with their COLA increases in Social Security. But what we are finding out now is they are falling farther and farther behind in that ability to pay. What you are finding out now is the increase in premiums is 72 percent over the period of the last 4 to 5 years. For Social Security, it is 12 percent. So increasing numbers of seniors on Social Security are unable to keep up with part B premiums. And this does not even include the new prescription drug bill, where you are going to find out it is even more costly.

There are 3.9 million Americans who are affected by bankruptcy. You have 700,000 dependents, 1.3 million children, and the bankruptcy filers, 1.9 million--effectively 4 million of our fellow citizens who are affected by this provision.

As my friend from Illinois pointed out, when you take a look at the failure to deal with, on the homestead issue, the high rollers in States that have high homestead protections versus working families in 90 percent of the other States, that is unfairness.

In my State of Massachusetts, if you talk about the problems of bankruptcy, on the lips of most of the workers would be Polaroid, that great company that started with Ed Land, who was an absolute genius, who developed instant film. And finally, after he left, the company ran into difficult times, and they went bankrupt. I will mention what happened to those individuals.

Polaroid filed for bankruptcy in 2001. In the months leading up to the company's filing, the corporation made $1.7 million in incentive payments to a chief executive, Gary DiCamillo, on top of his $840,000 base salary. The company also received bankruptcy court approval to make $1.5 million in payments to senior managers to keep them on board. These managers, collectively, received an additional $3 million when the company assets were sold off.

By contrast, just before Polaroid filed for bankruptcy, it canceled the health and life insurance for 6,000 retirees, coverage for workers on long-term disability.

Do you understand what we are saying here? Here you have these individuals who lost their coverage. Can you imagine the number of those individuals who do not have health insurance and then run into serious health problems, cancer or heart disease? What happens to them?

This is a typical example. We have other examples of corporate abuse which I will come back to. I hope the

Senate--we might not be accepting a lot of amendments--but I would hope the managers could find a way to accept these two amendments. It would make an enormous difference in terms of the legislation and the fairness and its implications for middle America.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?

As I understand it, these workers had health insurance that would have protected them as a result of illness and sickness. They had it probably for themselves and their families. What the Senator is saying is obviously in most of these circumstances when they had health insurance, they sacrificed wage increases and other kinds of benefits in order to get that health insurance. As I listened to the Senator, I heard that many of these workers have worked for lifetimes for this company. Now, as a result of the company going into bankruptcy, these workers effectively lost their health care coverage. I imagine a number of them may have some illness, perhaps some health care needs, probably an older population, and the cost to them to replace that kind of family coverage would be rather dramatic.

Particularly if they are out of work.

What we are talking about here is, if they run into illness and sickness under the existing bankruptcy laws, they have a chance to be able to measure their assets and their creditors to be able to at least go on to another day. They may pay a fearsome price in terms of their own lives, but under the circumstances of the bill as proposed, they would be treated even more harshly.

As I listened to the Senator, he was talking about a rough sense of equity in terms of legislation that we ought to be considering here in the Senate.

Will the Senator yield for one more question?

As I listened carefully to the excellent presentation of the Senator from Illinois on this legislation, this legislation has been presented as though it is for going after spendthrifts, individuals who abuse the credit system, who go out and live life high on the hog, go to the malls, buy the expensive clothes and charge it up. These individuals should not be let off scot-free. I gather from remarks of the Senator from Illinois he agrees with me, that we want accountability for those individuals.

Legislation that ought to be targeted toward those individuals and corrected with a hammer is addressed with a cannon, picking on the working families in its path who face bankrupcy through no fault of their own, as a result of the explosion of health care costs, the explosion of housing costs, explosion of tuition cost, the outsourcing of jobs, the increase in part-time jobs, and the issue of a growing older population which has a greater proclivity toward serious illness and disease such as cancer and stroke, and increasing numbers of individuals who are virtually cast adrift by major companies such as Enron, WorldCom, and Polaroid, and the company from Illinois the Senator has mentioned. The sweep of this legislation is going to be unduly harsh on a lot of hard-working, middle-income families playing by the rules, struggling for their families. They will be treated unjustly.

If the Senator will yield further, the Senator mentions the number of bankruptcies for our senior citizens has tripled in the last 10 years. The average income for those over 65 is $24,000. These are not great populations of free-spending people ringing up large expenses at the mall.

Shouldn't we take a look at the impact of the legislation before the Senate and the impact it will have on our population?

I commend the Senator for bringing this very important fact to the attention of the Senate. We have three times the number of bankruptcies now for our senior citizens. These are not the spendthrifts. Are those the people we are trying to catch with punitive measures in this bankruptcy legislation? I don't think so.

The Senator made a strong point. I thank him.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Because this is a dramatic family circumstance--I think any of us who have listened have found this is too often not the exception but too often is the rule. But aren't there other provisions in this legislation to preserve those homes that are not just the homes of someone who has sacrificed, as she has, to try to preserve the home for her son, but that this legislation, as it exists now, has protections for homes that are worth many, many, many, many, many more times that will escape any kind of threat from bankruptcy because of the homestead exemption? And could the Senator explain to me how we can possibly pass a piece of legislation that is so unfair to some families and gives such extraordinary benefits to others? Where is, possibly, the equity and the fairness?

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, does the Senator not wonder

why in the world those who have been the principal sponsors of this legislation have not tried to address that during all the time we have been considering it, whether it was when we considered it 4 years ago or when we considered it in the committee markup? There was absolutely no attempt to do that. There was a strong effort by our friend and colleague Senator Kohl, who did an outstanding job with our last legislation that was before us. I am very hopeful he will offer a similar amendment this time.

But how could we possibly allow a system that is going to take that home from that family the Senator has outlined, and at the same time permit half a dozen different States to be able to have individuals shelter hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of real estate?

I see my colleagues, and I want to hear from them. But I welcome the fact that the Senator has brought up the issue of the National Guard and Reserve. There are some in this body who think that with the acceptance of the Sessions amendment we have protected the Guard and Reserves. That is absolutely wrong. The Sessions amendment only refers to the expenditures of health care after the individual has already been submitted to the means test, and it only applies to future expenditures of health care by the Guard or the Reserve. It is my understanding that the trustee already has that flexibility and that authority. I welcome the opportunity to submit with the Senator from Illinois a legal technical analysis of that amendment that will reflect clearly the fact that those guardsmen and reservists who are activated--and I believe the figure is up to 20,000; I know we used the figure 16,000 yesterday, but I believe the figure is closer to 20,000-- do not have the protections that the Senator from Illinois wanted to provide for them.

We have to be serious about this. Hopefully, we will not be caught up in cliches and slogans. The Senator from Illinois had an amendment that would have had a direct impact on protecting the Guard and Reserve. The Sessions amendment does not do that because the Sessions amendment only applies to provisions that would apply to future health outlays. Those expenditures could already be considered by the trustee in bankruptcy.

I don't see how those who voted for the Sessions amendment and against the Durbin amendment could believe they have met the responsibilities to our National Guard and Reserves. I appreciate, again, the Senator reminding us about the importance of protecting our troops. We are down in terms of recruitment on the Guard and Reserve to critical numbers. We are not meeting our amount for Reserves and the National Guard at the present time. If we pass this legislation in this form it will be a powerful message to those guardsmen and reservists who are self-employed, out there trying to serve our country under difficult and trying circumstances, and who are in many instances the sole proprietor of a small business, that they get into the Guard and the Reserve at their risk because this legislation will put them at greater risk.

Mr. President, a recent study by Professor Elizabeth Warren and her associates at Harvard exposes the flawed rationale for this legislation. According to Professor Warren, about 2 million Americans experienced medical bankruptcy, with half of all bankruptcy filings citing medical causes as a major factor. Among those who cited illness as a cause of bankruptcy, their average reimbursed medical costs since the start of their illness was nearly $12,000, even though more than three-quarters had health insurance at the onset of their illness.

Professor Warren's study found that those who filed for medical bankruptcy did everything they could to keep from filing. In the 2 years before they actually declared bankruptcy, those who filed after suffering a serious illness or injury went through extensive sacrifices as they struggled to pay for their health care and make ends meet. One in five went without food. One-third had their electricity shut off. Half lost their phone service. One in

five were forced to move. And many more went without needed health care or couldn't fill a needed prescription. And 7 percent actually had to move an elderly relative to a less expensive home.

According to Professor Warren, families were bankrupted both directly by medical costs and indirectly from lost income when they were physically incapable of working. Diagnoses commonly named by those filing medical bankruptcy include heart disease, trauma or orthopedic problems, cancer, diabetes, pulmonary disease, childbirth related or congenital disorders, ongoing chronic illness, or mental disorders.

Interestingly, most medical bankruptcy filers had health coverage at the onset of their illness. More than three-quarters had coverage, and less than 3 percent voluntarily chose to go without insurance. The majority of those without insurance could not afford to maintain it, while almost 1 in 10 could not obtain coverage because of pre-existing health conditions.

A significant loss of income or years of piling up medical debt because of ongoing medical needs frequently makes bankruptcy unavoidable. The average out-of-pocket cost since the beginning of the filer's illness was significantly higher, averaging $11,854, although many had much higher costs. The average out-of-pocket costs for those with cancer was $35,000, while those families dealing with neurological disorders averaged more than $15,500.

The Harvard study looks at the reality of people who file bankruptcy and what forces them into bankruptcy, and it shows that 50 percent of those debtors had significant medical debt. The proponents of this bill want to ignore this reality because it doesn't fit in with their rhetoric about the bill.

My amendment focuses on those people for whom medical debts and lost income due to illness were the primary factors in their bankruptcies. Their medical debts would have to equal 25 percent or more of their annual income or they have to have lost one month's income due to their illness. This is what it means to be a medically distressed debtor under my amendment. Those families clearly deserve laws that will protect them. As currently written, this bill does not protect those who were forced into bankruptcy by a serious family illness.

If the Senator will yield, those who have been proponents say: Look, we have these spendthrifts who use these credit cards and go to the malls and exceed their credit, and there has to be accountability and responsibility to make sure they are going to effectively be dealt with. So we have, allegedly, this legislation. It has been pointed out during the course of the debate that even the credit card companies say it is less than 10 percent of all filers that fall in to this spendthrift category. Most of the commissions that have studied bankruptcy over a period of time have actually put it at 4 or 5 percent. Nonetheless, we are passing this legislation that is going to have the impact that the Senator has mentioned in terms of those who are involved in long-term care or those who are elderly and have three times the bankruptcies today then they did in the past, with the average income for seniors being $25,000--large spendthrifts, seniors, large spendthrifts. But the tragedy is that they run into the health care challenges, cancer or stroke, and they run up these medical bills, and they will end up losing their homes and with their lives virtually being destroyed.

Does the Senator not agree that we ought to be able to fashion pretty easily legislation to deal with those who are involved in the excesses of spending in relationship to credit, and we ought to have accountability for those people? But that isn't what this bill is, is it? That isn't what this legislation is really all about, is it? Doesn't the Senator agree with me that we could fashion a bill to address the needs that are out there? But this bill isn't it. I would be interested in the Senator's view, as somebody who has had great experience and a background in understanding both credit and the financial world. I believe his views on this would be enormously valuable.

Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. President, in America, we believe that if you work hard, meet your family responsibilities, then you should be able to provide for your family. You should be able to afford a decent home for your family in a safe neighborhood. You should be able to send your children to college so they can enjoy lives of opportunity and happiness. You should be able to save for a comfortable retirement after years of disciplined saving and careful planning. That is the American dream. It is a dream of opportunity, of fairness, of infinite hope for the future.

But in recent times, average Americans have had to work harder and harder to fulfill their hopes and dreams. In just the past 4 years, housing prices are up 33 percent, college tuition is up 35 percent, and health care costs are up 59 percent. Families are counting their pennies. And now this Republican Congress wants to make it even harder with this bankruptcy bill.

Corporate CEOs can force their companies into bankruptcy and enrich themselves, but they are not held accountable. This bill ignores their irresponsible actions. But an average American facing cancer can lose everything under this bill: their home, their savings, their hopes, their dreams. They get no second chance.

One day, you are doing well. You have done all the right things. Your family is healthy and happy. And the next day, you discover that you have cancer, and even though you have health insurance, you are left with $35,000 in medical bills. You cash in your savings. You sell your second car. You sell your mother's wedding ring. You take out a second mortgage on your home. But it still is not enough. Half the Americans in bankruptcy face this exact situation. Their illness was bad enough, but now their medical bills are destroying their lives, and this bill adds further injury to their pain.

CEOs can get away with it. They are not held responsible for their companies' bankruptcies. Look at Enron, WorldCom, and Polaroid. But this bill requires average citizens to pay and pay and pay and pay, even when you do not have a dime to your name. And who is first in line to get your money? The credit card companies. They do not care if you are sick. They demand your money--with interest.

