Floor Statements

Mr. President, I was deeply saddened at the passing of Ruth Chickering Clusen, a true champion for the environment and women's causes, and a dear friend whose memory I will always cherish.

Ruth's deep dedication to women's rights led to her outstanding leadership as president of both the Wisconsin and National League of Women Voters. As president, Ruth was at the forefront of the League's historic effort to pass an Equal Rights Amendment. Her national leadership put her at the center of the 1976 Presidential campaign when she hosted a debate between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

Ruth's commitment to women's rights was mirrored in her advocacy for the environment. Her tireless activism eventually led to her work as an Assistant Secretary on the environment in President Carter's Department of Energy, and to make a run for Congress in Wisconsin in 1982.

Whether she was teaching English to students or moderating Presidential candidates, Ruth was a true inspiration to those around her, and I am grateful to have been able to call her a friend.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Cantwell amendment to strike the reconciliation instruction to the Energy Committee that allows for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I first thank Senator Cantwell for her tremendous leadership on environmental issues in general and especially her strong leadership on this very important environmental issue.

The other side can say what they want as many times as they want. The fact is, this provision is an abuse of the reconciliation process. Yes, it is. The Senator from New Hampshire may be right that it is technically not a violation of the rules of the Senate, but it is an abuse of the process. It is what you do when you get frustrated. You can't win under the normal rules, 60 votes, the way we have debated this issue year after year. You get frustrated and you say: Here is what we will do. We will use a revenue assumption in the budget so we only have to have 51 votes.

We should be debating this issue when we take up the Energy bill rather

than engaging in a backdoor maneuver on the budget resolution. I feel strongly, as a Senator who has always worked on a bipartisan basis year after year on the budget and the budget rules, that this one is over the line.

This fact is clearly evidenced by the speculative nature of the revenue assumptions from drilling in the Wildlife Refuge. A February 21, 2005 New York Times article about the refuge quotes a Bush adviser as saying that ``even if you gave the oil companies the refuge for free, they wouldn't want to drill there.'' He continued: ``No oil company really cares about [the Arctic refuge.]''

British Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, and ChevronTexaco have all pulled out of the pro-drilling Arctic Power lobbying group. BP abandoned a test well right next to the Arctic Refuge because of a lack of production. ChevronTexaco has moved its executives from Alaska to Houston. A Halliburton official said that ``enthusiasm of government officials about ANWR exceeds that of the industry'' and that ``evidence about ANWR is not promising.''

CBO concedes it did not address the oil industry's lack of interest in drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in its projections. So these projections don't add up. Authorizing drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge through the budget process is simply the latest in a series of abuses of Senate procedures, and I believe the American people know it.

This is a backdoor scheme for drilling because the drilling proponents don't have enough votes to deal with this issue in the Energy bill. The public doesn't want it; major oil companies don't appear to want it; and it does not belong in the budget resolution.

The proposed transfer of revenues from drilling in the Arctic Refuge to fund popular conservation programs is, on its face, also an accounting gimmick. The President's budget zeroed out the State recreation grant program of the land and water conservation fund and reduced Federal lands acquisition dollars to its lowest funding level in 10 years. To further erode our environmental protections by drilling in this pristine wildlife refuge to generate public revenues for these important conservation programs underscores the administration's insincerity in claiming to support conservation.

Even if you think we should drill in the Arctic Refuge, this is not the time or place for this debate. If we can contort the budget process to authorize drilling in a wildlife refuge, why couldn't we use the budget process to allow drilling off the coasts of Florida or California or the Carolinas or the Great Lakes? When you abuse the budget process in this way, it invites even greater mischief down the line and undermines the very purpose for which these procedures were established.

We should not abuse the budget and the budget reconciliation process, as one of our colleagues put it years ago, ``in order to be immune from unlimited debate.''

Allowing oil drilling in the Wildlife Refuge which many of us believe should be protected as pristine wilderness is too important an issue to be handled in this way. We should have this debate in the open during an energy debate, not a debate on the budget resolution.

Therefore, I will vote for the Cantwell amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment with the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, and a bipartisan group of other Senators. Our amendment is the same amendment we offered last year and that this body passed with bipartisan support. It would simply reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule that had been such an effective restraint on the fiscal appetites of both Congress and the White House.

Over the past 4 years, we have seen a dramatic deterioration in the Government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs, and that is balancing the Nation's fiscal books.

We are all familiar with the history. In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that in the 10 years thereafter, the Government would run a unified budget surplus of more than $5 trillion. Little more than 4 years later, we are now staring at almost a mirror image of that very positive 10-year projection, except that instead of healthy surpluses under any reasonable set of assumptions, we are now facing immense deficits and a backbreaking debt.

This has to stop. We have to stop running deficits because they cause the Government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other Government purposes rather than to pay down the debt and help our Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation. We have to stop running deficits because every dollar we add to the Federal debt is another dollar we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer Government benefits.

When the Government and this generation choose to spend on current consumption and then to accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay, it does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle our children and our grandchildren with the debts that they have to pay from tax dollars, their tax dollars, and their hard work.

We all know that is not right. That is why I am offering this bipartisan amendment to fully reinstate the pay-go rule. We need a strong budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline.

Mr. President, you remember when the pay-go rule was in effect, tough fiscal discipline governed the budget process. Under the current approach, it is pretty much the opposite, it is the other way around. What happens now is the annual budget resolution determines how much fiscal discipline we are willing to impose on ourselves. This just hasn't worked. When Congress decides it would be nice to create a new entitlement or enact new tax cuts and then adjust its budget rules to permit those policies, we are really inviting a disastrous result, and that is just what we have seen happen.

As an example, if somebody wants to lose weight, you set the total number of calories you are allowed to consume first, and then you try to make the meals fit under that cap--not the other way around. Imagine if you tried to lose weight by deciding what you want to eat first and then setting a calorie limit to accommodate your various cravings. If you want to eat cake, fine, you just dial up that calorie intake limit and you are all set. If you want a couple of extra beers, that is fine, too, under this kind of system; you just raise the calorie limit accordingly.

It may taste pretty good at the time, but you will probably end up gaining weight, just like this Nation is racking up debt because this ill-advised diet is exactly how the current mutated version of pay-go works, and we have seen the results--the debt we are leaving our children and our grandchildren has been putting on massive amounts of weight. This amendment would simply return us to the rule by which Congress played for the decade of the 1990s, and that was instrumental in balancing the Federal budget.

Let's remember, that was not an era where one side had control of all the Government or the other side did. For most of the nineties, most of this time, we had a Democrat President and Republican control of both Houses, and we all agreed and we all worked together on the principle that the pay-go rules were helping us move toward the goal--in fact, the achievement--of having a balanced budget by the year 2000, by the time President Bush took office.

Many of us here lived under that rule, and we know just how effective it was. If this budget does nothing else, it should reinstate the classic, the old pay-go rule. If we do that, maybe we can begin to turn these annual budgets around and stop racking up these deficits and adding to the already enormous Federal debt.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, time-tested fiscal discipline.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Colorado who cosponsored this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado who made an important connection between the last vote on the Alaska refuge and this amendment.

On the Alaska amendment, one side became frustrated, so they decided to change the rules. We are going to decide that instead of having 60 votes for a normal procedure on an energy bill, we will go with 51 votes using the budget process, which I think is inappropriate. They won. Now we see a different attempt to deal with the rules.

We had rules on paying in the 1990s that worked, and worked very well. Both parties came together. We balanced the budget.

When the rules get in the way, apparently, they do not want to have any rules, any procedure, any discipline when it comes to either mandatory spending or tax cuts. They want to make sure they achieve their objective, regardless of rules.

That is a serious problem. It is a serious problem for this institution, it is a serious problem for this country, and as the Senator from Colorado said so eloquently, it is going to be a serious problem for our kids and grandchildren who will be bound by the kind of decision we make about the Arctic Refuge and having to acquire this huge debt which this Congress is refusing to address.

This Congress is, frankly, becoming openly hostile to the principle of fiscal discipline--openly hostile.

I thank the Senator from Colorado very much for his remarks.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota and thank him for his great leadership on these issues.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues engaging in a debate on this amendment. But I have to say, how did something that both of these Senators, the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Iowa, supported vigorously in the 1990s suddenly become a Feingold regime? These are the pay-go rules of the 1990s. This is not some new scheme or new approach. These are exactly the rules we had before that both parties worked together on and used to balance the budget.

Both Senators suggest that this is going to prevent tax cuts. I ask them: How in the world, then, did we have the 1997 tax cut bill? If this regime, as they call it, prevents tax cuts, how did that happen? These rules were in place at that time.

