Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 27 (Monday, March 5, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 27 (Monday, March 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1793-S1801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT OF 2001

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now proceed to the consideration of S. 420, which the clerk
will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 420) to amend title 11, United States Code, and
for other purposes.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, I am pleased that we are proceeding
to the consideration of bankruptcy reform legislation. Senator Grassley
introduced S. 220 earlier this month, which is precisely the same
legislative language that was contained in the conference report passed
by the Senate in December by a vote of 70 to 28. That language has been
marked up and reported out of the Judiciary Committee. It is that
language we are considering today in S. 420, the ``Bankruptcy Reform
Act of 2001.''
As many of you know, we have been working on the issue of bankruptcy
reform for a number of years now. By way of background, both Houses
demonstrated overwhelming margins in favor of this legislation in
December, but President Clinton pocket-vetoed the legislation and we
simply ran out of time in the session to come back and override the
veto. So earlier this month, rather than introducing something to serve
as a starting point for negotiations, Senator Grassley introduced
exactly the language that passed both houses so overwhelmingly in
December. This language was the result of a long process of bipartisan
negotiations last year that resulted in agreement on over four hundred
pages of legislative language, on all but two issues. Although we were
prepared to go directly to the Senate floor and complete this
unfinished business of the last session, because of complaints by some
Democrats on the committee, we held yet another committee hearing on
the subject. Even after the hearing, some Democrats on the committee
raised additional objections, and that is why we marked up the
legislation in committee, instead of moving directly to the Senate
floor for its quick consideration. We tried our best to accommodate our
colleagues on the other side. I think we did, and I believe they
appreciate it.

[[Page S1794]]

Although some 27 democratic amendments were circulated for the
committee markup, I am pleased that our Democratic colleagues
ultimately limited their offering of some of the amendments because
those of us on the Republican side of the aisle worked very hard to
accommodate Democratic concerns with respect to substantive amendments.
We accepted several amendments and developed compromise provisions on
several others. It is my sincere hope that we can work constructively
on the floor without an unnecessary flood of amendments and without
undue delay.