My amendments would give those facing illness a real second chance. One amendment says, if you are sick, you do not have to lose your home. It says that if illness forces you into bankruptcy, at least $150,000 of equity that you have built up in your home is yours--no matter what. Fat cats who go into bankruptcy do not lose their mansions. They can build palaces in Florida and Texas, and the bankruptcy courts cannot touch them. So my amendment says, if you get sick, you should at least get some protection for your home, too.

My other amendment says that if your medical bills force you into bankruptcy and they exceed 25 percent of your income, you are not subject to this bill's harsh provisions. You are not penalized under its so-called means test, which would require you to keep paying down on your bills even when you cannot afford it.

Let's give our fellow Americans a chance. They will do their part to rebuild their lives. We should help them, not hurt them.

I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.

I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

How much time is there for the other side?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time of the quorum call be charged to the other side.

Mr. President, I yield my remaining time to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, in this bankruptcy bill, in several States there are the protections for homesteads of multimillion dollar homes. All this amendment says is that if one has severe medical problems that are going to drive one into bankruptcy, they will be able to have a protection for up to $150,000 in home equity. We know that approximately 50 percent of the total bankruptcies are medically related, and what we are saying is that in those cases where we have the high costs of health care, because of cancer or the sickness of a child, we will carve out a homestead for $150,000 and protect that homestead. That is what this amendment does. We have the protections for much larger homesteads in a number of States. Let us protect our families.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I want to make sure that people following this debate understand what is at issue.

The Senator is talking about someone who, because of the diagnosis of medical illness or treatment of a medical illness, ends up incurring a crushing debt they can't pay back, and their health insurance doesn't cover it. The Senator from Massachusetts is suggesting that those individuals who are

facing bankruptcy, at least when it is all said and done, have their homes to return to, to the tune of $150,000, which is a modest home in most places in America. Is that what the Senator from Massachusetts is talking about?

If the Senator will yield further for a question, as I understand, what the Senator is saying is that in some States you could have a person who was a compulsive gambler who went deeply into debt to the point that they faced bankruptcy, but if they are smart enough to take the remaining assets they owned and put them into a home to the tune of $1 million--if they pick the right State, such as Florida--that compulsive gambler, irresponsible person who goes to bankruptcy court will be protected by the law of Florida, be able to keep their multimillion dollar home. Yet in a State such as Massachusetts or Illinois, if someone faces devastating cancer diagnoses, treatments that costs more than they can ever pay back, they could go to bankruptcy court and loose their homes, but the gambler keeps his multimillion dollar home. In other States, the person who has a medical diagnosis they never expected ends up losing their home under the current law we are considering.

If the Senator will yield for a question, I will give an example of a family in my home State of Illinois and what happened to them. Ten years ago, Randall Lemmon and his wife Mary were living in Champaign, IL, downstate Illinois. His wife was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease, sceradoma, a connective tissue disease which can debilitate very quickly. Within months of her diagnosis, Mary experienced the loss of independent functioning and found herself needing assistance with even the most basic tasks in life. She eventually collapsed and went to a nursing home, which was not covered by the family's insurance. Eventually she died, leaving behind her husband, five children, and a $150,000 nursing home bill. As a result, they were forced into bankruptcy.

Currently, in Illinois you can only protect $7,500, up to $15,000 in the value of your home. What could anyone live in for $15,000? Here is Randall Lemmon with five children, and because he was forced into bankruptcy court he would lose his home.

Senator, you are saying, at the minimum, let him at least protect $150,000 in his home to raise the five children after his wife has died in a nursing home; is that what your amendment says?

Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Illinois because he pointed to several issues in our State which dramatized the problem with this bankruptcy bill. This Horizon Mining Company in southern Illinois when it goes out of business not only shortchanges shareholders but leaves retirees in the lurch. We have reports of individuals who worked a lifetime for this mining company, paid in as they were supposed to, expecting to receive health care benefits after they retired, and then the company files bankruptcy and men and women with serious health issues--black lung and emphysema--find themselves without health care protection before they are eligible for Medicare. These are the people falling into the bankruptcy courts.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle say we need to change bankruptcy law because of moral failures in America, immoral conduct by people walking into the bankruptcy court when they should just pay their bills.

We go to the people who are supposed to monitor abuse in bankruptcy courts and they say of all the bankruptcies filed, only 3 percent--3 out of 100--may fall in that category. The credit card companies say it may be as high as 10 percent--1 out of 10--who should not be filing for bankruptcy. But, still, we are going to change the law for everyone walking into the court.

We find in reality--the Senator from Massachusetts has made this point--we are not talking so much about moral failures leading to bankruptcy, we are talking about economic failures leading to bankruptcy.

Professor Warren from Harvard Law School went out and actually asked the people filing bankruptcy, Why are you here today? What forced you into bankruptcy? Almost half of the people said medical bills. Three- quarters of those filed bankruptcy because the cost of their treatment was more than they could pay; three-fourths of them had health insurance when they were diagnosed, but it was not enough, or they lost their job, or the copays overwhelmed them.

If you are following this debate and you say, isn't it a shame these people did not plan for their future--the man who worked in the mine for 35 years planned for his future. He worked every day and he contributed every day to a pension, believing he would have health care. Guess what. Bankruptcy comes along, and he has no health care.

Take a look at the people walking into bankruptcy court. Did they plan for their future? They had health insurance. But it was not good health insurance. It had limits on it, and a catastrophic illness wiped them out. Is there one of us who believes we are somehow sheltered from this? Well, come to think of it, there may be. It could be Members of Congress believe they are sheltered from this. Do you know why? We have a pretty generous health insurance plan, as most Federal employees do. And when we retire, we are protected by that health insurance plan.

What is the likelihood a Member of Congress or retired Member of Congress will end up in bankruptcy court because of medical bills? Slim to none. So we live in this bubble, those of us in Congress, this bubble of protection, and think the whole world has the benefits we have. They do not.

Senator Kennedy has been arguing for years to take the same health care Members of Congress receive and offer it to America. Whoa, what a radical idea, another Kennedy extremist position, to take the same health care of Congressmen and offer it to America. If we did that, we would not be talking about medical bankruptcy in the numbers we are facing today. But there are these bankruptcies by people who planned, by people who had health insurance, by people who paid a lifetime into the system believing they protected their family. They are that vulnerable.

Along comes the credit card industry that says: We want to change the bankruptcy law so if you get crushed by medical bills, you cannot get out from under. You keep paying and paying and paying for a lifetime. One of Senator Kennedy's amendments says, losing your home because of a medical crisis in your family in bankruptcy is a tragedy we should avoid. He is right. Think about it.

I can give you examples. Let me give you one. I say to Senator Kennedy, I think this illustrates the point you are making. Senator Kennedy is trying to protect at least $150,000 worth of home for someone who goes into bankruptcy because of a medical crisis. Let me tell you about some people in Illinois.

Joyce Owens raised a son and a foster son and took care of her husband. She worked full time as a paralegal. Everything was fine with her family. She lived in Chatham, IL, 20 miles from my hometown. Then, in April 1997, her two sons Chris and Darrell were hit by a drunk driver. Darrell was killed. Chris, 27 years old, had a severed spinal cord and was rendered a quadriplegic.

Joyce was doing paralegal work at home because she wanted to stay there with her son Chris. He was in a wheelchair and needed help all the time. Slowly, working and caring for her son every day got to be too much and she was laid off.

Then, in 2000, 3 years after the accident, her husband died of a heart attack. He had always told her: Don't worry, I have life insurance. He did not. There was no life insurance. She was left to pay $200,000 in medical bills incurred by her quadriplegic son and the death of her husband.

How about that? Is that a moral failure? What did she do wrong morally? She worked her life to help her family, and when her son was in his worst condition, she did everything she could to help. And then she lost her husband as a helping hand. A moral failure? She tried to declare bankruptcy. Do you know why she did not? She would have lost her home--the home that was set up for her quadriplegic son.

So there she faces the dilemma. There is a lien on her home for the medical bills. She will not give it up because she cannot think of another place where her son can be taken care of. So what does it mean? A lifetime of $200,000 in debt for a woman who is doing her level best to take care of her family. She is one of the victims of this bill.

Under this bill, if she went to bankruptcy court, she would lose her home. She would not have enough equity in it to keep it. What is she going to do with that boy? He is now over 30 years old. She has dedicated the rest of her life to him.

Senator Kennedy says, if you face that tragedy in your family, we are going to protect your home. When it is all said and done, you get $150,000 worth of home after your medical bills are wiped out. Is this such an outrage to say to the credit card companies, to say to the financial companies: You ought to be a little bit concerned about Joyce Owens of Chatham, IL?

This is a good woman, a good mother, a good wife, from a good family, struggling every day, who is going to be hammered by this bill. She is no moral failure. She, in my view, is a moral standard for all of us to live up to. And this bill is going to penalize her because some Members of Congress think the credit card industry deserves more profit at her expense.

I am happy to.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I think people living in Illinois are some of the luckiest people in the world. I think it is a wonderful State. I am proud to represent it. But for Joyce Owens' situation, if she faced the same tragedy with her family and they lived in Florida, Texas, or Kansas, she could keep her home. You may say, why? Well, because the States have different standards-- all the States.

What Senator Kennedy says is, this is national legislation, and we should have a national standard to protect families' homes when they face a medical crisis.

In my State, you cannot protect much, if any, of a home. That is why Joyce Owens will be paying off these bills and facing debt collectors and harassment the rest of her natural life. She has no way out.

The Senator is exactly right; if you happen to live in one of these three States, you hit the jackpot. Do you know what some of the real sharp people do in bankruptcy? Bowie Kuhn--do you remember that name?-- former Commissioner of Baseball. A prosperous man, right? Well, he got pretty deeply in debt one day, so he decided to take all of his assets and buy a mansion in Florida and file for bankruptcy. He filed for bankruptcy and got out from under his debts, but they let him keep his multimillion-dollar mansion in Florida. Bowie Kuhn got to keep his mansion. Joyce Owens cannot even keep her home to try to care for her quadriplegic son.

And you say to yourself, my friends on the other side of the aisle, surely in your home States you have people like this. You must be able to find them if you get outside this bubble we live in here and speak to people in the real world. Senator Kennedy is speaking to people in the real world, and this is what he is hearing. This is what I hear, and what Senator Obama and others hear. That is why his amendment is so important.

Yesterday, we lost an amendment that said if you were serving in the Guard or Reserve, activated to duty in Iraq, and you go over there to serve your country and risk your life for America, and you lose your business and go into bankruptcy because you are overseas serving America--I offered an amendment to say, at least give those soldiers a chance in bankruptcy to protect their homes.

Do you know what happened to that amendment? We lost it, 58 to 38. Many of the 58 Senators who voted against that amendment for the Guard and Reserve are the first ones waving the flag in the Fourth of July parade: How much we love our soldiers.

Where were they yesterday? These great lovers of the American military were nowhere to be found when they had a chance to do something for them when they serve their country and face bankruptcy at home.

Here is a chance for some of our colleagues who talk long and hard about feeling the pain of ordinary families to do something. The Kennedy amendment offers them a chance to do something, to say that in the bankruptcy court, we will acknowledge the disasters that families face across America because of medical bills, and we will do something about it.

I salute the Senator for his leadership, and I look forward to passing the amendment.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

We let down the Guard and Reserve yesterday. Military families and groups supported my amendment, but 58 Senators voted against it. They decided that the men and women serving in the military, risking their lives, were not entitled to any breaks when it came to filing bankruptcy because as they were overseas their families and businesses failed. That was the decision yesterday. Fifty-eight Senators said, no, they are not entitled to any special help.

Today we have a chance to give a helping hand to people facing medical crises. Over half of the bankruptcies in America involve people who faced a medical crisis and were crushed by it. They turned to bankruptcy court. Senator Kennedy gives them a chance in that court to come out with dignity and to start their lives anew. He gives them a chance to keep their homes. Is this unreasonable? I don't think it is. It is only fair. I gladly support the amendments of the Senator and thank him for offering them both.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like the people following this debate to understand what is being said. We have spent billions of dollars on the war in Iraq, and I voted for every penny of it. If it were my son or daughter over there, I would give them everything they needed to get their mission accomplished and come home safely. I ask the Senator from North Dakota, how many official committee hearings and investigations have there been in Congress looking into the sole- source, multibillion-dollar contracting the Senator has referred to?