These rules don't prevent tax cuts. These rules just say, either you pay for them or you get 60 votes. Last year there were a number of middle class tax cuts I supported. They received something like over 90 votes. We didn't prevent those tax cuts. They simply met a standard that was easily met of 60 votes.

The Senator from Iowa has mischaracterized this amendment grossly when he says it doesn't affect spending. It is my amendment that puts some rules back on mandatory spending. It is my amendment that covers mandatory spending. The reason why we had a $400-billion unfunded Medicare bill last year is because the current rules were in place rather than the amendment I have offered. This relates to spending as well as taxes.

The entire argument that somehow this isn't evenhanded, that it only applies to taxes and not to spending is absolutely false. That might be why we have four or five Republican cosponsors because they would never support something that favors spending over tax cuts.

It is very troubling when we have a debate and the debate is not about what is actually before us. What is before us is rules that have worked before, rules that relate to spending and taxes and merely require us to be responsible.

I now very happily yield 15 minutes to my cosponsor, Senator Voinovich.

Mr. President, I am going to yield to a couple of colleagues, but first I will say that the Senator from Mississippi indicates we need to sober up on the issue. I suggest that anybody who believes this is a responsible budget needs to sober up. In the 12 years I have been here, this is the most obviously outrageous and irresponsible budget I have ever seen. The notion that this is a tough budget that seriously addresses our deficit in the coming years is, frankly, absurd. The Senator from North Dakota has done a wonderful job of making that point.

I will turn to my Republican colleagues who support this amendment and think it makes sense. I yield first 2 minutes to the Senator from Ohio and then 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, who has been one of the true stalwarts on this issue and, frankly, the lead author, and has been with us all the way on the issue of pay-go.

I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.

First, let me ask Senator Carper of Delaware be added as the 13th sponsor of this amendment.

Mr. President, it is false as speaker after speaker claims this pay-as-you-go rule prevents tax cuts. It is an absolute red herring. That is not what it does.

It says, if we are going to do additional tax cuts, either pay for it--and you do not have to pay for it through tax increases, you can pay for it with tax increases or spending cuts--or get 60 votes to allow it.

How can speaker after speaker come out and say this requirement of 60 votes to go beyond the budget is preventing a tax cut? That is not the fact of what has happened.

In 1997, under these very rules, significant tax cuts were enacted.

I correct the Senator from Arizona regarding his statement that the rule was different then. That is untrue. He was talking about the statute. This is the rule. It does not have sequestering. That is simply inaccurate.

Last year, when the question was, Do we continue the middle-class tax cuts, we voted on it, and I think it got 90 votes for the middle-class tax cuts, well over 30 votes over the 60-vote requirement. How can someone say a rule of 60 votes for tax cuts somehow prevents tax cuts.

The Senator from Mississippi talks about the need to deal with the alternative minimum tax. He is absolutely right. The Senator from North Dakota has pointed out that is critical for middle-income families. How many votes do you think that would get? Do you think it would be close? Do you think you would get 50 or 55 votes? That would get 90 or 100 votes.

There is no barrier whatever in this pay-go rule to tax cuts as long as you get enough votes or, better yet, if you pay for it.

What has happened in the leadership on the other side is they have become openly hostile to fiscal discipline; openly hostile to balancing the budget; openly hostile to anything that gets in the way of tax cuts regardless of what the consequences are for our budget and our economy. That is a sad moment. To paraphrase an old song, ``where have all the deficit hawks gone.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, today to introduce legislation that will help improve and streamline Federal support for community-based emergency medical services. Our proposal will also provide an avenue for local officials and EMS providers to help Federal agencies improve existing programs and future initiatives.

When someone has been seriously hurt or has an emergency medical problem in this country, the first thing they do is call for an ambulance. And the EMS providers of this country do a great job in responding to these emergencies. All of us have a friend or loved one who has relied on these first responders. These folks rush to assist people in trouble no matter the cause. Their only interest is making sure the patient is medically stable and being taken care of.

Congress has long recognized the important role played by EMS providers. However, Federal support for EMS has been unfocused and uncoordinated, with responsibility scattered among a number of different agencies. In 2001, the General Accounting Office cited the need to increase coordination between the Federal agencies involved with EMS issues but not much progress has been made since that report was issued. The Federal Government doesn't even have a good handle on how much it is spending on EMS or what the needs are for EMS.

A report to be released today by the New York University Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response highlights some of the deficiencies in our support for EMS. According to that report, less than 4 percent of the Office of Domestic Preparedness first responder grant funding and 5 percent of

HHS bioterrorism grant funding goes to EMS. More than half of ambulance providers received no direct Federal funding for homeland security preparedness. EMS providers receive very little homeland security preparedness education, training, and equipment and tend not to be well integrated into overall response planning.

The bill we introduce today is a good first step towards addressing many of the deficiencies in our current EMS policies and takes many of the steps recommended by the NYU report. It would establishes a Federal interagency committee whose purpose will be to coordinate Federal EMS activities, identify EMS needs, assure proper integration of EMS in homeland security planning, and make recommendations on improving and streamlining EMS support. A1though Federal law, P.L. 107-188, called for the establishment of a working group on EMS, this legislation goes further in detailing the role and function of the interagency committee. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will certainly iron out any overlap that may exist.

This legislation also establishes an advisory council for the interagency committee that includes representatives from throughout the EMS community. The advisory committee, made up of non-Federal representatives from all EMS sectors and from both urban and rural areas, will provide guidance and input to the interagency committee on a variety of issues including the development of standards and national plans, expanding or creating grant programs, and improving and streamlining Federal EMS efforts. The advisory council is a critical component of this legislation because it is the channel through which local EMS practitioners can directly impact and help reform national EMS policy.

I want to thank the long list of supporting organizations, including Advocates for EMS, the American Ambulance Association, the American College of Surgeons, the American Medical Association, the American Heart Association, Association of Air Medical Services, ComCARE, the Emergency Nurses Association, Gold Cross/Mayo Medical Transport, the National Association of EMS Educators, the National Association of EMS Technicians, the National Association of EMS Physicians, the National EMS Pilot Association, the National Association of State EMS Directors, and the National Registry of EMTs. I also want to thank all of those Wisconsinites who provided so much helpful input in coming up with this legislation. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Marvin Birnbaum of the University of Wisconsin, Fire Chief Dave Bloom of the Town of Madison, and Dan Williams, chair of Wisconsin's EMS advisory board, for their advice and guidance.

EMS providers are a critical component of our Nation's first responder network. We must act now to streamline and coordinate Federal EMS support and work to better understand the needs of the EMS community. I therefore ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, today to introduce legislation that will help improve and streamline Federal support for community-based emergency medical services. Our proposal will also provide an avenue for local officials and EMS providers to help Federal agencies improve existing programs and future initiatives.

When someone has been seriously hurt or has an emergency medical problem in this country, the first thing they do is call for an ambulance. And the EMS providers of this country do a great job in responding to these emergencies. All of us have a friend or loved one who has relied on these first responders. These folks rush to assist people in trouble no matter the cause. Their only interest is making sure the patient is medically stable and being taken care of.

Congress has long recognized the important role played by EMS providers. However, Federal support for EMS has been unfocused and uncoordinated, with responsibility scattered among a number of different agencies. In 2001, the General Accounting Office cited the need to increase coordination between the Federal agencies involved with EMS issues but not much progress has been made since that report was issued. The Federal Government doesn't even have a good handle on how much it is spending on EMS or what the needs are for EMS.

A report to be released today by the New York University Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response highlights some of the deficiencies in our support for EMS. According to that report, less than 4 percent of the Office of Domestic Preparedness first responder grant funding and 5 percent of

HHS bioterrorism grant funding goes to EMS. More than half of ambulance providers received no direct Federal funding for homeland security preparedness. EMS providers receive very little homeland security preparedness education, training, and equipment and tend not to be well integrated into overall response planning.

The bill we introduce today is a good first step towards addressing many of the deficiencies in our current EMS policies and takes many of the steps recommended by the NYU report. It would establishes a Federal interagency committee whose purpose will be to coordinate Federal EMS activities, identify EMS needs, assure proper integration of EMS in homeland security planning, and make recommendations on improving and streamlining EMS support. A1though Federal law, P.L. 107-188, called for the establishment of a working group on EMS, this legislation goes further in detailing the role and function of the interagency committee. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will certainly iron out any overlap that may exist.

This legislation also establishes an advisory council for the interagency committee that includes representatives from throughout the EMS community. The advisory committee, made up of non-Federal representatives from all EMS sectors and from both urban and rural areas, will provide guidance and input to the interagency committee on a variety of issues including the development of standards and national plans, expanding or creating grant programs, and improving and streamlining Federal EMS efforts. The advisory council is a critical component of this legislation because it is the channel through which local EMS practitioners can directly impact and help reform national EMS policy.