Again, this legislation was agreed to during bipartisan negotiations
last year, with the exception of two provisions, one of which--the
issue of the dischargeability of debts relating to violence--we worked
in committee to resolve. I am pleased that the bill now includes a
reasonable compromise developed by Senator Schumer and me that
addresses the concerns of both sides in a fair manner. Let me take this
opportunity to thank Senator Schumer for his leadership and hard work
on this issue.
I am also pleased to have worked with the Ranking Democratic Member
of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, to include for the first
time privacy protections in bankruptcy. The amendment protects
personally identifiable information given by a consumer to a business
debtor by adding new privacy protections to the bankruptcy code and by
creating a consumer privacy ombudsman to appear before the bankruptcy
court.
Given that the language we are considering is the Senate-passed
conference report with the only changes being ones sought in committee
by our Democratic colleagues, I am hopeful that we can all stand by the
compromises we reached in good faith last year. I am the first to
acknowledge that there are things I would like to see changed in the
bill, but I recognize that we all have cooperated and compromised in
order to enact this legislation that provides new consumer protections,
helps children in need of child support, and makes other necessary
reforms to a system that is open to abuse.
As we move to consideration of this legislation, I am heartened, but
not surprised, by the results of the nationwide voter poll conducted
for the Credit Union National Association which indicates broad public
support for reforming our bankruptcy system.
According to the poll, the vast majority of people believe that
individuals who file for bankruptcy should be required to pay back some
of their debts if they have the means to do so.
This is precisely what the bankruptcy reform legislation is designed
to do. The late Erma Bombeck once asked her husband, ``What do you
think I'd do if I won a million dollars?'' ``You'd spend $2 million,''
he said. The reason her anecdote is funny is that it rings so true.
Many people, even during the best of economic times, do not exercise
financial responsibility.
The poll also shows that most people think it should be more
difficult for people to file for bankruptcy. This finding indicates to
me that Americans have had enough. They believe it should be made more
difficult for people to file for bankruptcy. Fourteen percent strongly
oppose that provision, 14 percent somewhat oppose, 24 percent somewhat
favor it, and 40 percent strongly favor, or 64 to 28. So it is a very
important thing when you think about it.
I have to say that, as I have mentioned the poll shows, most people
think it should be more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy.
This finding indicates to me that Americans have had enough; they are
tired of paying for high rollers who game the current system and its
loopholes to get out of paying their fair share.
Although this legislation does not make it more difficult for people
to file for bankruptcy, it does eliminate some of the opportunities for
abuse that exist under the current system. Our current system allows
wealthy people to continue to abuse the system at the expense of
everyone else. People with high incomes can run up massive debts and
then use bankruptcy to get out of honoring them.
All of us end up paying for the unscrupulous who abuse the system. In
fact, it has been estimated that every American family pays as much as
$550 a year in a hidden tax as a result of the actions from these
abuses. The bankruptcy reform legislation will help eliminate this
hidden tax by implementing a means test to make wealthy people who can
repay their debts actually honor them. I suppose we can call this a tax
cut for the responsible people in America.
There are numerous examples of people who take advantage of loopholes
at the expense of everyone else. I recently heard from the President of
a credit union in Wisconsin who told me about a young couple who wanted
a ``clean financial slate'' before they got married. What did they do?
They ran up their credit card purchases. One of them prepaid on a car
loan with the credit union to have the other cosigner released. Then,
although they were both employed full time, they filed for bankruptcy
to wipe out all their debt. The credit union--and its members--had to
eat the $3,000 in credit card debt and another couple of hundred
dollars on the car.
Bankruptcy relief was never meant to allow this kind of abuse. That
is a minor story compared to the millions of examples that over the
years could be cited. Hard-working Americans, including the members of
credit unions nationwide, have been victimized by abusers of the
current bankruptcy system long enough.
Bankruptcy abuse also hurts our Nation's small businesses. As Thomas
Donahue, the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said
recently:
Without congressional action, losses from bankruptcy abuses will
continue to break the banks, and backs, of the Nation's small
businesses and retailers, which work with slim profit margins and an
even smaller margin for error.
Make no mistake, misrepresentations about this legislation have been
running rampant by those who oppose any meaningful bankruptcy reform.
Perhaps we can take some comfort in the words of former British Prime
Minister Harold MacMillan who said:

I have never found, in a long experience of politics, that
criticism is ever inhibited by ignorance.

Despite the allegations of opponents of reform, the poor are not
affected by the means test. The legislation provides a ``safe harbor''
for those who fall below the median income, so they are not subjected
to the means test at all.
Another misrepresentation I have heard again and again is that this
legislation won't let people file for bankruptcy relief when they need
it. The fact is, this legislation does not deny anyone access to
bankruptcy relief; it just requires those who have the means to repay
debts based on their income to do so. It is that simple.
Opponents of this legislation have also waged the claim that it
somehow hurts women and children. This falsehood is a particularly
disturbing one for me to hear because I have had a long history of
advocating for children and families in Congress. I have worked
tirelessly, provision by provision, to make this legislation
dramatically improve the position of children and ex-spouses who are
entitled to domestic support.
It can be difficult to get the word out when misrepresentations
abound about what bankruptcy reform legislation really does. In fact,
the bankruptcy legislation will put a stop to letting deadbeat parents
use bankruptcy to avoid paying child support. This bill would mean
putting an end to paying lawyers ahead of the children who rely on
child support. Current bankruptcy law simply is not adequate, and,
frankly, I was outraged to learn of the many ways deadbeat parents are
manipulating and abusing the current bankruptcy system in order to get
out of paying for their domestic support obligations. This bill is a
tremendous improvement for children and families over current law. That
is why there is such overwhelming support for this legislation from the
child support professionals across the country--the very people who go
after deadbeats to get children the support they need.
I hope those who oppose any reform to our Nation's bankruptcy system
will not engage in petty parliamentary tactics and try to encumber it
with frivolous amendments. Nevertheless, I am optimistic that this
much-needed bankruptcy reform legislation will be signed into law this
year. We have a