If the Senator will yield for another question, the amendment he is going to offer, which I have worked on as well and am honored to join him as a cosponsor, is modeled after the Truman Commission that was created during World War II. Isn't it true that Harry Truman, a Democratic Senator from Missouri, initiated this investigation into what he called profiteering during the war at the expense of soldiers and taxpayers, and was literally examining the practices of a Democratic President, Franklin Roosevelt, with that commission, so that here he was, a Democrat, saying he had a higher responsibility to the taxpayers and soldiers. He was going to investigate the activities of the War Department under a Democratic President. I ask the Senator, was that not the case?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I must be living under a dark cloud because I not only had my identity stolen several weeks ago, but I am also one of the 60 Senators who, like the Senator from Illinois, was a victim of this apparent theft of a computer tape of official business credit cards of the Senate which compromises our credit cards. In my situation 4 or 5 years ago, I received a phone call from a collection agency in my home in Illinois saying: Durbin, we finally caught up with you. I do not know if you thought you could get by with this forever. We knew we would find you. You owe our company in Denver, CO, $2,000. I said: I have never been to your company's place in Denver, CO. I have never done business with you. It turned out to be someone using my name and my Social Security number, who had run up several thousand dollars in charges. It took several months to sort it out, but I was lucky. I sorted it out. There are some stories that have come to my office, and I am sure to the Senator's office as well, where it took years before they finally came to the bottom of it.

So I ask the Senator from Florida, for those people who were victims of identity theft, maybe a credit card where charges were run up out of sight, tell me exactly what the Senator's amendment will do to protect them in this new bankruptcy reform we are considering.

If I could further ask the Senator from Florida, this bankruptcy reform is going to affect millions of Americans. About 1 million to 1\1/2\ million a year file for bankruptcy, and all of their members of their family, of course, are affected by the bankruptcy so these people filing for bankruptcy have reached a point where their bills are so large they have said: I cannot do it, it is far in excess of what I can ever pay off, and they go into bankruptcy court asking that they have their debts relieved. They give up most of their assets in life and their debts are then paid off partially, as much as they can, and they walk out of the bankruptcy court with a new day ahead of them. That has been the law for a long time.

This bill we are considering says, wait a minute, we may not let you walk out of the court with all of your debts behind you. You may walk out of the court with some of the debts still on your shoulders that you have to keep paying. So if I understand the Senator's amendment, he is saying if the debts we are talking about were incurred not by the person filing bankruptcy but in their name because of identity theft, then for goodness sakes it should not be said at the end of the bankruptcy process that they still have to carry these debts which some criminal has incurred in their name.

Is that my understanding of what the Senator is trying to achieve?

If I could ask the Senator from Florida, yesterday we considered an amendment, which the Senator supported and cosponsored, which said take into consideration the members of the National Guard and Reserve who are being activated and sent overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives for America, that if they are gone for a year or more they may have an

economic misfortune; maybe that small business they were running fails because they are gone serving their country. So we offered an amendment yesterday which said when it comes to that bankruptcy situation we should be more tolerant, more lenient and more sensitive to these men and women who have risked their lives serving America in the Armed Forces.

When we offered that amendment the Senator from Florida may recall that yesterday some 58 Senators voted against it, many of whom will be the first to welcome these guardsmen and reservists with open arms, thank you for your service to our country. Now Senator Kennedy has an amendment pending which says, what about the category of Americans who have overwhelming medical bills because of a medical condition they never could have anticipated and they get trapped in bankruptcy? Can we take that into consideration and not hit them as hard as others and not take their homes away from them at the end of the day? Now the Senator comes in with another category, which I think is equally legitimate, of victims of identity theft.

If I understand the Senator from Florida, he is following in the same line of argument, and that is the bankruptcy court should not be blind to reality, to the reality of the guardsmen and reservists serving our country and paying a heavy price at home in terms of their personal finances. Nor should this bill be insensitive to a single mother raising children, diagnosed with breast cancer, who as a waitress with another job cannot pay off her medical bills, or in the Senator's case an elderly person whose identity was stolen and charges were run up beyond anything that she could handle.

It is my understanding that what you are saying is this law should be sensitive to the realities of people who are doing the right thing but are being victimized, either by medical illness or by identity theft. Is that the intention of the Senator?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida for his leadership on this issue. I am happy to join him as a cosponsor. I would like at this time to offer another amendment which I would like to describe.

Amendment No. 38

I ask the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, there is hardly one of us who has not heard a story that goes as follows: An elderly widow is living in her family home. Her children have moved out. She is getting up in years, but she is happy in her home, exactly where she wants to be. As time goes on, life gets more complicated for her, and someone takes advantage of her. There is a knock on the door and someone says to her: I just took a look at your roof. You must realize it is in terrible condition, and luckily I do roofing. I will be happy to repair your roof. Or, if you put vinyl siding on this old house, you could save so much on your heating bill. Or, did you notice that your basement foundation is starting to crack? That could be dangerous, and luckily I do the work.

You hear the story over and over, that this person--I do not mean to pick on elderly widows; it could be a widower, too--says: Sure, that sounds good. You seem like a nice, bright young man. Why doesn't your company come in and fix my house.

They say: Great. Here is a little contract we would like you to sign to have the home improvements.

They look at it and they say: It is tough for me to read it. I am not a lawyer.

Trust me, it is a standard contract.

They sign on the dotted line.

You have heard this story. Maybe someone in your family has been through this. Then what happens. The work turns out to be shoddy. They do not do what they are supposed to do. The charges are outrageously high. Then you take a look at the contract, and it turns out the contract creates a lien on the property, perhaps another mortgage on the property, perhaps a balloon payment, maybe interest rates that go right through the roof for the unsuspecting person. There are finance companies behind these door-to-door con artists who write out these contracts and end up, when all is said and done, owning the home.

That is not an outrageous story I have told you. It is repeated over and over, day in and day out, in my home State of Illinois and around the country. That is why I am proposing this amendment. This is called predatory lending. You know what a predator is: the animal that goes out trying to devour its prey. Predatory lenders do just that, too. This amendment is designed to penalize the growing number of high-cost predatory mortgage lenders who lead vulnerable borrowers down the path to foreclosure and bankruptcy. It is about balance, something this bankruptcy bill desperately needs.

If we are going to change the bankruptcy laws because too many people go to bankruptcy court, then we must also address predatory lending, which I have described, which is driving too many vulnerable Americans into bankruptcy court. If we are going to make the door to the bankruptcy court harder for consumers to open, then we must also make sure we are not protecting predatory creditors that force consumers to knock on that door.

There is no uniformly accepted definition of predatory lending. It is a lot like the old Supreme Court saying: I will know it when I see it. But high-pressure consumer finance companies have cheated unsophisticated and vulnerable consumers out of millions of dollars using a variety of abusive credit practices. Let me give examples of what they are: hidden and excessive fees and interest rates; lending without regard to the borrower's ability to pay; repeatedly refinancing a loan over a short period of time without any economic gain, known as loan flipping; committing outright fraud and deception, such as intentionally misleading borrowers about the terms of the loan.

Some automobile lenders in the used car industry have gouged consumers with interest rates as high as 50 percent with assessments for credit insurance, repair warranties, and hidden fees, adding thousands of dollars to the cost of an otherwise inexpensive used car. Pawn shops in some States have charged annual rates of interest of 240 percent or more. I could give you a lot more description of these predatory lending practices. Let me just tell you a few stories.

My colleagues who were listening to this debate know I have offered this before. They are likely to say: Here

comes Durbin again with the same old amendment. I am here again as I was in a previous Congress because this problem is still with us today. The last time I called up this amendment on debate on a bankruptcy bill we lost by one vote. This problem has only become worse since Congress defeated that amendment.

As predatory mortgage lending increases, it continues to target lower income women, minorities, and older Americans. In 1998, Senator Grassley of Iowa, my friend and colleague and the author of the bankruptcy bill, held a hearing in the Senate Special Committee on Aging looking into predatory lending. At the hearing, this is what a former career employee of that industry had to say.

Listen to how he described his customers:

My perfect customer would be an uneducated woman who is

living on a fixed income, hopefully from her deceased

husband's pension and Social Security, who has her house paid

off, is living off credit cards but having a difficult time

keeping up her payments, and who must make a car payment in

addition to her credit card payments.

This witness acknowledged that unscrupulous lenders specifically market their loans to elderly widowed women, blue-collar workers, people who have not graduated with higher education, people on fixed incomes, non-English speaking, and people who have significant equity in their homes.

That statement was made in 1998, 7 years ago. Six years later, February 2004, the Special Committee on Aging held another hearing on the same subject. At this hearing, held just 1 year ago, this is what a witness from the Government Accountability Office said:

Consistent observational and anecdotal evidence, along with

limited data, indicates that for a variety of reasons,

elderly homeowners are disproportionately the targets of

predatory lending. Because older homeowners on average have

more equity in their homes than younger homeowners, abusive

lenders could be expected to target these borrowers and

``strip'' the equity from their homes. The financial losses

older people can suffer as a result of abusive loan practices

can result in the loss of independence and security,

significant decline in the quality of life.

So has the problem of predatory lending gone away, as my opponents might argue? No, it has gotten worse.

What else has been going on since we first considered this in the Senate?

The AARP Litigation Foundation, which files lawsuits to help seniors, has been party to seven lawsuits since 1998 involving allegations of predatory lending against more than 50,000 elderly Americans. As of February 2004, six of their lawsuits have been settled, and one is still pending.

Minorities are still being targeted by these unscrupulous lenders as well.

According to the Center for Responsible Lending, Hispanic Americans are two and a half times more likely than whites to receive a refinancing loan from one of these lenders. African Americans are more than four times more likely to be targeted.

Let me share a credible article from the Los Angeles Times of February 2004 by Ameriquest, one of the largest subprime lenders. The article includes a story about how they tricked a minority, Sara Landa, from East Palo Alto, CA. She speaks Spanish and limited English.

She entered into a settlement with one of these companies, Ameriquest. After that, it was alleged that Ameriquest employees tricked her into signing a mortgage that required her to pay almost $2,500 a month, far more than her income from cleaning houses. All the negotiations were in Spanish. All the loan documents were in English. The only thing she ever received from Ameriquest in Spanish was a foreclosure notice. It is amazing.

In this same article, you will find statements from many ex-employees of this company, Ameriquest, asserting that while they worked for this company they were engaged in improper and predatory practices.

Mark Bomchill, a former Ameriquest employee, said he left his job because he didn't like the way Ameriquest treated people. He said that the drive to close deals and grab six-figure salaries led many of his fellow employees astray. Listen to what he said. He said:

They forged documents, hyped customer's credit worthiness

and ``juiced'' mortgages with hidden rates and fees.

Two other former employees said borrowers were often solicited to refinance loans that were not even 2 years old. This happened even though Ameriquest pledged in 2000 not to resolicit customers for at least 2 years. They completely ignored that pledge.

Nearly one in nine mortgages made by Ameriquest last year was a refinance on an existing loan less than 2 years old. The abuses don't end there.

Former Kansas City Ameriquest employees described another predatory practice by the same company where they would fabricate borrowers' incomes and falsify appraisals.

Lisa Taylor, a former loan agent from Sacramento, said she witnessed documents being altered as she walked around the vending machine that people were using as a tracing board, copying borrowers' signatures on an unsigned piece of paper.

If you think these are isolated examples, exaggerated stories, let me refer you to a 2004 GAO study that found that this is a prevalent problem in the subprime mortgage industry--this predatory lending. They found plenty of indications that predatory mortgage lending was a major and growing problem in the year 2004.

According to the 2004 study, in the past 5 years, there have been a number of major settlements resulting from government enforcement acts. I will mention a few.

Household International agreed to pay up to $484 million to homeowners across America to settle allegations by States that it used unfair and deceptive lending practices.

In September 2002, Citigroup agreed to pay $240 million to resolve FTC and private party charges that Associates First Capital Corporation engaged in systematic and widespread abusive lending practices.

In March 2000, First Alliance Mortgage Company settled with the Federal Trade Commission, six States, and the AARP to compensate borrowers more than $60 million because of their deceptive practices to lure senior citizens. An estimated 28 percent of the 8,700 borrowers in that suit were elderly.

These are documented. While some victims of predatory lending are lucky enough to receive compensation because of these lawsuits, many more have fallen to predatory lenders, and they never can turn to our legal system for help.

Here is an astonishing statistic. Mr. President, 1 in 100 conventional loans ends in foreclosure, but 1 in 12 subprime predatory loans ends in foreclosure. While it might be expected, these loans, because they are made with less creditworthy borrowers, would result in an increased rate of foreclosure, but the magnitude of the differences tells us that there is more at stake here than just the creditworthiness of the borrower.

The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing in July 2001. At that hearing, a report from the Center for Responsible Lending was released which showed the predatory lending practices cost American borrowers an estimated $9.1 billion annually.

Let me tell you why I am offering this amendment. Imagine, if you will, that it is your mother, father, grandmother, or grandfather alone in their home, and they signed this home improvement loan or signed this refinancing, which you learn about months later. You say: Grandma, you didn't tell me that you had somebody come in and do some work, and you didn't tell me you signed these papers. Did anybody read them?

No. He seemed like such a nice man, and he told me it was a standard form.