I want to thank the long list of supporting organizations, including Advocates for EMS, the American Ambulance Association, the American College of Surgeons, the American Medical Association, the American Heart Association, Association of Air Medical Services, ComCARE, the Emergency Nurses Association, Gold Cross/Mayo Medical Transport, the National Association of EMS Educators, the National Association of EMS Technicians, the National Association of EMS Physicians, the National EMS Pilot Association, the National Association of State EMS Directors, and the National Registry of EMTs. I also want to thank all of those Wisconsinites who provided so much helpful input in coming up with this legislation. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Marvin Birnbaum of the University of Wisconsin, Fire Chief Dave Bloom of the Town of Madison, and Dan Williams, chair of Wisconsin's EMS advisory board, for their advice and guidance.

EMS providers are a critical component of our Nation's first responder network. We must act now to streamline and coordinate Federal EMS support and work to better understand the needs of the EMS community. I therefore ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, if we have a brief quorum call, I believe we may be able to eliminate the need for some of the votes.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that we have had some opportunity to make a few modest modifications at the end of this process. Obviously, I hoped for more, but I do thank the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, who are working on a number of changes and accepting a couple of amendments so we can move this process through. The result will be that the next five votes on my amendments will not be necessary, if this agreement is made. So I hope that causes the unanimous consent agreement to go through.

Amendments Nos. 90, 93, 95, and 96 Withdrawn

Amendment No. 92, As Modified

Amendment No. 87, As Modified

I ask unanimous consent that my amendments No. 90, No. 93, No. 95, and No. 96 be withdrawn; that my amendment No. 92, as modified and as at the desk, be adopted; and that a modification of my amendment No. 87 which was agreed to last night be accepted as well.

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

I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

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

Mr. President, I would like to have the attention of the Senate to discuss my remaining amendments to the bankruptcy bill. I think my colleagues are aware that I strongly oppose this bill and that I am

very disappointed in the process that has brought us to this point. I do not believe the sponsors of this bill and its supporters in the other body have dealt fairly with the proposed amendments.

I understand the Senator from Utah came to the floor earlier in the day and was complaining that I had a number of amendments and that I did not intend to vote for the bill.

I have been a legislator for 22 years. This is not an auction. Even if you are going to vote against a bill, if you have an amendment you believe will make it a better bill, it is still a worthy consideration. I was told in the committee, where I wanted to offer many of these amendments, that I should not offer them, that I should wait until the bill came to the floor to offer the amendments. So in most cases that is exactly what I did, being assured there would be a good faith response and consideration of the amendments. Well, of course, that is not what has happened to date. And I categorically reject the idea that simply because you do not think a bill is good, you do not have a proper role on the floor of the Senate in trying to improve it.

This has not been a legislative process worthy of the Senate. Members of the Judiciary Committee, as I just said, were implored to save their amendments for the floor. Then, when we got here, we were told no amendments could be accepted. It was a classic bait and switch. Negotiations have been minimal and pro forma. Extremely reasonable amendments were rejected supposedly because they were not drafted correctly, according to the sponsors, but there was no willingness to work on the language of the amendments so they could become acceptable.

One of the most disheartening examples of this way of dealing with good faith amendments was the treatment of the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida concerning identity theft. Senator Nelson simply wanted to give some special consideration to people who are forced into bankruptcy because other people--criminals, in fact--ran up debts in their names. It is awfully hard to argue with a straight face and pretty hard to claim that victims of identity theft should have to pay at least some of their debts if they have a higher than median income. The debts are not even theirs. Believe it or not, this bill might actually force someone to file for chapter 13 and make payments on debts for 5 years that were not even run up by the person filing for bankruptcy. I find this to be incredible. Unfortunately, the response from one of the bill's cosponsors was: ``well, you have a good point here, but your amendment is just too broad.''

In the Senate I have come to love in my 12 years here, the Senate I served in just a few years ago when we last considered the bankruptcy bill, Senators and their staffs would have sat down and they would have worked out language that was not too broad. There would have been some negotiation. In many cases an agreement would be reached. But in this debate that kind of legislating is apparently forbidden.

What is most disheartening is that so many Senators sent here to represent their constituents, to exercise their independent judgment for the good of their States and the country, have been willing to blindly follow instructions from the shadowy coalition of groups that are behind this bill--mainly the credit card industry--and vote down even the most reasonable of amendments. It is just sad when there is no debate on amendments, no discussion, no negotiation, just an edict from outside of the Senate, and the ``no'' votes follow every time.

Last night I offered a very important amendment concerning small businesses. I spoke for 10 or 15 minutes about the amendment and explained some new data on small business bankruptcies that I think shows these provisions are actually very wrongheaded. After what has gone on here, I, of course, didn't expect to win the amendment, but I did think we might have a debate of sorts. The sponsors of the bill didn't even bother to come down and debate. Not one Senator made a single response to my arguments. They sent an emissary to deliver the message right before the vote that the sponsors expected a ``no'' vote. Nonetheless, I have not given up hope that some real legislating can still take place in the waning moments of our consideration of this bill.

I have a number of amendments, 14 to be exact, pending before this body. They are entitled to receive votes before we vote on final passage. They are reasonable and modest amendments. They are not so- called message amendments. They are not intended to be poison pills or bring down the bill by causing a huge disagreement with the House. They are intended to improve the bill because this bill is now not an academic exercise, as we know. It is going to become law. It is going to be the first bankruptcy reform of any great substance since 1978. It is going to become law, probably in a matter of weeks, and it will have a real impact on real people all over this country.

Last night my staff was able to have some discussions about these amendments with staff for the sponsors. I am hopeful that some of these amendments can be accepted or negotiated. I am prepared to entertain any reasonable offer. If I feel the sponsors have made a legitimate effort to look closely at my amendments and consider them with an open mind, and if some number of those amendments are accepted, I will not seek votes on all the amendments. No one likes a vote-arama, as it has come to be known, when we vote on a bunch of amendments in a row and often people don't know what they are voting on. But we will have one if the attitude that has been on display for the last week and a half continues.

I know my bargaining position is not strong. But I hope my colleagues will look at these amendments and realize that they are modest and might actually improve the bill in a way that wouldn't offend anyone in this entire body from the point of view of their philosophy about what bankruptcy law should be. Writing laws that work is what the Senate is supposed to do. Here is an opportunity to do that.

Let me talk briefly about each of these amendments because I do not intend to call each one up individually for debate. Some of them are very simple. Let me reiterate that I am open to discussion on any of these amendments. If there is something about the drafting that could be improved, I urge the sponsors to work with me and help me perfect the amendments so they can become part of the bill in a managers' package or perhaps even by unanimous consent.

The first amendment I will discuss is amendment No. 92 which has to do with section 106 of the bill on credit counseling and education. The bill requires credit counseling and credit education for people who file for bankruptcy. Section 106 of the bill requires debtors to obtain a credit counseling briefing before filing a bankruptcy case and to take a credit education course as a condition of receiving a discharge. However, the provisions provide no recourse for debtors who have exigent circumstances that would make it actually impossible for them to take a credit education course after filing or to get credit counseling, even during the 30-day grace period the bill now allows.

Let me give a few examples. I know these cases may be rare, but they are real. There are people in this country who are homebound and do not have a telephone or Internet access. I wish there weren't, but there are. Are we going to decide in the Senate that these unfortunate citizens can never file for bankruptcy because they are in that situation? How about people who suffer from dementia caused by Alzheimer's or some other disease? They sometimes have to file for bankruptcy because of massive medical bills, and they can do so through someone who has power of attorney. Do we think anything is to be gained by requiring a debtor who is ill with a terrible, incurable disease, not even competent to sign legal papers anymore, to take a credit education course?

How about U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan or serving anywhere overseas? It is a tragedy that some of our young men and women serving their country have to file for bankruptcy, but that is actually happening right now every day. Yes, there is Internet access in Iraq, but do we want to require a soldier to sit down at a computer to take a credit counseling or credit education course while they are in Iraq in order to protect his or her family back home from financial ruin?

By the way, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act does not address this problem. Nothing in that statute would excuse members of the military, even those on active duty serving overseas, from the credit counseling and education requirements. Our fighting men and women are already having to file for bankruptcy despite the protections of that law. My amendment creates simply a safety valve to address this problem by giving courts discretion--it just gives them discretion--to waive the credit counseling and education requirements based on a sworn statement filed by the debtor with the court.

The bill also fails to address the potentially prohibitive cost of credit education to some debtors. In contrast, section 111, which addresses credit counseling services, requires credit counseling organizations to provide counseling without regard to ability to pay the fee for such a service. My amendment borrows the same language, requiring credit education to be offered for a reasonable fee and offered to all persons without regard to ability to pay the fee.