[[Page S1795]]

no-nonsense President in the White House who understands the importance
of personal responsibility. So let's enact this meaningful bankruptcy
reform. As I said last year, the American people have waited long
enough for it, and it is time for us to do what really is in the best
interest of the people at large. It is time to give this, in effect,
tax cut to the millions of people out there who are paying, on the
average, an extra $550 a year because of those abusing the system.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, bankruptcy is a complex area of the law. It
has competing public policy interests between debtors and creditors and
among competing creditors.
The complex and competing interests involved in achieving fair and
balanced reforms of our bankruptcy system demand we work in a
bipartisan manner throughout the legislative process. Actually, that is
the lesson we learned from failed attempts of past reform measures, and
it is all the more relevant with an evenly divided Senate.
The Republican leadership in the Senate and of the Judiciary
Committee I felt did not want the Judiciary Committee involved in
shaping bankruptcy reform legislation this year, but over the last
couple of weeks the committee was able to hold an informative hearing
and a markup that began the process of improving the bill.
In fact, when we finally started talking about amendments to greatly
improve the bill, we spent less than 4 or 5 hours. Eight amendments
were adopted by the Judiciary Committee during a couple hours of work
on Tuesday and a couple hours of work on Wednesday, and we improved it.
I am pleased to learn of the majority leader's remarks on Wednesday
when he congratulated the committee for its positive action and for
completing its work on an expedited basis last week. The point being:
Just put us in a room, actually have us all there, and give us a little
time. We usually work these things out. We can do the same thing on the
floor. If the leadership wants us to complete this bill, we can do it
expeditiously.
The bill the Senate begins considering today is the bill that
originated in the Judiciary Committee, S. 420, with those important
committee amendments already incorporated. The committee held an
informative hearing and markup which has improved the bill in several
key areas. I commend the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee
for their amendments and for their willingness to expedite committee
action on this measure. I will give an example.
Senator Feinstein pointed out a number of aspects of the bill need
further refinement and our attention with respect to the harshness of
the means test and the need for balance with regard to consumer credit
disclosures and solicitations. In addition, she coauthored with Senator
Feingold an amendment that the committee debated and adopted by a 10-8
vote to provide balance and fairness to the bill's landlord-tenant
provisions. I know the Senator from California will continue her good
work so that the bill considered by the Senate is further improved.
During the markup, the committee adopted a number of improvements to
the bill. We also showed what happens when we work in a bipartisan
fashion.
I commend the chairman and Senator Schumer for reaching agreement on
one of the most contentious issues in the bankruptcy debate in the last
Congress: the discharge of penalties for violence against family
planning clinics.
I believe the compromise Senator Hatch and Senator Schumer worked
out, along with help from my staff, was possible in part because of the
powerful testimony at our committee hearing on the need to end this
abusive practice.
During our hearing on bankruptcy reform legislation, Maria Vullo, a
top-rate attorney, testified about the need to amend the bankruptcy
code to stop wasteful litigation and end abusive bankruptcy filings
that are used only to avoid the legal consequences of violence,
vandalism, and harassment to deny access to legal health services. I
believe she impressed all members of the committee. I think she made
all members of the committee realize we have to move on this issue.