And you take it over to your family attorney. He says: My goodness. What your grandmother signed here is a remortgage of the property. She owned the home, and now, by buying vinyl siding, she has remortgaged her property and promised to pay back just a few hundred dollars a month to start with, but in a matter of a year or two, it explodes. The balloon pops, and it turns into a $2,000-a-month payment.

How is she going to pay it? Let us assume the worst circumstance--she doesn't pay. The mortgage is foreclosed on. She is about to lose her home, and she files for bankruptcy. She has nothing left on this Earth except a Social Security check, maybe a little pension check, some savings, or meager savings. She goes into bankruptcy court

to try to get out from under this burden. Guess who shows up at the bankruptcy court. The same predatory lender shows up saying: We own whatever she owns. She signed this mortgage.

Is it fair? Is it fair for somebody to take in a legal document, a predatory mortgage, that takes advantage of elderly people, and then be protected in the bankruptcy court? I don't think so.

If we are going to hold people coming into bankruptcy court who file for bankruptcy to the high moral standard of paying back their debts, should we not hold the creditors walking into bankruptcy court to a similar high moral standard that they must have followed the law, that they must have engaged in this highly regulated, moral conduct?

The amendment I am offering prohibits a high-cost mortgage lender from collecting on its claim in bankruptcy court if the lender extends credit in violation of existing law--the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, which is part of the Truth in Lending Act.

I am not reinventing the law. I am just saying when you issued this mortgage, you violated the law. You took advantage of a person by violating the law. You cannot then go in court and say protect me with the law. You can't have it both ways. If you broke the law to incur this debt, you can't go in court and ask for the law to protect you to collect the debt.

That seems to me to be just. If you were legal in the way you treated this person, then you can use the law in enforcing your debt. If you were illegal in the way you treated this person, you can't go into court and use the law to collect on that illegally based debt. That is simple.

When an individual falls prey to lenders and files for bankruptcy seeking last resort help, the claim of the predatory lender will not be allowed against a debtor. If the lender failed to comply with the requirements of the Truth in Lending Act for high-cost mortgages, the lender has no claim in bankruptcy court. The law has long recognized the doctrine of unclean hands where a party to an illegal agreement is not able to recover damages from other parties to such an agreement because the claimant itself was the party to an illegality.

My amendment is not aimed at all subprime lenders. The amendment will have no impact whatever on honest lenders who make loans that followed the law even if the loans carry high interest rates or high fees. Instead, it is directed solely at the bottom feeders, the scumbags, the predator lenders. My amendment reinforces current law and will help ensure that predatory lenders do not have a second chance to victimize their customers by seeking repayment in a bankruptcy proceeding.

Second, this amendment is not aimed at technical violations of the Truth In Lending Act. The violations must be material. I specifically made that change in my language to address some of the concerns raised in the first debate.

Third, the amendment does not amend the Truth In Lending Act. There is no question as to whether the Senate Banking Committee has any jurisdiction. We do not change the Truth In Lending Act. I point out the bankruptcy bill does amend that act in some parts. My amendment absolutely does not.

Some may argue the amendment is unnecessary because current law is sufficient. I disagree. I recognize Congress has passed numerous laws that Federal agents and regulators have used to combat predator lending, but predatory lending is on the rise. Many Americans are being cheated and duped by these unscrupulous business people.

President Bush has attempted to promote home ownership as part of the vision of an ownership society. I applaud him. For my wife and me, the first time we purchased a home was a turning point in our lives. We started to look at the world a lot differently. This was our home, on our block, in our neighborhood, in our town. It is an important part of everybody's life. I support that. But unless we rein in the abusive behavior of some in the lending industry, we will be promoting not an American dream, but an American nightmare for thousands of homeowners.

Let me say one more word. The last time I offered this amendment, the most stunning thing I learned was that the major financial institutions in America, the big boys, the blue chips, the best in the industry, oppose my amendment. You think, wait a minute, why would the best financial institutions in America oppose an amendment to stop people from cheating and violating the law in issuing mortgages? I never quite understood. Maybe their logic is this: If we let this amendment in where some of the worst lenders are held to the standard, then maybe the Government will take a closer look at us, too, so let's be opposed to all amendments. Let's try to protect everybody in the industry even if what they are doing is fundamentally unfair and even illegal. That is the best argument I can come up with.

I urge those in the financial industry who may be following this debate and desperately trying to see this bill pass, please be honest about this. Do you want to protect the subprime lenders, these predatory lenders who are engaged in the worst practices in your business? Why in the world would you want them to stay in business? Why would you want to protect them in court when they give lending a bad name, which is your business?

There are an awful lot of examples I can give. Let me mention a few cases before I close. Alonzo Hardaway owned a home in Pennsylvania for 28 years, raised his family there, went through a divorce there, his parents died there, but he no longer lives there. As of summer, he was living in a homeless shelter. Why? Because in 1999 a home remodeler and subprime lender convinced Mr. Hardaway to take a home equity loan for $35,000 at 13-percent interest to redo his kitchen windows and doors. When this 56-year-old man's trash hauling business faltered, he defaulted on his loan, his home was sold at a sheriff's sale and he was evicted in March of 2004. The loan is with The Associates, a large subprime lender later bought by Citigroup, which 2 years ago paid $215 million in fines for unscrupulous lending. That was documented in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

There are many other examples. I mention one or two of particular interest. Here is one of a victim of appraisal fraud known as ``house flipping.'' Ms. Wragg, a retired school aide, found the home of her dreams in a little neighborhood in Brooklyn. It was a classic brick house with a porch, a backyard. She had not originally set out to be an owner, but her eyes drifted to an advertisement offering the home of her dreams. She began her journey.

Now, 2 years later, she said that journey has turned into a nightmare. Her life savings has been depleted by a house she could never afford. The house was appraised at far more than it was worth and Ms. Wragg was given two mortgages she would never have qualified for, carrying costs more than double her income. She blames the mortgage company, the appraiser, the lawyer who represented her, and United Homes, LLC, of Briarwood, Queens, the company that owned the home, placed the ad, and arranged almost everything about closing. This is what she said: I trusted them, because I had never done this before and I didn't know any better.

These cases go on and on. I will not read them into the Record. There is one in your community, in your State. Maybe it happened in your family. You have read about them. You have seen them on television. And I am sure you wondered, Who is going to stop this abuse and exploitation? We only stop it when we tell these companies we will not protect you in bankruptcy court. You cannot take away the home of someone if you have engaged in illegal practices in issuing your mortgage.

When we consider the amendments before the Senate on this bankruptcy bill, I hope we will not only hold those walking in the bankruptcy court seeking relief from their debts to high standards of moral conduct, we will also hold the creditors who are seeking repayment of debts to the same conduct, perhaps just legal conduct, which is the only standard I have included in my amendment.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are neccessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Feingold amendment. I explained yesterday why I oppose this provision and would like to summarize my remarks today.

First off, I commend Senator Feingold's commitment to the elderly. He is very sincere in his efforts. We all are concerned about our senior citizens.

I have worked particularly hard on this bill to make sure there are provisions that protect the elderly along with women and children and I think that my colleagues who have worked with me on this bill recognize this fact. We have lots of protections in this bill.

Senator Grassley is the lead sponsor of this bill and he has a long track record of working with the elderly on Social Security and Medicare and other issues, as I do. I serve on the Finance Committee with Senator Grassley, who chairs that committee. We were both proud to have played a role in bringing prescription drug coverage to our seniors under the Medicare program in the landmark medicare reform bill that was enacted last Congress.

My opposition to this amendment has nothing to do with the elderly. I believe that this bill takes their concerns to heart.

I would not object if every State in the Nation passed laws that would put a similar floor--or a higher floor--in their respective homestead laws. But that choice belongs to the States, and not the Federal Government. There is a long history in bankruptcy law of deference to States on issues like homestead provisions.

The hard reality is that nearly every State in the country has vehemently defended their homestead laws. If you do not believe me you can ask the Senators from States like Texas, Florida, and Kansas. They have all been involved in reaching the compromise that has been achieved in this legislation on this issue over the past 8 years.

It is a grand compromise that both sides of the Hill will accept if we vote down the Feingold amendment. The Feingold amendment would bring the bill down.

If some States wish to change their laws, that is their prerogative. A key purpose of this bill, and the purpose of the current homestead provisions, is to curb fraud and abuse.

The provisions of S. 256 impose a 10-year look back for fraud. They impose a 2-year residency requirement that is designed to prevent wealthy debtors from moving from States with low homestead exemptions to States with high or unlimited exemptions and then filing for bankruptcy. They are a compromise--a balance--of States' rights and Federal imperatives under bankruptcy law, and we must let the provisions stand as written. This amendment will upset that balance and could act to bring this bill down.

The reason has nothing to do with a hostility to the elderly, or to any other class of persons, but because the homestead provisions have taken years to negotiate and are the result of difficult choices and compromises. There are many members of this body who would like to see the homestead provisions changed in some fashion, but to accommodate them any further than what presently exists in the bill would likely force other Senators to oppose the legislation.

I urge my colleagues to reject the Feingold amendment, however well intentioned it may be, because this is a grand compromise of a bill that I don't believe the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin has ever supported. The fact of the matter is, if his amendment were agreed to, he would not support this bill. And the reason he would not is because he would not agree to the compromise we have in the bill which the vast majority of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle in both Houses have agreed to.

I hope we can vote down the Feingold amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the distinguished Senator from Alabama will have 2 minutes before the Akaka amendment. Is that correct?

He does not need time from my time at this time.

Mr. President, I would be happy to yield some of my time at this point, and then I will have an additional 1 minute immediately before the vote.

Let me answer my dear colleague from Wisconsin. My point is he has never been for this bill. Frankly, he knows this language in this bill is the result of tremendous compromise between the House and the Senate. His amendment, would bring this bill down. All of us would like to make changes. This is a complex bill. I think

all of us, if we could be dictator for a day, would put our own imprint on this bill. But this is 8 years of work, and I don't want to see this bill brought down because one person doesn't agree with one provision. In the viewpoint of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, most of the protections he doesn't agree with. He is not going to vote for this bill, whether his amendment is agreed to. All his amendment does is create a confusion and a situation where literally this bill could go down.

We have to get this bill in a form which the House will accept, and this is the form in which the House will accept it.

I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I sat here and listened to my dear colleague from Massachusetts, and almost everything he has spoken about is a flaw in the current bankruptcy system we are trying to change. It is the current bankruptcy system that we have been trying to change for 8 solid years. And guess who one of the principal voices against changing it is? Why, none other than my distinguished friend from Massachusetts, and my distinguished friend from Illinois, who make these great populous arguments on the floor that sound so good. I do not want to characterize them in my Utah terminology, but they are not accurate.

How is that for being a person who uses discretion?

If you listened to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, you would think this country can spend trillions of dollars solving every person's problem. I have been here 29 years. I have never heard the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts once ask: Where are we going to get the money to pay for this? How do we pay for this? How do we justify it?

It is easy to talk about taking care of everybody in every way, universal health care, and to decry a Medicare reform bill that adds no less than $400 billion, but maybe as much as $750 billion now-- according to CBO, OMB, and other analysts--and say it does nothing for the poor when that is exactly what it does do, a lot for the poor.

In the 8 years we have tried to correct these infirmities in the bankruptcy bill, we have not had any help from many who are speaking on this floor criticizing this bill today. They have never been for any change unless it is their change in bankruptcy, changes they could not get through the Senate floor. And we have come up with a bill that has been basically passed by huge majorities every time it comes up on the floor because we are trying to correct some of the things the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is complaining about.

Yet I do not believe--and I can't speak for him--that we have a chance of having him vote for final passage of this bill. It may be because he differs with part of it, as I do. But I am trying to do the best we can in two legislative bodies that have great difficulty passing legislation as complicated as this with as many nuances and changes as this will make in the current laws that will be for the betterment of people in our society and in our country today.

I rise today in total opposition to these two Kennedy amendments. I commend Senator Kennedy for his longstanding commitment to health issues. Most of the health care bills that work in this country are Hatch-Kennedy or Kennedy-Hatch bills over the last 28 years. He knows he can't accuse me of not having compassion for the poor and for those who have difficulty. We wouldn't have passed them had it not been for bipartisan efforts of Republicans and Democrats. So don't let anybody get on this floor and act as though only one side cares about the poor. That is not only a joke, it is a sad joke at that.

I know how devoted the Senator from Massachusetts is, and I share his general concerns about people in our society today who are hard-working people. However, I do not believe these two amendments are the answer to their problems. We accepted the Sessions amendment yesterday. It speaks directly to the circumstances surrounding serious medical conditions, which would be a major change over current law that I believe the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and others, including the distinguished Senator from Illinois, will vote against in the end because they don't agree with some aspects of this bill. I don't agree with some aspects of this legislation, but I have worked my guts out to try and get a compromise here that will help the poor, that will help our society and will make people more honest, that will stop some of the fraud and abuse.

To continually make this sound as though it is a credit card company bill--give me a break.