These changes are essential to ensuring that the bankruptcy system is still an option available for those who truly need it. Let's not make these counseling and education requirements, which I think have a great deal of merit, into some kind of a trap for some unusually situated but still good-faith debtors whom the bankruptcy decision is actually designed to help. I know this issue is particularly important to Senator Sessions. I hope to be able to work with him to reach agreement. He and I have worked together well on this and a number of other issues in the past with the regard to the bankruptcy bill. I hope he will follow suit on this as well.

The amendment I have just discussed deals with the impact of this bill on a very few, unusual, and very hard-luck debtors. The same is true of the next amendment I want to discuss concerning current monthly income. There are actually two amendments I have filed on this topic, amendment No. 96 and amendment No. 97. I am suggesting two alternative approaches to deal with the same problem.

Section 318 requires debtors in chapter 13 whose current monthly income is over the median to file a 5-year plan rather than a 3-year plan. Requiring debtors to file a 5-year plan means it will take them longer to get back on their feet and they will end up paying more money to emerge from bankruptcy. Only those with a higher income should be subjected to this longer plan. But because of the way the income threshold is calculated in the bill, there is a great possibility of arbitrary and unfair results.

Whether this requirement applies depends on the income that debtors earn in the 6 months before bankruptcy rather than their actual income at the time of filing. In other words, the median income test is based on what you used to make, not what you make at the time of bankruptcy. To understand this problem, imagine person A has an income of $60,000 and that the State's median income is $45,000. A month before bankruptcy, she loses her job and is forced to take a job that pays only $30,000. Under the bill, her current monthly income works out to $5,000, even though she only makes $30,000 at the time of the bankruptcy and even if she never finds a higher paying job. So she would be forced into a 5-year plan, even though her real income is well below the threshold the bill's drafters apparently had in mind.

Imagine person B has an income of $40,000 before and after filing for bankruptcy. Because person B's income is below the median, she will be allowed to enter a 3-year plan even though she actually makes more than person A. So the definition of current monthly income as the average of the prior 6 months' income may not make sense in some cases.

My amendments provide two alternative ways to allow for a different and more accurate monthly income to be calculated. In addition, under my amendment, if a debtor's income decreases during the bankruptcy case to less than the median income, then a debtor who is at that time on a 5-year plan can seek to have the plan reduced to a 3-year plan.

Incidentally, the bill already provides a safety valve for calculating current monthly income in chapter 7. The court can reduce the income used for the means test if special circumstances are present. Special circumstances such as job loss or a sharp reduction in income from a home business would certainly qualify. I think it is an oversight that this was not done for chapter 13. So I hope the sponsors will simply fix this problem.

This change also needs to be made in another section of the bill where current monthly income plays a significant role; that is, in determining whether a debtor will have to use the restrictive IRS standards under the means test to figure out what living expenses will be permitted.

Again, it is unfair to someone filing in chapter 13 to make that determination based on past income rather than what the person actually makes.

This is a commonsense fix. We shouldn't import the means test to chapter 13 without allowing for special circumstances adjustments to income. Either of my amendments would bring chapter 13 in line with chapter 7 on this score.

The next amendment I want to discuss also has to do with chapter 13. There is a peculiar problem in this bill. I have often called it a bill that is at war with itself. What I mean by that is that the bill's overriding purpose--the argument that we have heard over and over on the floor in the past week 26 and a half--is to get more people to file for bankruptcy under chapter 13, which will require them to pay some of their debts over a 3- or 5-year period before getting a discharge of their remaining debts. This is what the means test is all about-- getting debtors to pay some of their debts if they are able. That is chapter 13. You would think, then, that the bill's sponsors and supporters would want to make sure that chapter 13 remains a viable option for those debtors. But the bill also includes a number of provisions that make it less advantageous to file in chapter 13 and harder to complete repayment plans. That is a bill at war with itself, and I predict this bill will have very bad consequences if it is adopted as it stands. The chapter 13 bankruptcy trustees and judges have certainly told us that over and over again for the past 8 years. Apparently, no one wants to listen.

One amendment I have offered to try to undo one of the problems this bill creates for chapter 13 amendment No. 95, having to do with discharge of back taxes. Current bankruptcy law allows debtors who complete chapter 13 payment plans to discharge all taxes that were owed more than 3 years before the time of the petition. This allows debtors to look forward to someday improving their financial situation without facing a lifetime of debt repayment for old taxes. But the bill makes it less advantageous to file for bankruptcy under chapter 13 by disallowing the discharge of many of these older taxes.

Under section 707 of the bill, a standard now applicable only to chapter 7 would be applied to chapter 13. In chapter 7 cases, debtors may only discharge old taxes if they filed a tax return for those taxes at least 2 years before filing for bankruptcy. That limitation does not currently apply to chapter 13 cases. By the way, under chapter 13 today, as in chapter 7, taxes owed for the last 3 years must still be paid in full as priority debts, which enables the IRS to collect what is available from the debtor's disposable income with very low collection costs, and older taxes are paid pro rata with other creditors for duration of the plan. Society benefits at the completion of a debtor's chapter 13 payment plan when the debtor is able to rejoin the economic system as a tax-paying wage earner.

This is an important protection. Typical older tax cases involve debtors who have recently gotten back on their feet and found a job after years of economic or family displacement. The displacement is often the result of serious health or substance abuse problems, unstable employment or a marital collapse. These debtors may have drifted through many jobs over several years without keeping the W-2 or 1099 forms needed to file tax returns. Having finally found steady employment, debtors are often faced with a wage garnishment for these old taxes just at the time they are attempting to get back on level financial ground. The debtors may need to file for bankruptcy to stop the garnishment so that they will have

enough money left from take-home pay to pay rent, child support, or other financial necessities.

But if old taxes cannot be discharged through a chapter 13 plan, as proposed in this bill, debtors will have no reason to try to pay what they can afford to pay through a chapter 13 plan, because they will know that at the end of the 3- to 5-year payment plan, they likely will again face an IRS garnishment for the older taxes.

My amendment addresses this problem. I should also point out that the amendment retains the bill's prohibition on the discharge of taxes for which a fraudulent return was filed. So we are talking about discharging of back taxes that are not the result of fraud, just the result of nonpayment.

The next amendment also deals with chapter 13. It is amendment No. 94, and would correct a serious drafting error in section 102(h) of the bill that threatens to unintentionally eviscerate chapter 13. Refusing to remedy this error would be disastrous for the very chapter of the code that the sponsors of this bill want to encourage people to use.

In chapter 13 cases, debtors must devote all they can afford--that is, their disposable income after living expenses--to payments under their plan. These payments go to administrative expenses, secured creditors and unsecured creditors. In fact, most chapter 13 cases filed under current law are filed in order to deal with secured debts, to prevent foreclosure on a home or repossession of a car.

As written, section 102(h) of this bill would instead require that for debtors who are below median income, all disposable income must go to unsecured creditors, and none could be used for secured debts or administrative expenses. This is an obvious drafting error, since the purpose of section 102(h), as I understand it, was simply to require debtors with income over the median income to use the IRS standards contained in the means test to determine their allowable living expenses but to leave the law unchanged for debtors below median income.

If this error is not corrected, the bill will make it impossible for debtors below median income to use chapter 13. Now some in this body may be under the mistaken impression that people who file for chapter 13 bankruptcy are well off and they will only choose that chapter if they are forced to by this bill. That is obviously not true since chapter 13 exists now and millions of people use it voluntarily. The large majority of chapter 13 filers are actually below median income. In fact, in the 1980s, one study found that about 15 percent of chapter 13 filers were actually below the poverty line. Very few people file in chapter 13 because they have large amounts they can afford to pay to unsecured creditors. They do it to protect their homes from foreclosure or their cars from repossession. While there certainly are exceptions, people who file for bankruptcy are generally poor, whether they choose chapter 7 or chapter 13.

Currently, with no means test in place, about 30 percent of bankruptcy debtors voluntarily file under chapter 13. Even the sponsors of this bill claim that only another 8-10 percent of those who now file under chapter 7 would be switched to chapter 13 if the means test were implemented. So even with the means test, the majority of chapter 13 debtors will almost certainly be below median income. That means the drafting error I have discussed is a big deal. We have to fix this problem before it becomes law.

A second problem created by this error has to do with administrative expenses in chapter 13 cases. Administrative expenses in bankruptcy include the fees of lawyers and trustees who are paid to process the case.