As a result of the amendment adopted by the committee last week,
perpetrators of clinic violence will no longer be able to seek shelter
in the Nation's bankruptcy courts.
In addition, the committee adopted a Leahy-Hatch amendment to protect
the personal privacy of consumers whose information is held by firms in
bankruptcy. The amendment of the Senator from Utah and I permits
bankruptcy courts to honor the privacy policy of business debtors and
creates a consumer privacy ombudsman to protect personal privacy in
bankruptcy proceedings.
I appreciate the chairman's effort in joining me on this amendment to
add important consumer privacy protections to the bankruptcy code.
The irony is, the Leahy-Hatch amendment would not even be needed if
everybody was doing what they should. The Leahy-Hatch amendment is
needed because the customer list and databases of failed firms can now
be put up for sale in bankruptcy without any privacy considerations,
and even in violation of the failed firm's own public privacy policy
against the sale of personal customer information to third parties.
Let me explain what happens. You have an online company and they have
a privacy policy that guarantees privacy of your family's information:
You can give us all the details about your children, you can give us
all this information because we promise you we will never sell it to
anybody else; we will never give it to anybody else.
They keep their word, but they go into bankruptcy. The bankruptcy
court looks at the file and says the only thing you have left worth any
money is this list of names of these children, their parents, whomever.
It is valuable. The trustee in the bankruptcy says: I have sworn an
oath; I have to uphold the law. I have to sell that list. Suddenly the
list you thought was sacrosanct is sold. I will give an example.
Toysmart.com. is a failed online toy store. It filed for bankruptcy
last year. Its databases and customer lists were put up for sale as
part of the bankruptcy proceeding. It went on the auction block even
though they promised that all the information would never be allowed
out.
The Leahy-Hatch amendment that we adopted in committee adds privacy
protections and a consumer privacy ombudsman to the bankruptcy code to
prevent future cases such as Toysmart.com.
We adopted several amendments by Senator Feingold to strengthen
chapter 12 to help our family farmers with the difficulties they face.
I offered another amendment that added a number of temporary
bankruptcy judgeships to the bill, actually in line with the
recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
All in all, the eight amendments the committee adopted to the initial
proposal began the process of improving the bill during this Congress.
We worked expeditiously in the Judiciary Committee to accommodate the
interests of the majority leader in having prompt action on this
measure. We did so in spite of the fact that this committee has not
taken the organizational actions necessary to adopt a budget and to
create subcommittees.
I thank the Members on my side of the aisle who have been willing to
make quorums and move forward even though we have yet to organize the
committee.
Last Wednesday, the majority leader said on the Senate floor:

I think the committee needs to be congratulated because the
committee worked yesterday, it worked again today, and it
completed its work. I do not know how many amendments
actually were considered, but they dealt in some way with as
many as 30 amendments and I guess voted on a whole lot of
them.

I thank the majority leader for his kind words about the Judiciary
Committee's consideration of this bill.
The majority leader also stated on the Senate floor last week that he
hoped ``for a full and free debate--amendments will be offered,
considered, and voted on.''
I agree we should have such a full and free debate. It is actually
the best way to proceed. The irony is we have a lot of discussion about
should the Judiciary Committee mark this bill up or not mark it up?
Should we meet on this bill or not meet on this bill? We spent more
time talking about meeting

[[Page S1796]]

on the bill than we actually did when we sat down.
When we sat down and followed the normal process, we considered the
amendments, we voted them up or down and sent the bill to the
floor. The Senate works best when it can openly and freely work its
will on major legislation.