I note the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts mentioned the Warren study when he says that half or thereabouts of the people go into bankruptcy because of medical conditions. That study is so flawed, nobody who is in their right mind is going to accept everything in it. First of all, it includes all gambling; that is a medical condition. Drug abuse and alcohol abuse, they are medical conditions. I agree maybe that may be. But those are voluntary medical conditions. It may be somebody is crazy because they gamble all the time. I have known compulsive gamblers. But is it a medical condition that justifies allowing people to cheat their creditors, as is going on in this country today? I don't think most people would agree with that. If you look at the statistics in the Warren report, you have to say: My gosh, why would anybody rely on that?

I believe it is worth pointing out that that report includes gambling debts as a medical condition under the rubric of medical expenses. Let's get real.

This bankruptcy bill is fair. It is needed. I pointed out several abuses yesterday, and I am sure will point out more before this debate is over.

The issues the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has raised are important ones, as far as I am concerned. Make no mistake about it. But I think we ought to change current law to address them. This bill does to a large degree.

All we hear from Democrats over the years is: We need a means test so the rich pay more. Why are they suddenly against a means test to protect the poor, a means test that requires those who can pay something against their debts rather than every 5 years go into bankruptcy after running up bills galore? Why shouldn't they have to pay or at least try to pay? A means test protects those who are designated poor. And frankly, there are other rules in this new bill that will protect those who are above the means test better than current law.

I would suggest to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, if he wants to correct some of these problems--all of which he has raised under current law as though they are going to be caused by this bill-- he ought to vote for this bill, because it takes dramatic steps to change in current law the things he has been complaining about and that I happen to be concerned about as much as he is and others on this floor as well on both sides.

For 8 years we have fought to bring both sides of this floor together. For 8 years we have fought to bring both Houses of Congress together. For 8 years we have tried to correct these deficiencies in the Bankruptcy Code. This bill doesn't correct everything, but it does make strides. It does make real efforts to try and not only be fair but to get people to be responsible for their debts when they have the ability to be responsible for their debts.

The issues the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has raised are important ones. Make no mistake about it. But let me shine a little more light on these issues. The people the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and the distinguished Senator from Illinois have held out as victims of the means test will be in fact protected by that test. That is what is amazing to me, how we can hear these populous arguments on the floor as though that is reality. We have heard this so many times. As the decibel level goes up, the reality of those arguments is less and less real.

The Sessions amendment yesterday makes sense, trying to do something about what the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is complaining about. The things he is complaining about are in the current law we are trying to change. The means test protects the poor.

Now are there going to be problems with any bill that comes out of the Congress? Sure. We have to make an effort to do the best we can to resolve these problems and this bill does make the best effort we can between both Houses of Congress to do so.

I might add that the other amendment of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts provides a homestead exemption for medically distressed debtors. Well, medically distressed debtors should be taken care of under the Sessions amendment because he specifically provides for that.

We had a vote this morning on a homestead amendment. We all know we cannot accept the amendment. It is an issue for the States, pure and simple. The reason we can't is because after 8 years of careful, serious negotiations, after 8 years of that, we have arrived at a compromise that, though imperfect, is the best we can do. That is what legislating is all about. I wish we could make every bill perfect. Unfortunately, we have to deal with imperfect people. Some of us may think we are perfect and that everybody should do exactly what we think they should do. That isn't reality around here.

So we do the best we can. After 8 years, after multiple votes, and after votes overwhelmingly in favor of this bill, because it makes tremendous changes from current law that do protect the poor, and others as well, and those who are losing billions of dollars because of it--at least millions, because of fraud--we are trying to do what has to be done.

Let me make a few remarks about the Kennedy amendment and why it should be rejected. Yesterday, we acted to adopt the Sessions amendment by a broad 63-to-32 bipartisan vote. The Sessions amendment included medical costs as a factor to be considered under the special circumstances provisions under chapter 13. That amendment will allow those who make those decisions to determine whether people are going to be inordinately hurt by being pushed into chapter 13. You have to believe there are idiots in the system who will not resolve these types of major problems, especially the ones the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has been talking about.

Please recall that under the so-called means test Senators Durbin and Kennedy are trying to vilify today--when they are always arguing for means tests for the rich--will only result in about 10 percent of those who file for bankruptcy will be required to repay any of their debts out of future earnings. That is right, only 10 percent right off the bat. Eighty percent of those individuals who make under the median income will ever face the prospect of paying past debts out of future earnings. Of the remaining 20 percent, only about one-half will ever be required to pay. When all is said and done, only about 1 in 10 of those who filed for bankruptcy will ever be required to pay past debt from future earnings under the means test.

Medical expenses will be eligible as a factor in determining if and how much money will be repaid by those relatively few--1 in 10--who qualify under the mischaracterized means test. That is not an onerous test; it is fair. It treats medical expenses fairly. That is what we accomplish with the bipartisan 63-to-32 basically overwhelming vote on the Sessions amendment yesterday.

Now, the Senator from Massachusetts opposes this bill. That is no secret. He has opposed every bill we have brought up here in the last 8 years. We should oppose his amendment because the bill already adequately responds to the subject matter of his amendment. By the way, again, all of the litany of bad things that are happening to people, and especially the hard-working poor, are occurring under the current bankruptcy system we are trying to change and make better.

I will also acknowledge that I wish I could make this bill even better. But in all honesty, we are to a point where if we want to correct the wrongs in society that are occurring in bankruptcy, this is the chance to do it, and then let us work in the future to correct what needs to be corrected in this bill. But this is the only chance we have to correct some of the ills the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is bringing out here today. I commend him for being concerned about those ills, but if he is, he ought to be voting for this bill because we at least do something about it. It may not be exactly what he wants; it is not exactly what I want; but it is the best we can do when we consider this bicameral legislative body called the Congress of the United States.

Again, I want to speak in favor of S. 256--and I think I have been-- the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. This issue has become more important over the last 8 years, when we started to work on reforming the system. It is more important than ever today. Bankruptcies are up markedly.

Over the past decade, look at how they have gone up on this chart. From 1947, all the way up to 2003, you can see how, since about the late 1980s, it automatically shoots up like mad. I know people in Utah who run up all the debts they can for 5 years, then go into bankruptcy, and then they do it again. This is happening much more than it should. As we pointed out yesterday, we have more bankruptcies in 1 year now than they had in the whole Depression of 10 years.

The bankruptcy system can be improved. It seems unlikely that consumer bankruptcy abuses are going to get better without this legislation. I will recount some of the glaring facts about this problem. First, we are seeing more bankruptcies filed every year than in the entire decade of the Great Depression, as I have mentioned. Our economy has generally grown over the last 10 years, and we have enjoyed relatively low unemployment and low interest rates. But despite this, we continue to see record numbers of bankruptcy filings every year. Why is that?

One factor may be that too many people view bankruptcy as an easy way to erase their debts, rather than as a means of last resort. This affects all consumers. When creditors are left without payment, they have to pass these costs on to all of the rest of us. It costs us in terms of higher interest rates, higher downpayment requirements, shorter grace periods, higher penalty fees, late charges, and retailers are forced to raise prices, all because of the abuse of the bankruptcy system, which this bill would do a great deal to correct.

If you want to help the poor, vote for this bill because this bill will save the poor at least $400 a year, minimally, for each household. Bankruptcy can also cost job loss among those who are victims of uncollected obligations. Part of the problem with the current bankruptcy system is that it allows certain higher income individuals to wipe away debts that they can and should be required to pay. Some have mischaracterized provisions in the bill that require some individuals to repay past debts with future earnings. The provision in the bill--the so-called means test--applies only to those persons above the median income. Where a higher income debtor has the means to repay, the means test established in the bill would require such debtor to shoulder more responsibility in paying the bills they have incurred. For debtors below the median income--which is over 80 percent of all filings--there would be no presumption of abuse. But even for those above the median with means to repay a substantial part of their debts, a judge would still have the ability to allow a liquidation bankruptcy to proceed in cases of hardship.

This is not the onerous bill that some of my colleagues would have you believe. Throughout the course of the debate over the last four Congresses, we have had different arguments from opponents of this legislation. It is always the same opponents. Some of those failing arguments are rearing their heads again in this debate. And again, the arguments they are making basically criticize current law that we are trying to change with the bankruptcy bill, we believe for the better. Can you find some flaws in this? Of course, and so can I. But it is head and shoulders over current law and over some of the illustrations my friends on the other side have brought up.

Let me take a few minutes to dispel a few of the more prominent myths about the bill. First, some suggested that higher debt burdens have led to the dramatic spike in bankruptcy filings over the last 25 years. The basic measurement for establishing financial distress shows that this is simply not the case. The debt service ratio--a measurement of income to expenses--has remained relatively constant over the last 25 years, as this chart behind me illustrates. The bottom red line shows the bankruptcy filings per 1,000 families from 1980 up until 2001. The black line on the top is the debt service ratio. This shows that bankruptcies have not increased due to a decreased ability to make payments on debt obligations. Examining the lowest 20 percent of income earners shows that even when the debt service ratio in these categories declined or stayed the same, bankruptcies overall still climbed dramatically, as the next chart reveals.

The bottom line, as you can see, is consumer liabilities between 1979 and 2001. The red line represents consumer assets between 1979 and 2001. The green line happens to be the consumer net wealth between 1979 and 2001. They have all gone up--even the bottom line, the consumer liabilities--but not very much. The others have gone up much more. The consumer assets and consumer net wealth have gone up much more.

Another measurement of financial distress is net wealth, the amount of assets against liabilities. But this test, too, shows that even as net wealth has soared, as was shown on that prior chart, bankruptcy filings have soared as well.

This chart makes the point. The bottom line is revolving disposable personal income. That has gone up from 1959 to 2003. The red line is the nonrevolving disposable personal income. As one can see, that has gone down. The black line on top is the total disposable personal income which has basically remained the same, except it has gone up a little bit in these past years.

Another exaggerated myth is that increased use of credit cards is the cause for more and more bankruptcies. But, again, the facts strongly suggest this simply is not the case. When there has been an increase in the use of credit card debt, this was largely due to a substitution for other high-interest debt.

The chart behind me shows that while revolving debts, such as credit cards, have increased as a percentage of disposable personal income, there is a corresponding decrease in nonrevolving debt. The net effect is that overall consumer indebtedness has remained roughly the same.

Others have tried to argue that increases in housing costs are a major reason for skyrocketing bankruptcy filings, but the amount of income going into mortgage expenses has remained steady over the years. According to Professor Warren's book, ``The Two-Income Trap,'' which was cited favorably by the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, yesterday, in the early seventies, mortgage payments constituted 14 percent of a typical family's income.

Here is a chart showing the allocation of income. The red part on the left, the large part, which is 46 percent, happens to be discretionary income. The purple small part is health insurance, and that amounts to 3 percent. Discretionary is 46 percent. The mortgage people are paying is now 14 percent, about the same as it has always been, in that little section of red. The yellow is automobile, which is 13 percent of income, and taxes are 24 percent.

In all honesty, 30 years later, according to Professor Warren, this percentage actually fell to 13 percent. As this chart shows, the mortgage went down to 13 percent. Obviously, attributing the rise in the bankruptcy rate to higher mortgage payments does not appear to be borne out by the facts. Further debunking this myth is the fact that default rates on mortgages have also remained fairly steady over the years.

Another prominent myth about this issue is that about 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings is caused by medical debts. We heard the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts in very excited terms talk about these type of debts, medical debts. Undoubtedly, there are many bankruptcies caused by medical debts. This is why this bill makes several exceptions for treatments of health expenses and health insurance, something that does not exist today. These exceptions do not exist today. This is why we were so pleased yesterday that the Senate adopted the Sessions amendment that explicitly identified medical costs as a factor to be taken under consideration by a bankruptcy judge in deciding whether there are special circumstances that affect a debtor's ability to pay.

But the study cited for the proposition that 50 percent of bankruptcies are medically related is misleading at best. This claim is based on the study conducted by Professor Elizabeth Warren, but this study does not even purport to claim that medical bills were the primary basis for half of bankruptcy filings, as the charts of the Senator from Massachusetts seem to indicate; the study merely claims that about half the filings were medically related. This is a distinction with a real difference, but we did not hear the difference as our friend from Massachusetts was describing this. Only a definition of the health problem that is stretched beyond recognition could lead to the conclusion that these filings were medically caused. The study actually classifies gambling as a medical cause. Gracious, come on. Give me a break. Gambling?

Finally, let us look at two other exaggerated explanations for bankruptcy filings: unemployment and divorce. With respect to unemployment, this chart shows that even as unemployment has dropped, bankruptcy filings continue to increase.

Let me refer to this next chart. The red dots represent the unemployment rate. It has been going down since basically 1981. The black dots show the bankruptcies per 1,000 families, and they have gone up dramatically, as one can see. If there was a correlation between unemployment and bankruptcy, we would have expected bankruptcy filings to decrease over the last 25 years, but this obviously has not been the case. In fact, just the opposite has occurred.