Section 102(h) of the bill would effectively impose a 10 percent cap on chapter 13 administrative expenses for debtors with income over the median. And it would prohibit any payments at all for administrative expenses for debtors below the median. What that means is that there will be no lawyers to handle chapter 13 cases at all. Chapter 13 will become a nullity.

This bill has contained a number of antilawyer provisions over the years, but I cannot imagine that the drafters of this bill intended to effectively prohibit attorney participation on behalf of debtors in chapter 13 cases.

My amendment will correct these drafting problems. It makes clear that the means test expense standards will be used for chapter 13 cases filed by debtors who make more than the median income. It makes sure that below median income debtors can pay their secured creditors. And it will allow administrative expenses, including attorneys' fees, to be included in the plan payments. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment if you don't want this bill to write chapter 13 out of existence.

Another of my amendments deals with a provision that bankruptcy lawyers are very concerned about. This is amendment No. 93 on debt relief agencies. The amendment is strongly supported by the American Bar Association. This amendment would exclude lawyers from the provisions dealing with ``debt relief agencies'' in sections 226 to 228 of the bill. As currently written, the bill would impose a number of unnecessary burdens on the attorney/client relationship in bankruptcy proceedings. Subjecting attorneys to the ``debt relief agency'' provisions will add little substantive protection for consumers, but require substantial amounts of extra paperwork and cost.

Requiring lawyers to call themselves ``debt relief agencies'' will do more to confuse the public than to protect it. I think members of the public generally understand what the word ``lawyer'' means, but the phrase ``debt relief agency'' is vague and unhelpful. It is also misleading, because there are significant differences between lawyers and nonlawyers, but both would be identifying themselves as debt relief agencies under this bill.

Only lawyers are permitted to give legal advice, to file pleadings, or to represent debtors in bankruptcy hearings. Perhaps most importantly, only lawyers are bound to confidentiality by the attorney- client privilege. These distinctions are important to consumers, but they would be obscured by the bill as written.

Furthermore, these provisions would apparently apply to any law firm that provides bankruptcy services, even if that law firm were primarily providing landlord-tenant advice--even to landlords--criminal defense services, or other unrelated services. Large firms with only one bankruptcy practitioner may be required to advertise themselves as ``debt relief agencies.''

I think this will be immensely confusing to consumers without any apparent benefit.

The substantive provisions on ``debt relief agencies'' would add little to the already existing laws and regulations governing attorney conduct. Attorneys currently have extensive duties relating to disclosures, fees, and ethical obligations. These provisions would micromanage that relationship without adding any meaningful substantive protection.

I think the intention of the bill's drafters was to prevent attorneys from tricking consumers into bankruptcy by not telling consumers from the beginning that they work on bankruptcy issues, and then sort of springing the idea of bankruptcy on the consumer. But rather than simply prohibiting this sort of unethical behavior, the bill tries to micromanage the attorney-client relationship by requiring large amounts of additional paperwork and disclosure. Extra paperwork substantially burdens the consumer and adds to the cost of bankruptcy. Given that attorney conduct is already regulated, I believe these provisions are unnecessary as applied to attorneys and provide no clear benefit.

As I mentioned, the American Bar Association strongly supports this amendment. The Federal Bar Association is also strongly in favor of it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Federal Bar Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, another amendment I have pending is really concerned with making the bankruptcy system work better for both creditors and debtors. It is amendment No. 90, dealing with notice.

The bill contains three separate notice requirements which seem to create significantly differing procedures for notice.

The first provision requires debtors to send notice to the creditor at whatever preferred address the creditor has specified in correspondence with the debtor shortly before bankruptcy.

The second provision says that debtors and the court must send notice to the creditor at an address the creditor files in each individual case.

And the third provision says the court must send notice to an address the creditor files for all cases, with an exception if a different address is filed for an individual case.

The first requirement, that debtors send notice that bankruptcy has been filed to creditors at the creditors' preferred address, is actually unworkable and unfair and serves no apparent purpose. Debtors often do not receive correspondence within the last 90 days prior to filing for bankruptcy, and even when they do, they may not know that the correspondence is significant. Essentially, debtors might end up having their cars repossessed despite the fact that they filed for bankruptcy and repossession should be prevented by the automatic stay because they threw away what appeared to be junk mail from the creditor. And bankruptcy lawyers are forced to search through their clients' correspondence for an address or a change of address.

I think we can come up with a much more streamlined notice provision that will satisfy the interests of both creditors and debtors.

My amendment will eliminate the first notice provision of the bill and instead establish a central national registry for creditors' correspondence addresses. The registry would be available to debtor's counsel and the court on the Internet, as is already done for government creditors under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The same address could be used for all notices, except when a creditor files and serves a different address for an individual case.

The bill generally provides for such a registry, and the courts are moving in that direction anyway, but the bill has two significant flaws. First, the bill is vague about whether a registry is to be maintained by each court or in a central national database, and it does not provide that the registry will be made available to the public.

Second, the bill's current language is unworkable because counsel will have to constantly check court records in every case to see if a new address was filed with the court. My amendment requires parties to use any address that has been filed more than 120 days previously with the registry. Within that 4-month period, the addresses should be updated in various software programs that bankruptcy attorneys use to find addresses, or they can recheck the registry to find if addresses have changed.

The exception to sanctions for a violation of an automatic-stay violation must also be amended so it does not include creditors who have clear actual notice of a stay. As it stands now, the bill creates a loophole that will encourage rampant abuse. For example, a debtor who filed for bankruptcy the previous week might return home from work to find her car being repossessed. The creditor might claim the debtor did not provide proper notice of the bankruptcy because notice was not sent to the correct address and therefore the creditor can proceed with the repossession, even if the debtor has her time-stamped bankruptcy petition in her hand and shows it to the repo man. It would not even work in that circumstance, which is an absurd result.

Finally, the language of the bill should be clarified so that actual notice reasonably calculated to come to the attention of a creditor or its agent is sufficient to allow sanctions for violation of the stay.

Correcting the notice provisions will protect the interest of debtors and creditors. Do we really want to leave in place a provision that is so obviously contradictory and unworkable and that could lead to a result as unjust as the example I just described? I hope not.

I also believe that creditor as well as debtor attorneys will appreciate the streamlined notice provision in my amendment and the establishment of a national registry available on the Internet.

It is my understanding the Administrative Office of the Courts does not favor the current language of the bill because it has essentially been overtaken by events. The courts are moving to electronic filing and notice registries. Keep in mind, this bill started about 8 years ago. An awful lot has happened in that time to make this much more feasible and, frankly, much more helpful to whoever is working on this, whether it be creditor representatives or debtor representatives.

My amendment is consistent with that movement. The bill is not.

One of my amendments is just a clarification of the effect of my bill and should not be controversial at all. It is amendment No. 100 on reaffirmation.

Section 524(1) allows creditors to accept payments made ``before and after filing'' of a reaffirmation agreement with the court. It also provides that a creditor may accept payments from a debtor under an agreement that the creditor believes in good faith to be effective.

I am concerned that these provisions could allow creditors to accept and retain payments where the reaffirmation agreement is ultimately held to be invalid.

In the late 1990s, in a celebrated case, the retailer Sears was required to disgorge literally hundreds of millions of dollars in payments made by debtors

pursuant to reaffirmation agreements that were invalid because they were never filed with the court. This bill would permit acceptance of payments before a reaffirmation agreement is filed. This will leave an ambiguity that would potentially require courts to allow a creditor such as Sears to retain all those payments.

The current language in section 203 of the bill suggests that if Sears in good faith believes those invalid agreements to be legitimate, it could have retained the payments. This would undermine the integrity of the bankruptcy system, and I can see no policy justification at all for allowing creditors to retain payments made pursuant to invalid reaffirmation agreements.

This amendment would clarify that courts have the option to order the disgorgement of payments made pursuant to invalid reaffirmation agreements or to order other appropriate remedies. Again, it is simply a logical correction to an ambiguity in the bill. If it is not necessary, I would appreciate the sponsors saying so on the record so that the legislative history on this point is clear.

Finally, I hope the sponsors will consider agreeing to amendment No. 87 on inflation adjustments. As a result of the efforts of Senator Grassley and my efforts, one of the provisions in this bill is a long overdue inflation adjustment to the dollar amounts in chapter 12, the chapter covering farm bankruptcies. Those dollar amounts were originally set in 1986. We increase the farm bankruptcy amounts to account for inflation since 1986 and then index them for future inflation.

Inflation has severely limited the usefulness of chapter 12 to family farmers, and I am pleased that this bill addresses that problem as well as others with chapter 12.

Virtually all the dollar amounts in the Bankruptcy Code are now subject to section 104, which provides for their adjustment every 3 years in accordance with the cost of living. But not all of them are. The reason that the family farm amounts needed to be increased so much in this bill is because they were not previously adjustable under section 104.