Senators will return tomorrow. If we start voting on this early,
bring up amendments, vote on this early tomorrow, go into the early
evening, do the same on Wednesday, probably into Thursday morning, we
can easily finish this bill so long as we don't interrupt it for other
work.
We made a good start in the Judiciary Committee, but there are some
issues that have to be held to the floor. We did not address the
homestead exemption cap. Certainly that is a huge loophole where
somebody could dump a whole lot of money in a few States into
multimillion-dollar mansions and then declare bankruptcy and hide it
from creditors.
We didn't talk about consumer credit card disclosures. Chairman Hatch
asked that a number of these amendments be reserved for floor action. I
agreed so as to help move this out of committee. But now we are ready
to offer those amendments.
I believe we can craft a balanced bankruptcy reform law that corrects
abuses by debtors and creditors in the current bankruptcy system. For
example, we should provide for more disclosure of information so
consumers may better manage their debts and avoid bankruptcy
altogether. They must have a better idea what it means when they sign
up for a credit card. They ought to have some idea when they are told,
here is the minimum payment for the month. They also ought to have
something saying, if you carry the minimum payment, here is what you
will owe in the end, which may be many times what was paid for the item
in the first place.
I know Senators Levin, Durbin, Schumer, Dodd, and others share a
commitment to include credit industry reforms in a fair and balanced
bankruptcy bill.
Billions of credit card solicitations made to American consumers in
the past few years have contributed to the rise in consumer debt and
bankruptcies, including a 7 or 8 year old receiving a credit card with
a long line of credit, or a dog gets a credit card. Somebody puts their
dog's name on an answer to a letter, and suddenly the dog is getting a
credit card with an approval letter: Dear Mr. Rover Leahy: We are so
impressed with your past credit card we are now giving you a $2,000
credit line.
When it comes to kids in school who can barely get enough money to go
to the movies, credit card companies say: Dear Student: With your great
credit card, here is $2,000, $3,000.
The idea is if you start using it, you get hooked on using that one
credit card. On one side we have people trying to hook kids on drugs;
on the other side, we have credit card companies trying to hook them on
credit cards. In fact, it is estimated that last year credit card
companies mailed 3.3 billion solicitations. In case you wonder why your
mail is late, it is because of the credit card solicitations.
Many of the most controversial proposals for changing this bill are
to benefit the credit card industry. A lot of what is driving the
consideration of this bill is that the credit card industry is going to
get some real big gifts. The biggest gift is to give to the credit card
industry the taxpayer pays for bankruptcy courts and the authority of
the Federal law to help them with the collection practices of these
companies after they have given the credit card to your pet dog or your
kids in school or your aging parent in a nursing home.
Business Week recently reported Dean Witter estimated this bill would
boost the earnings of credit card companies by 5 percent a year. Want
to know about a gift? This bill at present would give credit card
companies alone a 5-percent increase. I would like to become the CEO of
one of those credit card companies, hope the bill passes, and I could
say: Look, our earnings went up.

One credit card company, MBNA, would make in profit--not in earnings,
but in profit--$75 million a year, according to the Business Week
article, if we pass this bill the way it is.
They will make a lot of money. If some of their lobbyists are outside
singing jingle bells, it is not just the snow that shut down the
Washington area this morning that encouraged them; it is this bill. In
fact, it is only fair if the credit card industry is going to get the
profits, they ought to be involved in bankruptcy reform. They ought to
be asked to show how the changes they seek will benefit consumers. If
they are going to make the extra profits, if they are going around
saying it will benefit consumers, let me see the lower interest rates.
Let me see the lower fees.
If this bill passes and gets signed into law, let us all ask the
credit cards, where are the lower fees? Where are the lower interest
rates? Who wants to bet we will see them?
There is no guarantee the billions in credit industry profits are
going to be passed along to the consumers. I happen to agree with
President Bush. He underlined the importance of examining credit
industry practices when discussing the state of America's economy.
President Bush said he will ``remind Members of both the Senate and
the House that there is a lot of debt at the Federal level, but there
is a lot of debt at the private level. We've got a lot of people
struggling to pay off credit card consumer debt.''
I am one Democrat who says President Bush is absolutely right. I
agree with him. I think we ought to tell the credit card companies if
you are going to get a big windfall from the Senate and the House, give
something back to the consumers, and stop trying to hook kids on credit
and credit cards that they can never pay off in their lifetime. Stop
trying to hook them when they are in college, stop trying to hook
parents who are strapped already with more credit cards without telling
them what it will really cost them if they get behind.
Another improvement we should make is to address the problem of
wealthy debtors who use overly broad homestead exemptions to shield
assets from their creditors. Senator Kohl has been a leader on this
issue and a champion for closing down the loophole for the rich.
In some States, wealthy debtors have million-dollar mansions that are
protected from bankruptcy. There has been an abuse of the bankruptcy
fresh start protection. In the last Congress, the Senate
overwhelmingly, Republicans and Democrats, voted to close this loophole
of the bankruptcy code. By a vote of 76-22, the Senate adopted a
bipartisan amendment offered by Senators Kohl and Sessions to cap
homestead exemption at $100,000. But the giveaway bill this year guts
that provision. We have to put it back in. We want to make this law
have a sense of being balanced.
At our hearing in the committee, Brady Williamson, the former chair
of the National Bankruptcy Reform Commission, testified that ending
homestead abuse was a key consensus recommendation of the Bankruptcy
Reform Commission.
I think we should remember as we go through this week what purpose
bankruptcy serves. It is a safety net for many Americans. That is why
it has been here since the beginning of this country. Those who use
bankruptcy are usually the most vulnerable of the American middle
class. They are older Americans who have lost their jobs or are unable
to pay their medical debts. They are women attempting to raise their
families or secure alimony and child support after a divorce. They are
individuals struggling to recover from unemployment.
As we move forward with reforms that are appropriate to eliminating
abuses in the system, we need to remember the people that use the
system, both the debtor and the creditor. We need to balance the
interests of creditors with those of middle-class Americans who need
the opportunity to resolve overwhelming financial burdens.
The last two Congresses proved there are many competing interests in
the bankruptcy reform debate that make it difficult to enact a balanced
and bipartisan bill. By working in a bipartisan fashion from the
beginning of the amendment process to the end, we can craft reforms and
ensure our bankruptcy laws better serve the intended