Again, on divorce rates, bankruptcies have increased by a huge percentage, even as we have seen a modest decline in the divorce rate over the last 25 or so years. The red line at the bottom shows bankruptcies per 1,000 households. Look how it has gone up since about 1987. The black dots represent the divorce rate per 1,000 households. That went up, but it is now headed down. That is a good thing for our society. I am glad to see that. But the bankruptcy rates keep going up.

The bottom line is that despite the low interest rates, low unemployment, steady debt ratios, and steady increase in net wealth, bankruptcy filings continue to set record highs. Frankly, these facts suggest another reason to explain the increase in bankruptcy filings is that it is simply too easy for some relatively high-income debtors to simply wipe away their debts and stick all the rest of us in society with them, even where they have the means to pay a substantial share of the obligations. It is absolutely unfair to saddle all consumers with the increased costs associated with these off-the-chart levels of filings. This bankruptcy bill we are debating today will cut down on some of these abuses and bring back some sense of accountability to the high-income debtors.

Let me say again, it is one thing to come on this floor and give these wonderful populist talks about how much they love to help the poor when, in fact, this bill will do more to help the poor than all those talks in the world. And to complain about this bill when what they are really doing is complaining about the current system, it is amazing to me.

The only thing I can conclude is some people who make these arguments actually must believe the people out there are really stupid and that populist arguments really count today, like they used to when people did not have the education Americans have today. That is what those populist arguments are all about. It is easy to stand on the floor, shake your fist, scream and shout, and talk about how bad things are when they are bad because we are not changing them. It is amazing to me, absolutely mind-boggling to me.

I respect anybody who wants to change these laws and make them better. The only way we are going to do that is to pass this bill, and the only way we are going to pass this bill through both Houses is to pass this bill without amendment.

If we want to make some changes, let's do it. We have now been 8 years through this stuff, and the same old tired, wornout saw arguments are still being made by the people who complain about the current system as though this bill is going to make the current system worse. It is going to make it better.

Again, I will acknowledge it is not a perfect bill. My gosh, nothing is around here. But it will make a great difference in some of the complaints that have been lodged against current law.

This bankruptcy bill we are debating today will cut down on some of these abuses and bring back some sense of accountability to these high- income debtors. It will stop some of the fraud and abuse that is going on. It will

make everybody a little more responsible. We put in a lot of other provisions that make corporate America more responsible as well.

Could we do more? I suspect we could, but not and pass the bill. That is my bottom line right now after 8 years of doing this, after passing it four times overwhelmingly in the Senate and overwhelmingly in the House but not being able to get it signed because the one time it did go to the President, President Clinton pocket vetoed it. So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. I hope my colleagues will help us finally pass this important measure because it is long overdue. It will help to resolve an awful lot of the problems that we hear complaints about on the floor today by those who have done everything they could over the last 8 years to kill this bill.

If we passed both of the amendments of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, even if we could agree that they were good amendments-- and they are not--I guarantee my colleagues he is not going to vote for this bill. He never has, and I do not think he ever will. His reasons are his own, and they are important reasons to him, but I suggest that if our colleagues really mean they want to do something about these awful current situations, this is the bill to do it with. If this bill does not prove to be everything that we would like it to be, let us work in the next session of Congress or immediately thereafter to start trying to make changes that might help.

This bill is a step in the right direction. It is a very important step forward, and we certainly should not allow any killer amendments on this bill that would make it impossible to pass once again.

Hopefully I have been fair to my colleagues. I have tried to be. But I cannot just sit here and let these type of arguments be made without some response, especially since I have heard them over and over again. The complaints are always about current law and some of the aspects of this bill that they just do not like that are essential in order to pass the bill.

So I hope my colleagues will vote against both of these amendments. I am going to do everything in my power to see that they are both defeated.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers.

Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, the mileage reimbursement level currently permitted for businesses is 40.5 cents per mile.

We are asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services. But the 14 cents per mile limit is posing a very real hardship for charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit.

A representative of one organization, the Portage County Department on Aging, explained just how important volunteer drivers are to their ability to provide services to seniors in that county. The Department on Aging reported that dozens of volunteer drivers delivered meals to homes and transported people to medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services.

As many of my colleagues know, the senior meals program is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years. This has increased pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for lagging Federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit, though, increasingly poses a barrier to obtaining those contributions. Portage County reports that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services.

And the same is true for thousands of other non-profit and charitable organizations that provide essential services to communities across our Nation.

By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. The comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is currently 40.5 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by

volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees over double the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence.

This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 107th Congress and the 108th Congress in nearly every respect. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses. It is essentially the same provision passed by the Senate as part of a tax bill in 1999, and it is essentially the same provision that passed the Senate as part of the CARE Act.

At the time of the 1999 tax bill, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the mileage reimbursement provision would result in the loss of $1 million over the five-year fiscal period from 1999 to 2004. The revenue loss was so small that the JCT did not make the estimate on a year by year basis.

Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. That provision increases the criminal monetary penalties for individuals and corporations convicted of tax fraud. The provision passed the Senate in the 108th Congress as part of the JOBS bill, but was later dropped in conference and was not included in the final version of that bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I will reintroduce in the Senate the Reasonable Notice and Search Act. This bill is nearly identical to a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 1701. It addresses Section 213 of the USA-PATRIOT Act, the provision of that important statute passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that has caused perhaps the most concern among Members of Congress and the public. Section 213, sometimes referred to as the ``delayed notice search provision'' or the ``sneak and peek provision,'' authorizes the government in limited circumstances to conduct a search without immediately serving a search warrant on the owner or occupant of the premises that have been searched.

Prior to the PATRIOT Act, secret searches for physical evidence were performed in some jurisdictions under the authority of Court of Appeals decisions, but the Supreme Court never definitively ruled whether they were constitutional. Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act authorized delayed notice warrants in any case in which an ``adverse result'' would occur if the warrant were served before the search was executed. Adverse result was defined as including: 1. endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; 2. flight from prosecution; 3. destruction of or tampering with evidence; 4. intimidation of potential witnesses; or 5. otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. This last catch-all category could apply in virtually any criminal case. In addition, while some courts had required the service of the warrant within a specified period of time, the PATRIOT Act simply required that the warrant specify that it would be served within a ``reasonable'' period of time after the search.

It is interesting to note that this provision of the PATRIOT Act was not limited to terrorism cases. In fact, before the PATRIOT Act passed, the FBI already had the authority to conduct secret searches of foreign terrorists and spies with no notice at all under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Furthermore, the PATRIOT Act ``sneak and peek'' authority was not made subject to the sunset provision that will cause many of the new surveillance provisions of the act to expire at the end of this year unless Congress reenacts them. So Section 213 was pretty clearly a provision that the Department of Justice wanted regardless of the terrorism threat after 9/11.

Perhaps that is why this provision has caused such controversy since it was passed. In 2003, by a wide bipartisan margin, the House passed an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-

State appropriations bill offered by Representative Otter from Idaho, a Republican, to stop funding for delayed notice searches authorized under section 213. The size of the vote took the Department by surprise, and it immediately set out to defend the provision aggressively. Clearly, this is a power that the Department does not want to lose.

I raised concerns about the sneak and peek provision when it was included in the PATRIOT Act. I did not, and still do not, believe there had been adequate study and analysis of the justifications for these searches and the potential safeguards that might be included. I did not argue then, however, and I am not arguing now that there should be no delayed notice searches at all and that the provision should be repealed. I simply believe that this provision should be modified to protect against abuse. My bill will do four things to accomplish this.

First, my bill would narrow the circumstances in which a delayed notice warrant can be granted to the following: potential loss of life, flight from prosecution, destruction or tampering with evidence, or intimidation of potential witnesses. The ``catch-all provision'' in section 213, allowing a secret search when serving the warrant would ``seriously jeopardize an investigation or unduly delay a trial'' can too easily be turned into permission to do these searches whenever the government wants.

Second, I believe that any delayed notice warrant should provide for a specific and limited time period within which notice must be given--7 days. This is consistent with some of the pre-PATRIOT Act court decisions and will help to bring this provision in closer accord with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Under my bill, prosecutors will be permitted to seek 7-day extensions if circumstances continue to warrant that the subject not be made aware of the search. But the default should be a week, unless a court is convinced that more time should be permitted.

Third, Section 213 should include a sunset provision so that it expires along with the other expanded surveillance provisions in Title II of the PATRIOT Act, at the end of 2005. This will allow Congress to determine if the balance between civil liberties and law enforcement has been correctly struck.

Finally, the bill requires a public report on the number of times that section 213 is used, the number of times that extensions are sought beyond the 7-day notice period, and the type of crimes being investigated with this power. This information will help the public and Congress evaluate the need for this authority and determine whether it should be retained or modified after the sunset.

These are reasonable and moderate changes to the law. They do not gut the provision. Rather, they recognize the growing and legitimate concern from across the political spectrum that this provision was passed in haste and presents the potential for abuse. They also send a message that Fourth Amendment rights have meaning and potential violations of those rights should be minimized if at all possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I will reintroduce the Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act. The bill is identical to the bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 1507.

This bill would amend Sections 215 and 505 of the USA-PATRIOT Act to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans. It would set reasonable limits on the Federal Government's access to library, bookseller, medical, and other sensitive, personal information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (``FISA'') and related foreign intelligence authority.

I am pleased that several of my distinguished colleagues have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation.

Millions of Patriotic Americans love our country and support our military men and women in their difficult missions abroad, but worry about the fate of our Constitution here at home.

Much of our Nation's strength comes from our constitutional liberties and respect for the rule of law. That is what has kept us free for our two and a quarter century history. Our constitutional freedoms, our American values, are what make our country worth fighting for as we strive to win the war on terror.

Here at home, there is no question that the FBI needs ample resources and legal authority to prevent future acts of terrorism. But the PATRIOT Act went too far when it comes to the government's access to personal information about law abiding Americans.

Even though in the end I opposed the PATRIOT Act, there were many provisions that I did support. And even in those provisions I sought to amend when the bill was debated, there was often some change that I supported. For example, Congress was right to expand the category of business records that the FBI could obtain pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seek a court order to obtain only travel records--such as airline, hotel, and car rental records--and records maintained by storage facilities. The PATRIOT Act allows any business records to be subpoenaed. I don't quibble with that change.

But what my colleagues and I do find problematic--and an increasing number of Americans who value their privacy and First Amendment rights agree with us--is that the current law allows the FBI broad, almost unfettered access to personal information

about law-abiding Americans who have no connection to terrorism or spying.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act requires the FBI to show in an application to the court that the documents are ``sought for'' an international terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. There is no requirement that the FBI make a showing of individualized suspicion that the documents relate to a suspected terrorist or spy.

In other words, under current law, the FBI could serve a subpoena on a library for all the borrowing records of its patrons or on a bookseller for the purchasing records of its customers simply by asserting that they want the records for a terrorism investigation.

Since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, librarians and booksellers have become increasingly concerned by the potential for abuse of this law. I was pleased to stand with the American Booksellers Association and the Free Expression Network over 2 years ago when we first started to raise these concerns.

Librarians and booksellers are concerned that under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seize records from libraries and booksellers in order to monitor what books Americans have purchased or borrowed, or who has used a library's or bookstore's internet computer stations, even if there is no evidence that the person is a terrorist or spy, or has any connection to a terrorist or spy.

These concerns are so strong that some librarians across the country have taken the unusual step of destroying records of patrons' book and computer use, as well as posting signs on computer stations warning patrons that whatever they read or access on the internet could be monitored by the federal government.

As a librarian in California said, ``We felt strongly that this had to be done. . . . The government has never had this kind of power before. It feels like Big Brother.''

And as the executive director of the American Library Association said, ``This law is dangerous. . . . I read murder mysteries--does that make me a murderer? I read spy stories--does that mean I'm a spy? There's no clear link between a person's intellectual pursuits and their actions.''

The American people do not know how many or what kind of requests Federal agents have made for library records under the PATRIOT Act. The Justice Department refuses to release that information to the public.

But in a survey released by the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, about 550 libraries around the Nation reported having received requests from Federal or local law enforcement during the past year. About half of the libraries said they complied with the law enforcement request, and another half indicated that they had not.

Americans don't know much about these incidents, because the law also contains a provision that prohibits anyone who receives a subpoena from disclosing that fact to anyone.

In testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft stated that as of September 18, 2003, the Department of Justice had never used Section 215. The Department has not made that claim in public testimony since then, leading many to speculate that the provision has now been used. Whether it has been used once, or dozens of times, the problem with the section remains--it is too broad and does not permit adequate judicial supervision. There is a potential for overreaching that Congress must address.