This bill adds a number of new sections or subsections with dollar amounts that are not indexed, including the family fisherman provision, household goods, educational savings limits, certain venue thresholds, and the applicability in chapter 13 of the additional monthly allowance for individuals over a family of four.

Again, this is just a commonsense technical issue. Almost all of the dollar values in the current bill should be added to section 104 and adjusted for inflation, just as the family farm values are, and the homestead exemption, and many others. I implore my colleagues: Do not make the same mistake that was made with respect to family farms back in the mid-1980s.

Do not set up a situation where 10 or 20 years from now some provision is clearly too low, but it cannot be fixed for 7 years while Congress works on another big revision to the Code.

I do hope the sponsors can accept this amendment. If there is an amount they have a real argument about that should not be indexed, I am willing to consider that. I removed one provision in this amendment having to do with the definition of financial participant when I heard from the Bond Market Association that that one should not be indexed. So I am willing to be reasonable, and I hope my colleagues who have worked so hard and long on this bill over the past 8 years will be reasonable as well, as this moves to final passage.

I have taken some time in going through these amendments, and perhaps people watching would say: Why is this Senator waiting until the last minute to raise these issues?

Of course, that is not the case at all. I waited patiently in the Judiciary Committee, provided these amendments well in advance in almost every case for everybody to review. I started to offer the amendments in committee and make my arguments. We received no substantive response at all in the committee on almost every amendment.

When one Senator actually could not take it anymore on the other side and offered a substantive response to my amendment, he said, I apologize to the chairman for making an argument, basically because apparently they had been instructed not to talk about these amendments.

He asked: Senator, why are you doing this? We need to get this out of committee. Why do you not wait until the floor to offer these commonsense amendments, and then we in good faith will work together to try to solve these problems?

Well, that is not what is happening. This is just a slam dunk. There is no danger anymore about considering these amendments. They got cloture. There are plenty of votes. What is the harm of fixing the bill? What is the harm of doing the right thing? What is the harm of doing our job as legislators and making sure we do not stick the entire bankruptcy community with these provisions that do not make any sense? Come on, we can do this now. It is safe to go back in the water. This is going to become law, and not a single one of my provisions will do any damage whatsoever to the fundamental intent or goals of this bill.

I do thank my colleagues for their attention in this presentation. These are highly technical issues. Some may seem minor, and some may actually be minor. I do not want to take the Senate's time on these amendments, which is why I attempted to get them considered in committee and have tried to make myself available at every instance to discuss them over the past week and a half.

I look forward to discussions over the next few hours with the managers of the bill. Perhaps we can still reach agreement that will make some of these votes unnecessary.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert Culbertson, a fellow in Senator Lieberman's office, be granted floor privileges for the introduction of the Children and Media Research Advancement Act.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 89 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry, who is the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. President, we have spent a great deal of time debating and trying to improve provisions of this bill that affect consumer bankruptcies. Most of my colleagues may not even be aware that this bill actually contains provisions that make significant changes to portions of the Bankruptcy Code that relate to small businesses. They may not realize it, but it does. Subtitle B of title IV of the bill is entitled ``Small Business Bankruptcy Provisions,'' and I doubt more than a handful of people in this body have any idea what is in the subtitle.

The subtitle includes a number of new restrictions and requirements for small businesses that want to reorganize under chapter 11. That is right, these are requirements and restrictions for small businesses that do not apply

to large companies. I was shocked when this came to my attention, but there it is in black and white, subtitle B, ``Small Business Bankruptcy Provisions.''

These are not provisions to help small businesses, as one might expect from a bill that is going through the Senate. No, these provisions penalize small businesses. They make it harder for small businesses to reorganize in order to survive.

Here is an example. Section 434 would require regular reports on the small business's profitability. They will have to report all kinds of things: profitability, cash receipts and disbursement, requirements to be in compliance with postpetition requirements, timely filing of tax returns, and ``such other matters as are in the best interests of the debtor and creditors.''

This is a mountain of information. Mom-and-pop operations will have to spend a great deal of time pulling these reports together, and the reports probably will not even be useful. Creditors and judges examining a debtor's profitability rely on cash disbursements and receipts, not self-reporting, because they are more informative and less subject to manipulation. It seems to me these reports will not be of much use to anyone, but they will be quite burdensome for a small business to produce on a regular basis.

What is the penalty for failure to jump through this bureaucratic hoop? Dismissal. Again, not for large corporations, mind you, which have armies of accountants to handle paperwork like this, but for the small entrepreneurs who could be spending that time keeping their businesses afloat instead of producing these piles of paper for some government file which basically no one will ever use.

I do not want to have to go back to Wisconsin and have to explain to a grocery store owner who is already working late into the night, trying to pull her business through a financial crisis, that the Federal Government has decided to keep her even longer to put together a report that nobody even plans to read. I am very concerned, almost ashamed of this Chamber to think I would have to tell her that if she were a big corporation, if she were the big chain of huge grocery stores, then the law would not require this of her. It would not treat her this way.

Professor Elizabeth Warren wrote, when the same language was proposed during the 107th Congress:

A decision by Congress in 2001 that small businesses should

bear greater costs, face shorter deadlines, file more papers

and lose any flexibility that a supervising judge might

provide is a decision to shut down small businesses simply

because they are small.

That is what Professor Warren wrote.

I can see no justification for imposing burdens on small business in the bankruptcy code that will not be imposed on large corporations. It has always been our responsibility as legislators to protect small businesses. My amendment calls on us to fulfill that responsibility in a very significant way. It would simply strike a number of the provisions in title IV, subtitle B of the bill.

Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small firms represent 99.7 percent of all employers and pay 44 percent of the total U.S. private payroll. Small businesses have generated from 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs created annually over the last decade. I can't figure out why, for the life of me, we are trying to make life harder for small businesses.

What is particularly puzzling is that I have heard a number of my colleagues complain about the burdens that they believe federal regulations impose on small businesses. The head of the Small Business Administration recently testified before the Small Business Committee that ``[s]ome of the heaviest burdens borne by small business in America are the result of unnecessary federal regulation and redtape.'' If my colleagues share that belief--and even if they don't--why would we want to impose further Federal regulations and red tape on small business chapter 11 bankruptcies?

The worst thing about this attack on small business is that it is utterly unprovoked. Another provision of this bill would impose harsh deadlines on small businesses seeking to reorganize under chapter 11, but these deadlines are apparently designed to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The bill's drafters perhaps believed, back in 1998, that chapter 11 offers a shelter for failing small businesses, allowing them to delay the inevitable and die a lingering death to the detriment of their creditors. But this is just not the case.

The bill would impose an arbitrary 300-day hard deadline for a small business to file its reorganization plan. But a recent study of small business bankruptcy cases by Professor Douglas Baird of the University of Chicago Law School and Professor Edward Morrison of Columbia Law School shows that this deadline is completely counterproductive. According to this study, more than half of small business chapter 11 cases that fail--in other words, those that are dismissed, or converted to chapter 7 liquidations--are terminated within 4 months of filing. Over 70 percent are terminated within 6 months. By 300 days more than 90 percent have already left the system. In other words, the 300-day deadline imposed by this bill will affect a very small percentage of small business plans that are actually bound for failure. It constrains the discretion of bankruptcy judges, without any apparent justification for doing so, since reorganization cases without merit are already being terminated in a timely manner.

Instead of protecting the system against abuse by small businesses doomed to eventual failure, this bill will punish primarily small businesses that would otherwise succeed. Professors Baird and Morrison found that of the small businesses that successfully reorganize under chapter 11, nearly 40 percent need more than 300 days to do so. In other words, the facts show that by 300 days, most failing small businesses have already failed but many viable small businesses are still struggling. We should be helping them, not terminating them. Forcing small businesses capable of successfully reorganizing into chapter 7 liquidation proceedings is bad for their creditors, and tragic for the entrepreneurs who will see their livelihoods and their hard work over years or even generations needlessly destroyed.

Compare the hard deadline in the bill to what happens in the bankruptcies of large corporations. United Airlines filed for chapter 11 protection in December 2002. That is over 2 years ago. And the court has continually allowed the effort to come up with a reorganization plan that the creditors can accept to continue rather than force the airline to liquidate. We still don't know what will happen in that case, but clearly it is worth trying to save that company, with all its employees and devoted customers. Why don't we want to allow the courts to exercise the same flexibility for small businesses? Are they just not as important as the big corporations like United? Is that the message the Senate is trying to send with this bill? I can hardly believe that my colleagues want to send that message. But this could have a big impact on the ability of small businesses across the country to survive, so I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this amendment.