[[Page S1797]]

goals and correct abuses of the bankruptcy system by debtors and
creditors. That is why I say let the process work through. Bring up
amendments. Some will be adopted; some will not.
Nobody is out here to delay it. We are just trying to make a better
bill. Let's do something about the homestead exemption. Let's do
something about appropriate disclosure to consumers.
Let us make this a better bill and then send something to the
President that he can be proud to sign, knowing it is consistent with
what he said about a lot of people struggling to pay off credit card
debt. The President will know that we have done something consistent
with what he said just in the last couple of days.
I will work with Senator Hatch and my good friend, Senator Grassley
from Iowa, to make more improvements on the Senate floor. Let's reach a
bipartisan consensus that can be enacted into law. Let's do it in the
next couple of days. Let's work on this. Let's start voting early
tomorrow on it and let's wrap it up. Let's not go off this until we
finish. If we do that, we can complete our work.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, for the last hour or so we have been
privileged to hear comments from Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy who
discussed the debate of the bankruptcy reform legislation, which took
place in the Judiciary Committee over the last several weeks. We now
have the opportunity, today and tomorrow, to begin amending the
bankruptcy reform legislation that was vetoed by President Clinton last
year.
I wish to express my own appreciation to both Democrats and
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee for letting the process work,
and for moving the process forward.
I especially thank Senator Schumer and Senator Hatch for working out
a compromise on those who would use bankruptcy as a way to avoid their
responsibilities; or for those who have brought action against family
planning clinics, or, frankly, any act of violence, intimidation or
threat.
I am appreciative of Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch for the work
they have done in trying to make sure that consumer privacy protections
are provided in this legislation.
The history of bankruptcy is known by many people. For much of the
last century, individuals and businesses have been able to seek
protection through bankruptcy in order to put their lives back
together, or their businesses back together. Several chapters that
exist for bankruptcy are designed to provide a place for consumers to
find relief.
In the last decade we have witnessed some of the strongest economic
expansion in our country's history--the longest economic expansion in
our Nation's history--yet during the 1990s we have seen an alarming
increase in the number of people filing for bankruptcy.
Not all of those people who filed for bankruptcy had any other
recourse. In fact, the lion's share of the people who filed for
bankruptcy last year--or the year before that and the year before
that--were folks who were up against the wall. They needed a way out
and for them bankruptcy was that way out.