David Schwartz, president of Harry W. Schwartz Bookshops, the oldest and largest independent bookseller in Milwaukee, summed up well the American values at stake when he said: ``The FBI already has significant subpoena powers to obtain records. There is no need for the government to invade a person's privacy in this way. This is a uniquely un-American tool, and it should be rejected. The books we read are a very private part of our lives. People could stop buying books, and they could be terrified into silence.''

I would not claim that we have reached the point where people in this country are afraid to buy books, but section 215 is a tool that is unnecessarily broad. And it raises the specter of indiscriminate government snooping into the private lives of innocent citizens, which is an unnecessary distraction from the serious law enforcement work that is needed to fight terrorism.

It is time to reconsider those provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are un-American and, frankly, unpatriotic.

But my concerns with the PATRIOT Act go beyond library and bookseller records. Under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seek any records maintained by a business. These business records could contain sensitive, personal information--for example, medical records maintained by a doctor or hospital or credit records maintained by a credit agency. All the FBI would have to do is simply assert that the records are ``sought for'' its terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act goes too far. Americans rightfully have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their library, bookstore, medical, financial, or other records containing personal information. Prudent safeguards are needed to protect these legitimate privacy interests.

The Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act is a reasonable solution. It would restore a pre-PATRIOT Act requirement that the FBI make a factual, individualized showing that the records sought pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy while leaving in place other PATRIOT Act expansions of this business records power.

My bill will not prevent the FBI from doing its job. It recognizes that the post-September 11 world is a different world. There are circumstances when the FBI should legitimately have access to library, bookseller, or other personal information.

I'd like to take a moment to explain how the safeguard in my bill would be applied. Suppose the FBI is conducting an investigation of an international terrorist organization. It has information that suspected members of the group live in a particular neighborhood. The FBI would like to obtain records from the library in the suspects' neighborhood. Under current law, the FBI could decide to ask the library for all records concerning anyone who has ever borrowed a book or used a computer, and what books were borrowed, simply by asserting that the documents are sought for a terrorism investigation. But under my bill, the FBI could not do so. The FBI would have to set forth specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a suspected terrorist. The FBI could obtain only those library records--such as borrowing records or computer sign-in logs--that pertain to the suspected terrorists. The FBI could not obtain library records concerning individuals who are not suspected terrorists.

So, under my bill, the FBI can still obtain documents that it legitimately needs, but my bill would also protect the privacy of law- abiding Americans. I might add that if, as the Justice Department says, the FBI is using its PATRIOT Act powers in a responsible manner, does not seek the records of law-abiding Americans, and only seeks the records of suspected terrorists or suspected spies, then there is no reason for the Department to object to my bill.

The second part of my bill would address privacy concerns with another Federal law enforcement power expanded by the PATRIOT Act--the FBI's national security letter authority. The FBI does not need court approval to use this power.

My bill would amend section 505 of the PATRIOT Act. Part of this section relates to the production of records maintained by electronic communications providers. Libraries or bookstores with internet access for customers could be deemed ``electronic communication providers'' and therefore be subject to a request by the FBI under its NSL authority.

As I mentioned earlier, some librarians are so concerned about the potential for abuse by the FBI that they have taken matters into their own hands before the FBI knocks on their door. Some librarians have begun shredding on a daily basis sign-in logs and other documents relating to the public's use of library computer terminals to access the internet.

Again, safeguards are needed to ensure that any individual who accesses the internet at a library or bookstore does not automatically give up all expectations of privacy. Like the section

215 fix I've discussed, my bill would require an individualized showing by the FBI of how the records of internet usage maintained by a library or bookseller pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy.

Yes, the American people want the FBI to be focused on preventing terrorism. And, yes, it may make sense to make some changes to the law to allow the FBI access to the information that it needs to prevent terrorism. But we do not need to change the values that constitute who we are as a Nation in order to protect ourselves from terrorism. We can protect both our Nation and our privacy and civil liberties.

An increasing number of Americans are beginning to understand that the PATRIOT Act went too far. Four States and over 350 cities and counties across the country have now passed resolutions expressing opposition to the PATRIOT Act. And it's not just the Berkeleys and Madisons of this Nation, but other States and communities with strong conservative and libertarian values, such as Alaska and cities in Montana, that have passed such resolutions.

I have many concerns with the PATRIOT Act. I am not seeking to repeal it, in whole or in part. In this bill, my colleagues and I are only seeking to modify two provisions that pose serious potential for abuse.

The privacy of law-abiding Americans is at stake, along with their confidence in their government. Congress should act to protect our privacy and reassure our citizens. The Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act bill is a reasonable approach to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Computer Trespass Clarification Act of 2005, which would amend and clarify section 217 of the USA-PATRIOT Act. This bill is virtually identical to a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 2783.

Section 217 of the PATRIOT Act addresses the interception of computer trespass communications. This bill would modify existing law to more accurately reflect the intent of the provision, and also protect against invasions of privacy.

Section 217 was designed to permit law enforcement to assist computer owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes of hacking. The original Department of Justice draft of the bill that later became the PATRIOT Act included this provision. A section by section analysis provided by the Department on September 19, 2001, stated the following: ``Current law may not allow victims of computer trespassing to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring unauthorized attacks as they occur. Because service providers often lack the expertise, equipment, or financial resources required to monitor attacks themselves as permitted under current law, they often have no way to exercise their rights to protect themselves from unauthorized attackers. Moreover, such attackers can target critical infrastructures and engage in cyberterrorism. To correct this problem, and help to protect national security, the proposed amendments to the wiretap statute would allow victims of computer attacks to authorize persons `acting under color of law' to monitor trespassers on their computer systems in a narrow class of cases.''

I strongly supported the goal of giving computer system owners the ability to call in law enforcement to help defend themselves against hacking. Including such a provision in the PATRIOT Act made a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the drafters of the provision made it much broader than necessary, and refused to amend it at the time we debated the bill in 2001. As a result, the law now gives the government the authority to intercept communications by people using computers owned by others as long as they have engaged in some unauthorized activity on the computer, and the owner gives permission for the computer to be monitored--all without judicial approval.

Only people who have a ``contractual relationship'' with the owner allowing the use of a computer are exempt from the definition of a computer trespasser under section 217 of the PATRIOT Act. Many people-- for example, college students, patrons of libraries, Internet cafes or airport business lounges, and guests at hotels--use computers owned by others with permission, but without a contractual relationship. They could end up being the subject of government snooping if the owner of the computer gives permission to law enforcement.

My bill would clarify that a computer trespasser is not someone who has permission to use a computer by the owner or operator of that computer. It would bring the existing computer trespass provision in line with the purpose of section 217 as expressed in the Department of Justice's initial explanation of the provision. Section 217 was intended to target only a narrow class of people: Unauthorized

cyberhackers. It was not intended to give the government the opportunity to engage in widespread surveillance of computer users without a warrant.

I should note that there is no specific evidence that the provision is being abused. But, of course, unless criminal charges are brought against someone as a result of such surveillance, there would never be any notice at all that the surveillance has taken place. The computer owner authorizes the surveillance, and the FBI carries it out. There is no warrant, no court proceeding, no opportunity even for the subject of the surveillance to challenge the assertion of the owner that some unauthorized use of the computer has occurred.

My bill would modify the computer trespass provision in the following ways to protect against abuse, while still maintaining its usefulness in cases of denial of service attacks and other forms of hacking.

First, it would require that the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizing the interception has been subject to ``an ongoing pattern of communications activity that threatens the integrity or operation of such computer.'' In other words, the owner has to be the target of some kind of hacking.

Second, the bill limits the length of warrantless surveillance to 96 hours. This is twice as long as is allowed for an emergency wiretap. With four days of surveillance, it should not be difficult for the government to gather sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to obtain a warrant if continued surveillance is necessary.

Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to annually report on the use of Section 217 to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. Section 217 is one of the provisions that is subject to the sunset provision in the PATRIOT Act and will expire at the end of 2005. We in the Congress need to do more oversight of the use of this and other provisions of PATRIOT Act in order to evaluate their effectiveness.

The computer trespass provision now in the law as a result of section 217 of the PATRIOT Act leaves open the possibility for significant and unnecessary invasions of privacy. The reasonable and modest changes to the provision contained in this bill preserve the usefulness of the provision for investigations of cyberhacking, but reduce the possibility of government abuse. We must continually seek to balance the need for effective tools to fight crime and terrorism against the civil liberties of our citizens. The Computer Trespass Clarification Act strikes the right balance, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I listened with some interest to my colleague and his description of the bankruptcy bill. I have felt for some long while, and have voted that way in the Senate, that the pendulum swung a bit too far in bankruptcy and needed to be adjusted some. I believe the last time we voted in the Senate was 5 years ago.

But I am concerned there is an effort on the floor of the Senate to turn back every single amendment that is being offered, believing that the only body of thought that has any merit at all is that which came out of the committee; that all of the proposals that are offered on the floor of the Senate somehow are without merit; that the adjustments or the approaches that might be helpful to some people who are more vulnerable are provisions without merit.

They may find, it seems to me, if they turn back all of these amendments, that there might not be so much support for the bankruptcy bill as there has been in the past.

Let me talk for a moment about this issue of credit cards. My colleague just spoke about the credit card companies. First of all, let me admit, I think there have been abusive bankruptcies. There is no question about that. It is one of the reasons I believe the pendulum was swung a bit too far and probably should be brought back a bit. But there are two sides to all of this as well.

We have credit card companies these days that blizzard this country with credit cards, wall to wall. Go to a college campus and take a look at every mailbox. Credit card companies want to offer credit cards to people who have no income and no jobs. They say: Take our credit card. Take a second credit card. Take a third and a fourth.

My son was age 10 when he got a preapproved credit card, a submission from Diners Club. He was 10 years old. So I called Diners Club. I said: It's a good thing I got ahold of it before my son did. He would have probably been in France.

I guess a 10-year-old couldn't travel. But the fact is, he probably would have been interested in doing something with that credit card.

They said: Well, it was a mistake.

It was not a mistake. And it is not just Diners Club. Go through the whole list of credit cards. It is not a mistake that they are sending credit cards to people who have no income, people who have no jobs, people who do not have a prospect of income. Do you know why it is not a mistake? Because they take these giant mailing lists and they ship these preapproved credit cards to everybody, understanding that some people are going to get them who should not get them, and they won't pay, and so they will just figure out how to deal with all that with higher charges to everybody else, and at some point they will get relief from Congress, even, on bankruptcy issues.

It is not just credit cards. Go down the street someday and see the picture window that beckons you, in big red color type, that says: Hey, come over here. Buy our product. We'll give you a zero-percent interest rate until next August. Before you get home, we will send you a rebate check. Come on, buy it. It doesn't matter whether you can afford it or not, buy our product.

Turn on the television set in the morning and hear the advertisement from the company that says: Bad credit? Come and see us. You have not been paying your bills? You have a problem on your credit report? Come and see us. We have credit available for you.

So there are two sides to all of this as well. Those who are blizzarding and papering this country with credit cards and debt, those who know better, even as they do it, ought not come to this Congress and say: Well, now we have some problems. Now we have some defaults. We want you to tighten the bankruptcy laws.

I think if the majority decides that in every circumstance every amendment that is going to be offered in the Senate on these issues is going to be turned away, perhaps they will not have the robust vote on bankruptcy reform they expect.

Social Security

Mr. President, I think this issue of bankruptcy in some ways ties to another very significant issue that we are debating in the Congress and will be debating across the country for months; this issue of Social Security. There are so many millions of Americans--tens of millions of Americans--often women, often in their seventies, eighties, and nineties, often living alone, whose only source of income is a Social Security payment each and every month. It is the difference between their ability to live, to eat food, to buy prescription drugs, to pay rent, and their not having the ability to do those things.

You go back to 1935, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security bill. Fifty percent of America's senior citizens who reached retirement age were living in poverty. In this great country of ours, one-half of our elderly were living in poverty.

What a wonderful country this is in which to live. There is no question about that. We share this globe with 6 billion people--6 billion of them. It is only us who have the opportunity to live in this country. Six billion people are our neighbors. One-half of them have never made a telephone call. One-half of them live on less than $2 a day. A billion and a half people do not have access to clean, potable water every day. We are lucky enough to live here.

But just think, 70 years ago, in this great country, as we were building and creating and expanding our country, one-half of the people who reached retirement age were living in poverty. They helped build this country. They worked hard. They went to work every day. They did not complain. They did the best they could and reached that period of their lives where they had a declining income situation because they were not working anymore. They were retired and living in poverty.

Well, this country did something about that, and it ought to be proud of it. Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed a bill called Social Security. Yes, the same people who are now skeptical about Social Security back then attacked him unmercifully. Social Security was decried as creeping socialism. It was decried as Government interference. The fact is, the Social Security Program created an insurance program that all workers paid into for the purpose of providing a stable insurance policy upon retirement that would always be there, a guaranteed benefit upon retirement that you could count on. And like that, the poverty rate among America's senior citizens went from 50 percent to now slightly less than 10 percent.