These new burdens on small businesses are simply wrong. Congress simply should not be in the business of forcing viable small businesses into liquidation. And why are large corporations seeking to reorganize not similarly burdened? Do the bill's drafters think that large businesses are more important than small businesses, so we should give them extra time to reorganize?

There is an additional irony here when you compare the requirements we put on large and small businesses in bankruptcy that my colleagues should consider. Large companies are often subject to a variety of reporting requirements by the federal securities laws that are not applicable to small businesses. But the SEC often exempts companies in chapter 11 from those requirements. At the same time that large companies are often excused from onerous reporting because of their bankruptcy, this bill puts additional reporting requirements on small businesses. Where is the fairness in that?

If there is a crisis with small business bankruptcies, I am not aware of it. Professor Warren, one of the country's leading bankruptcy experts, was one of the authors of a 1999 Small Business Administration study. That study

found that one-third of bankrupt businesses had less than $100,000 in debts and almost four out of five had less than half a million dollars in debts. What is more, almost half--45 percent--of the small businesses had one or no employees when they filed for bankruptcy. These numbers don't give me any reason to think that small business bankruptcies are such a serious problem that we need to enact special provisions targeting them.

Bankruptcy experts tell me that these small business provisions are just crazy. But they have been in the bill forever, and most of the focus is on the consumer provisions when we debate this bill. Someone needs to stand up and say, ``Wait a second. Why are we discriminating against small businesses in the bankruptcy laws?'' I can't think of a single bill in my entire time in the Congress--over 12 years--where a single law on the books treats small businesses worse than big corporations. That is the opposite of what we usually do in this body. We always protect small businesses. Why is this bill any different?

When I offered this amendment in the Judiciary Committee, I heard two arguments against it. The first was that the provisions were recommended by the National Bankruptcy Commission. This is a very odd argument, coming from the same people who completely ignored the commission's work on consumer bankruptcy issues and drafted a bill largely in response to the credit industry's recommendations. But more importantly, I have been told that the commission provisions were created by certain commissioners who wanted to reform chapter 11 for all companies, large and small. The big companies came in and said: ``No, don't do that to us. Those deadlines are too restrictive.'' Here is what happened. The recommendation was amended to apply only to small businesses. There was no showing that there are more abuses in small business bankruptcies than in chapter 11 filings for large companies. Small businesses apparently just didn't have the right lobbyists watching the process. So they got stung by these wrongheaded provisions that live on year after year in this bill without anyone coming forward to explain why they are necessary or useful.

The second argument that came up in the committee was that small businesses support this bill. That is true, at least for some small businesses. But they don't necessarily support the particular provisions that I am talking about. They may not even know about these provisions. Small businesses, like large businesses, support the bill because it makes it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy. But I doubt very much that they want the law changed to make it harder for struggling small businesses to reorganize under chapter 11.

This is an important example of how this bill fails to reflect lessons we have learned in the years since it was first proposed. Given the recent history of large-scale corporate bankruptcies and scandals, the way this bill cracks down on small businesses is not only misguided, it is shocking. We should be focusing our energies on the real problem, not penalizing small businesses.

I urge adoption of this amendment, and I hope that small businesses all across this country will be watching this debate. Those people who think the Senate is devoted to the interests of small businesses may be in for a rude awakening if this amendment is not agreed to.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. President, we are about to vote on an amendment that will tell this Nation's small businesses whether we stand with them. This bill includes a number of new restrictions and requirements for small businesses that want to reorganize under chapter 11. These requirements and restrictions for small businesses don't apply to large companies. I was shocked when this came to my attention, but there it is in black and white: Subtitle B, Small Business Bankruptcy Provisions. And these are not provisions to help small businesses as one might expect from a bill that is going through the United States Senate. No, these provisions penalize small businesses. They make it harder to reorganize in order to survive.

These new provisions are entirely unnecessary. There is no crisis in small business bankruptcies. And a new study shows. that most failed attempts at chapter 11 reorganization are concluded within 300 days, which is the hard deadline in the bill. But 40 percent of reorganizations that succeed take longer than 300 days. That means that this bill is going to make some small businesses fail that don't have to. That is an absurd result. Remember the United Air Lines Chapter 11 reorganization is over two years old and it is still going on. Why shouldn't small businesses get that kind of leeway if there is a chance they can pull through?

These provisions haven't received nearly the attention in this body that the portions of the bill that deal with consumer bankruptcies have received. We need to take these provisions out. Doing so won't have any effect on the core provisions of this bill. But it will prevent a real injustice from being done to small businesses. Forcing a small business to liquidate rather than reorganize is bad for creditors, bad for consumers, and bad for small businesses. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to commemorate International Women's Day, celebrated on March 8. International Women's Day gives us all an opportunity to reflect on women's accomplishments around the world and to reaffirm our commitment to continuing the vitally important work of securing and advancing women's rights, particularly their health, education, and security.

Today, we can all marvel at the outstanding contributions that women make every day to their communities, their countries, and the entire world. We can reflect on the work of Wangari Maathai, the Kenyan Nobel Peace Prize winner, whose brave and insistent voice on behalf of human rights and environmental protection found an audience not just on the global stage, and not just among elites in government, but among the women of her country, who have made the Green Belt Movement a success. We can celebrate the bravery of Afghan women, who have participated in elections even as the memory of the Taliban's brutal repression of their rights remains so fresh. Women accounted for 41 percent of the October 2004 vote in Afghanistan, and women hold 102 seats of Afghanistan's Constitutional Loya Jirga. We can reflect on the wonderful welcome that Dora Bakoyiannis, the mayor of Athens, extended to the world during this year's Olympic ceremonies.

But in too many parts of the world, the basic human rights of women are violated with impunity. Human rights groups continue to report rampant violence, abuse, and rape of tens of thousands of women and children by militants in Eastern Congo who are rarely, if ever, brought to justice. The murders of more than 370 women in the Chihuahua state of Mexico since 1993 remain unsolved. Thirty more women have been killed there since 2004 and the lack of progress in these cases of brutal violence and sexual assault against women from the cities of Juarez and Chihuahua is deeply disturbing. The internally displaced women of Darfur, Sudan, too often are confronted with a horrible choice--collect firewood and risk being raped by jinjaweit militia, or watch their children go hungry. I have authored or cosponsored legislative initiatives to address each of these crises, but I know that solutions will require hard work over the long term. I also support the U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW. Ratification of the treaty would send an important message to the international community about our commitment to the rights of women and girls.

The global, rapid progression of HIV/AIDS infection, especially in women, is undeniable. More than 40 million adults and children are infected with HIV/AIDS and over 20 million are women. UNAIDS reports that women and girls in sub-Saharan Africa make up 57 percent of HIV- positive persons in this region. Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in which women are infected with the virus at a higher rate than men. In sub-Saharan Africa, between the ages of 15 to 24, there are on average 36 women testing positive for HIV for every 10 males. As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have had the opportunity to travel to numerous countries in Africa and see firsthand the devastating toll that HIV/ AIDS and other infectious diseases are taking on the people of this continent. We must find concrete ways to address the special vulnerabilities of women and girls in our HIV/AID prevention and treatment programs.

Nearly 100 million children worldwide are not receiving an education, nearly two-thirds of them female. In countries such as Uganda and Nigeria, some teachers are expected to instruct anywhere from 175 to 215 students, singlehandedly. The education of girls regularly takes a back seat to that of their male siblings and to the needs of the family in many parts of the world. In order to combat global diseases, halt violence against women, and enhance women's rights, ensuring girls are educated must be a global community priority.

In short, while there are shining examples of progress in women's rights, we have much more to do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the efforts I have described and others to improve the lives of women.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I note the recent passing of Professor Ron Shaffer, a man who dedicated his career to helping communities discuss and plan their economic development.

Ron joined the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1972, the same year he received a doctorate in agricultural economics, and he soon became a pillar of that great institution. For three decades, until his retirement from UW in 2001, Ron was one of the State's--if not the country's--leading experts on community economics and he wrote extensively on the subject. But, throughout his many years in academia, Ron always remained focused on the real world applications of his teaching. Economic development was not an abstract concept for him--it was a way to help people live better, happier, more productive lives. Particularly in the decade he spent as director of the University of Wisconsin Center for Community Economic Development, Ron devoted himself to bolstering the many and varied rural communities that are the backbone of Wisconsin.

Ron won many honors and accolades throughout his career. His work attracted international attention, and he was called upon by governments from Australia to Norway to advise on local economic development policies. In a particularly fitting move, the year he retired from UW, the National Rural Development Partnership established the Ron Shaffer Award, to be given annually for outstanding collaboration in rural America.