There are people who lost their jobs; people whose family suffered
illnesses; maybe catastrophic illnesses; or marriages that were
dissolved; or relationships that came to an end. And because of those
situations and others like them, those families need the protection of
bankruptcy.
Not everyone who files for bankruptcy needs the protection afforded
them in chapter 7. For some who file, chapter 7 is not the appropriate
venue, because they have the ability to pay at least a portion of their
debt. If an individual can repay some of their debt, they should
instead file under chapter 13.
The challenge that the committees in the Senate and House faced last
year was to try to figure out a fair way to determine who indeed had
the ability to pay something of their debts and who did not.
Among the other reasons why we need reform--it has been alluded to
before, and I will touch on it briefly--is that under current
bankruptcy law those who have an obligation to pay child support, or
those who have an obligation to make alimony payments, in many cases
find those priorities low on their list. And, frankly, they are pretty
low on the list of the bankruptcy laws of our land. We need to do
something about that. This legislation would. It would raise the
priority of child support payments and alimony payments as well.
Currently those who have those kinds of obligations to their
children, or to a former spouse, also have to try to use something
called the automatic stay as a way to avoid meeting those obligations
while their bankruptcy case winds its way through court, and sometimes
this can be a long period of time. This legislation would end the
automatic stay for child support and alimony payments, making sure
individuals are responsible for these personal obligations.
State and local governments are affected as well. As former Governor
of Delaware, and former chairman of the National Governors'
Association, one of the reasons why the National Governors' Association
supported bankruptcy reform was to make sure individuals who had the
ability to pay some of their State and local taxes were called upon to
do that where it was reasonable. This legislation would do that.
In the end, when people who have the ability to pay, do not pay and
walk away from those debts, the rest of us end up paying the costs of
their bankruptcy. Businesses and creditors have to swallow the debt.
Then, those of us who borrow money--whether it is for a house, or for a
car, or for credit card purchases--in the end we pay more than we
really ought to. This is not fair to the majority of us who pay our
bills.
I have only been in the Senate for about 2 months. One of the
comments I have heard most frequently is the old adage ``don't let the
perfect be the enemy of the good.'' My guess is we are going to hear
that a lot on the Senate floor this week. I will be the first to say
it.
This bill represents in many respects so much that is needed. The
changes don't do everything I would like. I will mention a couple of
concerns that I have.
I think it was Senator Leahy who spoke a few moments ago about the
credit card applications that come to our children.
In some cases rather young children, even to our pets. I think he
referred to Rover, Rover Leahy. I do not know if his dog actually did
get a credit card application. I would just say we get a lot of mail in
our home. I am sure we all do. We probably get more credit card
solicitations than we would like. But we simply throw them away if we
are not interested.
If credit card issuers or, frankly, others who are extending credit
are so foolish as to extend credit to a pet or to a child, who does not
have the ability to repay that obligation, that is a poor underwriting
decision by the extender of the credit. And they deserve, in the end,
what they will get. It is issued probably to someone who either maybe
will not use it, or if they do use it, it is perhaps not with the
intent of ever paying that obligation.
For the real person who is actually extended the credit card under
those circumstances, under this bill, if they do not have the ability
to pay, if, indeed, their income is under a median family income, they
have a safe harbor. If they have to declare bankruptcy, they will
continue to have the ability to file under chapter 7 and will not have
to pay that obligation.
Senator Leahy also mentioned the issue of disclosure. We get our
credit card statements whenever they come. There is a statement on the
credit card that says: If you pay your minimum monthly amount that is
due, you can do so and not incur any kind of penalty. The credit card
does not say how long it is going to take you to actually pay off your
credit card bill if you only pay the minimum.