This program has lifted tens of millions of Americans out of poverty. It has worked, and worked well. And as this Congress now talks about bankruptcy legislation, let us talk about the issue of that which has prevented so many people from having to file bankruptcy, and that is the Social Security Program that has provided stable, predictable, consistent, and dependable revenue from an insurance program when people retired from their jobs. It has worked, and worked well for over 70 years.

There were some who did not like it in the 1930s and 1940s. They were aggressively opposed to Social Security. Their ideas live on even today. They would like to take the Social Security system apart because they believe it is, in the words of one of the far right conservatives, the ``soft underbelly of the liberal welfare state.'' Those are his direct words.

In 1978, President George W. Bush ran for Congress in Texas, and he said: Social Security will be broke in 10 years. So in 1978, President Bush said Social Security would be flat busted in 10 years, by 1988. Of course, he was not accurate. But he said back then we should go to private accounts in Social Security.

Now, all that says to me is that this is not about economics for this President. It is about philosophy. I am not critical of him for that. He has every right to believe the Social Security system is somehow unworthy, ought to be taken apart, that it ought to be changed to a system of private accounts. The President has the right to believe that. He believed it back in 1978, and he manifested that belief even now as President.

But let's understand, then, that this is not about economics, it is about philosophy. In fact, there is a memorandum dated January 3, which comes from the chief strategist in the White House about Social Security, and let me quote from it. This is from Peter Wehner, who is the chief strategist in the White House on Social Security planning:

I don't need to tell you that this will be one of the most

important conservative undertakings of modern times.

Interesting, isn't it? The first paragraph describes what is happening in the President's proposal, about Social Security as ``one of the most important conservative undertakings of modern times.'' And if accomplished, it will be ``one of the most significant conservative governing achievements ever.'' Again, describing this issue as a ``conservative undertaking.'' Its success is a ``conservative governing achievement.'' And then he connects it to the commitment to the ownership society, control for individuals over their own lives, and so on.

He says:

If we borrow $1-2 trillion to cover transition costs--

That is the first place this shows up, which is an acknowledgment that everybody understands, that the President never talks about, that in order to go to transitions to private accounts, you have to borrow money--$1 to $2 trillion. That would be borrowing money on top of the largest debt this country has ever experienced. We have the largest fiscal policy deficit in history. We have the largest trade deficit in the history of this country right now. On top of that, the President would propose a $1 to $3 trillion--this says $2 trillion--but $1 to $3 trillion borrowing in order to set up private accounts. It is: Borrow money, put it in the stock market, cut benefits in the underlying Social Security Program--I will get to that in a moment in this memorandum--and hope that somehow it will all come out all right.

Let me read what is the most telling piece in the White House memorandum about the Social Security plan:

For the first time in six decades, the Social Security

battle is one we can win. . . .

It is clear what he is saying. The White House memorandum of the strategy, No. 1, in the front end calls it a conservative undertaking, not just some policy debate about something that will strengthen the country, a conservative undertaking. Then he said:

For the first time in six decades, the Social Security

battle is one we can win. . . .

What is that battle? Go back to Alf Landon in the 1930s, who decried Social Security, and bring it back every decade since; the fact is that there are those who have never wanted Social Security, never liked Social Security, believe it is some sort of Government intrusion in people's lives and they have always wanted to basically get rid of it. That is the battle.

The White House says:

For the first time in six decades, the Social Security

battle is one we can win. . . .

Well, who wins when we decide to begin taking apart one of the most successful things that we have ever done in our history to lift people out of poverty? When you work you pay an insurance premium in your paycheck. It is called FICA and the ``I'' is for insurance. That is what it stands for. You put it in this fund, and when you retire, Social Security payments will be there for you. They don't belong to someone else, they belong to you. They are yours. And it is not just the old age benefit or the retirement benefit. If along the way you are disabled, there are disability benefits. If along the way the principal wage earner dies and you have children under the age of 18, there are survivor benefits. All of that is available to those workers who are paying these premiums month after month.

It is really interesting and--for me at least--a bit disturbing that we have turned in this country to a debate about me, me, me, and me: When is it my turn? How about me? Forget about the other guy, how about me?

I think both political parties contribute to this country. The notion of self-reliance, coming from the pioneers on the homestead, breaking sod, building log cabins, rolling up their sleeves, doing for themselves, herding cattle on the open range, hard work every day, self-reliance, I understand all that. It is a wonderful ethic that helped build this country. But there is more than that, much more than that because those pioneers on the prairie, the pioneers who homesteaded the prairies where I come from in southwestern North Dakota knew there was more than self-reliance and rolling up your sleeves and handling it yourself. It was also about building a community, building your churches and roads and schools and building the rural electric co- ops to move electricity to the farms. It was about fighting things that were more than just yourself, being a part of something bigger than yourself, fighting for women's rights, worker rights, for equal rights, for minority rights. All of that is also a part of the legacy that has improved this country and lifted it.

Now we come back to this mantra almost every day--centered now around Social Security--what about me, what about mine. I want mine right now.

The Social Security system in many ways is a compact between the generations. It is a compact from my kids to me to my parents and has been for over 70 years. Some people say: Compacts don't matter. Promises don't matter. None of this matters. What matters is what is me, mine, right now, ownership.

I don't know. I wonder sometimes if this country would be the kind of country it is if that attitude prevailed in every circumstance. There are things that we do alone that represent initiative and self-reliance that are very important, that represent the incentive to build and to do better, the incentive for success. But there are other things equally important that represent the things we do together that have helped build a great society, helped build great communities of interest and helped pull each other up as a society. To sacrifice one for the other injures opportunities in this country's future.

I have never quite understood if there is someone in this Chamber who believes there is something more important than their kids. I guess not. Most of us would aspire to do anything for our children. We love our children. We want life to be better for our children.

But following that, we also believe that when our parents reach that period in their life where we call them elderly and they have less income than they used to have and less ability to meet their daily needs and to pay for the high cost of prescription drugs and pay the rent and buy the groceries, all the things they are required to do, that we want to reach out and help them. We believe helping our parents and our grandparents is something that is important as a part of this country's responsibilities. That is what the Social Security system has been about.

We are going to have a lot of discussion about Social Security, and it is going to go from coast to coast. The President has a big old airplane, a 747, a big fat one with a hump on the nose. He has unlimited fuel, and good for him. I respect him. He is our President. He has a right to believe as he does on these issues. He is going to sell this all across the country. But we, too, have an opportunity and a responsibility. I believe strongly that what we have done to build opportunity has included the creation of a Social Security system that I know works.

Our late colleague, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Moynihan used to say that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. My hope is as the President travels around the country, and as we debate here in the Congress, my hope is that we can agree on the basic set of facts.

The facts are contrary to the President's assertion in the State of the

Union Address. In the year 2018, the Social Security system will not be taking in less money than it spends. That was the allegation the President made. Not true, just flat not true. According to Social Security actuaries, if we have a very low rate of economic growth, much below that which we experienced in the previous 75 years, if we have that low rate of economic growth, by the year 2042, we will have less revenue coming in to the Social Security system from both payroll taxes and accrued interest on the assets than we will need to be paying out. The Congressional Budget Office says that year is 2052. That is almost a half century from now.

Pick the one you like. In any event, we do not have a crisis in Social Security. It is not going to take major surgery or a major adjustment to make Social Security whole for the long term. Our job ought to be to work together to find a way to strengthen and preserve Social Security for the long term and then strengthen and improve on the other two elements of retirement security. One is pensions, and that is to encourage more employers to offer pensions because only half of American workers are now covered. The second is private investment accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s outside of Social Security and pensions.

We can, should, and--I hope--will do much more in incentivizing those kinds of investments. But job No. 1 for us ought to be to preserve the basic Social Security system. We can do that. We surely will do that. But first we have to turn back the philosophy of those who write memorandums from the White House and who are the chief strategists, who create the White House plan on Social Security, who say:

For the first time in six decades, the Social Security

battle is one we can win. . . .

Meaning they have never liked it. They didn't support it in the first place, and they would love to begin taking it apart first by creating private accounts; second by, in this memorandum, describing the change in indexing which will cut everyone's benefit in the Social Security Program.

I wanted to make one additional comment. I understand some colleagues are waiting. I intend to offer an amendment on the bankruptcy bill-- hopefully tomorrow morning--that deals with something extraneous to bankruptcy but an issue that is important and timely.

At a hearing this morning, the Defense Department told me we are spending $4.9 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration has included zero in its next year's budget for that purpose. But they are asking for an emergency supplemental to fund it.

I have held hearings--my colleague from Illinois has attended those, and I believe my colleague from Florida has as well--on the subject of contracting in Iraq. There is massive waste, fraud, and abuse going on. I will describe a couple of things that have been testified to. Somebody orders 50,000 pounds of nails to be sent to Iraq for construction contracts. It turns out they are the wrong size. You know what happens? They are dumped on the ground--50,000 pounds of nails on the ground in Iraq that are the wrong size. People driving $85,000 brand new trucks. If they run out of gas or something happens to them, they leave the truck and let somebody torch it. Halliburton is alleged to be billing us for serving 42,000 meals a day to our soldiers when, in fact, they are only serving 14,000 meals. They are overbilling us by 28,000 meals a day. It is unbelievable, the massive waste, fraud, and abuse going on.

At a hearing a couple of weeks ago, we had people with pictures that showed they have massive cash in vaults and they say if you are going to pay contractors, tell them to bring a bag and we will fill it with cash. We are talking about the massive wasting of taxpayers' money going to these sole-source contracts for billions of dollars and nobody cares.

My colleague from Illinois introduced a piece of legislation last year on this subject. I talked to him yesterday about an amendment I wanted to introduce on this bill and am going to introduce in the morning, and he will join me. This is a very important issue.

I am happy to yield to the Senator for a question.

My understanding is, I believe there was only one in the House, and the bulk of that was to defend the company called Halliburton--and there were no such hearings by the standing committees in the Senate. Essentially, there has been no interest in looking at this kind of abuse. The Senator from Illinois was at a DPC hearing we held. We had a guy there who used to purchase towels. He purchased hand towels for soldiers. He held up the towels. He showed us that they are nearly three times the price of the towels they purchased for U.S. soldiers. Why? Because the company wanted its logo on the towel. So they buy a towel with a company logo on it for the soldiers and nearly double-bill the American taxpayer. This is a small issue in itself, but it is an example of what is going on, pervasively.

The Senator from Illinois is correct. President Truman got in his car, as a matter of fact, and began driving around the country to military installations to see what was going on. He came back and said there is something rotten here; a massive amount of waste is going on. He convinced Congress to create the Truman Commission, which was an investigative committee. And he was a Democrat, and there was a Democrat in the White House, but that didn't stop him from investigating.

In this circumstance today, we have a Republican in the White House, Republicans controlling the House and Senate, and they have no interest in doing any oversight hearings. Our colleagues asked the committee: Will you do an oversight hearing on the issues? The answer is no. I have additional examples. How about $7,500 a month rent for an SUV in Iraq? How about Halliburton charging a dollar more for every gallon of gas, compared to what the Department of Defense could have obtained from its own supply office? How about two guys who show up in Iraq having no money and very little experience and decide they are going to be contractors? They decide to bid on contracts, and they win one. Somebody delivers a suitcase full of $2 million in cash and they are off and running. They soon got over $100 million in contracts. Some of their employees became whistleblowers because they said what was going on was crooked. These people were taking forklift trucks off an airport they were supposed to secure, taking them to a warehouse and repainting them and selling them back. They sold them to the Coalition Provisional Authority. Who is that? The American taxpayer. The Justice Department says it won't join in a false claims action because defrauding the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq is not the same as defrauding the American taxpayers. It is unbelievable, the lengths to which some of these people will go to avoid looking truth in the eye.

There is massive waste, fraud, and abuse. Billions of dollars is being abused and wasted and nobody seems to give a whit about it. Senator Durbin

from Illinois introduced legislation, which I was happy to support, in the last Congress on this subject. I don't believe that got a hearing and certainly didn't get to the President's desk. My sense is that in any way we can, in every way we can, on behalf of the American taxpayer, we need to do this. It undermines our support for American soldiers if we don't have oversight. Do you think American soldiers want to be stuck in Iraq doing what their country asked them to do only to find out that those serving them meals are overbilling by 28,000 meals a day, or are double-charging for hauling gasoline in? This makes no sense. The minute you raise any of these things with the one party in this town, they say you are being totally partisan. Well, no, I think we are being a little bit like Harry Truman here. He had the guts to look truth in the eye and say when something going on is rotten, when the American taxpayers are being bilked, tax money is being pilfered, somebody ought to stand up and stop it.

I intend to offer this amendment in the morning. I am proud of the work my colleague has done as well. I have spoken longer than I intended. The Senator from Florida wishes to speak. Let me say that I will be back in the morning to offer this amendment.

I yield the floor.