But I suspect that none of the honors he won mattered as much to Ron as the love and companionship of his family and friends. They loved his decency, his compassion, and his willingness to lead a patient ear. They admired him for the courage with which he handled his diagnosis of ALS, or Lou Gehrig's Disease. It was typical of Ron that he used his illness as an opportunity to advocate for others afflicted with this terrible disease--after all, he spent his life helping others. He will be sorely missed as a husband, a father, a friend, and a deeply good and giving man.

Mr. President, I have filed a number of amendments to this bill, most of which I believe are germane and therefore can be offered and debated and voted on even if cloture is invoked tomorrow. I wanted to make sure that my amendments have been called up prior to cloture so that I am assured of getting a vote on any amendment that is germane. It is not my intention to debate these amendments tonight. That is what this request is designed to do, merely to allow my germane amendments to be voted

on prior to a vote on final passage of the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside and that each of my amendments Nos. 87 through 101 be called up in turn, that the reading of each amendment be dispensed with, and each amendment in turn be laid aside so that another amendment can become the pending business, and that the last amendment in the list then be laid aside so that the amendment that is now pending is again the pending business.

Fifteen total. This is not a number that I would actually offer. I will be able to pare that list down, but I wanted to preserve my right to have any germane amendment voted on postcloture.

Mr. President, I have found the Senator very reasonable in working on these amendments. Certainly some will not be offered, others are not major amendments, others will require votes, but it will be a list significantly smaller than 15.

Mr. President, because of a family matter I was unable to take part in Thursday's votes. I regret that I was unable to vote on S.J. Res. 4, a resolution to prevent the Department of Agriculture from going forward with its plan to open the Canadian border to beef and cattle imports. I signed the discharge petition to force a vote on the measure and would have voted to delay the reopening. I am pleased that the Senate approved the resolution.

I also regret that I was unable to vote in favor of several worthy amendments that would have improved a bankruptcy bill that is in dire need of improvement. While my votes would not have affected the outcome of any of those votes, it is unfortunate that the amendments were not adopted.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to eliminate from the Federal tax code percentage depletion allowances for hardrock minerals mined on Federal public lands. I thank Senator Cantwell for joining me as a cosponsor on this legislation.

President Clinton proposed the elimination of the percentage depletion allowance on public lands in his fiscal year 2001 budget. President Clinton's fiscal year 2001 budget estimated that, under this legislation, income to the Federal treasury from the elimination of percentage depletion allowances for hardrock mining on public lands would total $487 million over 5 years and $1.20 billion over 10 years. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would save $410 million over 5 years and $823 million over 10 years. Percentage depletion allowances are contained in the tax code for extracted fuel, minerals, metal and other mined commodities. These allowances have a combined value, according to estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, of $4.8 billion.

These percentage depletion allowances were initiated by the Corporation Excise Act of 1909. That's right, these allowances were initiated nearly one hundred years ago. Provisions for a depletion allowance based on the value of the mine were made under a 1912 Treasury Department regulation, but difficulty in applying this accounting principle to mineral production led to the initial codification of the mineral depletion allowance in the Tariff Act of 1913. The Revenue Act of 1926 established percentage depletion much in its present form for oil and gas. The percentage depletion allowance was then extended to metal mines, coal, and other hardrock minerals by the Revenue Act of 1932, and has been adjusted several times since.

Percentage depletion allowances were historically placed in the tax code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing incentives to increase investment, exploration and output. Percentage depletion also makes it possible, however, to recover many times the amount of the original investment.

There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a firm to recover the costs of its capital investment: cost depletion and percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the actual capital investment--the costs of discovering, purchasing, and developing a mineral reserve--over the period during which the reserve produces income. Under the cost depletion method, the total deductions cannot exceed the original capital investment.

Under percentage depletion, however, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income,'' namely, sales revenue from the sale of the mineral. Under this method, total deductions typically exceed the capital that the company invested.

The rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 of the

U.S. Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals and minerals, at rates ranging from 10 to 22 percent.

In addition to repealing the percentage depletion allowances for minerals mined on public lands, my bill would also create a new fund, called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. One-fourth of the revenue raised by the bill, or approximately $120 million, would be deposited into an interest-bearing fund in the Treasury to be used to clean up abandoned hardrock mines in States that are subject to the 1872 Mining Law. The Mineral Policy Center estimates that there are 557,650 abandoned hardrock mine sites nationwide and the cost of clearing them up will range from $32.7 billion to $71.5 billion.

There are currently no comprehensive Federal or State programs to address the need to clean up old mine sites. Reclaiming these sites requires the enactment of a program with explicit authority to clean up abandoned mine sites and the resources to do it. My legislation is a first step toward providing the needed authority and resources.

In today's budget climate, we are faced with the question of who should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of natural resources: all taxpayers, or the users and producers of the resource? For more than a century, the mining industry has been paying next to nothing for the privilege of extracting minerals from public lands and then abandoning its mines. Now those mines are adding to the Nation's environmental and financial burdens. We face serious budget choices this fiscal year, and one of those choices is whether to continue the special tax breaks provided to the mining industry.

The measure I am introducing is straightforward. It eliminates the percentage depletion allowance for hardrock minerals mined on public lands while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion.

Though at one time there may have been an appropriate role for a government-driven incentive for enhanced mineral production, there is now sufficient reason to adopt a more reasonable depletion allowance that is consistent with depreciation rates given to other businesses. This corporate subsidy is simply not justified.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to eliminate from the Federal tax code percentage depletion allowances for hardrock minerals mined on Federal public lands. I thank Senator Cantwell for joining me as a cosponsor on this legislation.

President Clinton proposed the elimination of the percentage depletion allowance on public lands in his fiscal year 2001 budget. President Clinton's fiscal year 2001 budget estimated that, under this legislation, income to the Federal treasury from the elimination of percentage depletion allowances for hardrock mining on public lands would total $487 million over 5 years and $1.20 billion over 10 years. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would save $410 million over 5 years and $823 million over 10 years. Percentage depletion allowances are contained in the tax code for extracted fuel, minerals, metal and other mined commodities. These allowances have a combined value, according to estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, of $4.8 billion.

These percentage depletion allowances were initiated by the Corporation Excise Act of 1909. That's right, these allowances were initiated nearly one hundred years ago. Provisions for a depletion allowance based on the value of the mine were made under a 1912 Treasury Department regulation, but difficulty in applying this accounting principle to mineral production led to the initial codification of the mineral depletion allowance in the Tariff Act of 1913. The Revenue Act of 1926 established percentage depletion much in its present form for oil and gas. The percentage depletion allowance was then extended to metal mines, coal, and other hardrock minerals by the Revenue Act of 1932, and has been adjusted several times since.

Percentage depletion allowances were historically placed in the tax code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing incentives to increase investment, exploration and output. Percentage depletion also makes it possible, however, to recover many times the amount of the original investment.

There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a firm to recover the costs of its capital investment: cost depletion and percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the actual capital investment--the costs of discovering, purchasing, and developing a mineral reserve--over the period during which the reserve produces income. Under the cost depletion method, the total deductions cannot exceed the original capital investment.

Under percentage depletion, however, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income,'' namely, sales revenue from the sale of the mineral. Under this method, total deductions typically exceed the capital that the company invested.

The rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 of the

U.S. Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals and minerals, at rates ranging from 10 to 22 percent.

In addition to repealing the percentage depletion allowances for minerals mined on public lands, my bill would also create a new fund, called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. One-fourth of the revenue raised by the bill, or approximately $120 million, would be deposited into an interest-bearing fund in the Treasury to be used to clean up abandoned hardrock mines in States that are subject to the 1872 Mining Law. The Mineral Policy Center estimates that there are 557,650 abandoned hardrock mine sites nationwide and the cost of clearing them up will range from $32.7 billion to $71.5 billion.

There are currently no comprehensive Federal or State programs to address the need to clean up old mine sites. Reclaiming these sites requires the enactment of a program with explicit authority to clean up abandoned mine sites and the resources to do it. My legislation is a first step toward providing the needed authority and resources.

In today's budget climate, we are faced with the question of who should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of natural resources: all taxpayers, or the users and producers of the resource? For more than a century, the mining industry has been paying next to nothing for the privilege of extracting minerals from public lands and then abandoning its mines. Now those mines are adding to the Nation's environmental and financial burdens. We face serious budget choices this fiscal year, and one of those choices is whether to continue the special tax breaks provided to the mining industry.

The measure I am introducing is straightforward. It eliminates the percentage depletion allowance for hardrock minerals mined on public lands while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion.

Though at one time there may have been an appropriate role for a government-driven incentive for enhanced mineral production, there is now sufficient reason to adopt a more reasonable depletion allowance that is consistent with depreciation rates given to other businesses. This corporate subsidy is simply not justified.

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