[[Page S1798]]

I wish there was some way to address that in a way that does not put
the extender, the creditor, in harm's way with respect to class action
lawsuits. This is a difficult situation.
The bill that is before us this week does provide an example to those
of us who are consumers and explains that if we only pay the minimum
payment, it may take an extended period of time to pay our credit card
bill. It actually uses an example, as I understand it. Creditors, in
this case, issuers of a credit card, are to provide on the statement an
example that if this is how much you owe, and you pay your minimum
payment--and this is the interest rate--this is how long it will take
you to actually pay down your obligation. They actually offer a 1-800
number that someone can call to say: ``My debt is $800. That is what my
statement says. My minimum payment is $20 a month. How long will it
take me to pay it off?'' We can get an answer by calling the 1-800
number.
I wish we had the ability to put a close estimate of what the debt
would cost a consumer, and how long it would take to pay off, right on
the credit card statement. I am told the reason why the bill out of
committee does not do that is because of concerns about class action
lawsuits. That is a legitimate concern but, for me, the solution is not
a perfect one.
The other issue I wish we could address is the homestead exemption. I
understand Senator Kohl may try to address this issue this week. People
roll up big debts and then go to a State that has a large homestead
exemption, and they put a lot of money, a lot of assets therein, for
example, a very expensive home--a quarter of a million dollars, half a
million dollars, or million-dollar home--and then walk away from their
other obligations and use that estate, that homestead to protect their
assets.
I understand Senator Kohl is going to offer an amendment that makes
this practice somewhat more difficult to do. I welcome that provision.
But most of the people who file for bankruptcy are not folks who seek
to try to stiff credit card or financial institutions or department
stores or anyone else. They are people who are left with little other
choice. As I said earlier, they have been dealt, in many cases, a
difficult or maybe a crippling blow in their lives. More than 90
percent of the people who file for bankruptcy actually need the
protection of the laws, and fewer than 10 percent actually have the
ability to pay something back.
But of those people who do have the ability to pay something back, I
believe--and I suspect almost all of us believe--that they should repay
at least a portion of their debts. I don't care if it is only 5 percent
of the people who file who have the ability to pay something back--or 4
percent or 3 percent--if they have the ability, they should make that
effort. We should expect that of them and of ourselves.
A major challenge the committee has faced, and the Congress has
faced, in trying to craft an appropriate balance--weighing the concerns
and rights of consumers versus those who extend the credit--is in
relation to the tough questions that we have dealt with, such as how do
you actually determine the ability to repay? We all come from different
family circumstances in terms of employment, marital status, and
illness. How do we determine who has the ability to repay? The
committee, to its credit, has provided for a safe harbor, essentially
to say people whose median family income falls below that of 100
percent of the median family income with respect to their State, they
would automatically have a safe harbor. They could file for bankruptcy
in chapter 7, and they basically get a free pass.
What is 100 percent of median family income? I think for a family of
four in Delaware, it is about $45,000 a year. I think in Maryland, it
is about $50,000 a year; and in Alabama, it is perhaps $35,000 a year.
For those whose family income is between 100 percent of median family
income and 150 percent of median family income, they would receive, not
a complete pass, but a rather cursory review to see if they would not
also qualify for that safe harbor.
So we are talking about, in Maryland, for example, those whose income
is between $50,000 and $75,000 would be below the 150-percent
threshold, and I think would, for the most part, after an expedited
review, have the right to file under chapter 7.
I think it is appropriate to ask, for one who files for bankruptcy,
what kind of expenses are factored in when determining whether or not a
person has the ability to pay? We get beyond these thresholds of 100
percent of median family income, 150 percent of median family income.
Is anything else taken into account? As it turns out, a number of
payments are. And they are the kind of payments we would expect for
people to be able to hold their households together and be able to
work.
For example, a person who is asking to file under chapter 7, as
opposed to chapter 13, if their income exceeds those thresholds of 100
percent or 150 percent of median family income, they could present
documentation to the bankruptcy court indicating how much their housing
costs, their rent or mortgage payments are. If they have car payments,
those would be appropriate, as well as would education expenses,
clothing, and food allowances. Judges are given discretion to address
special needs as well, including medical costs.
Let me close by saying Senator Leahy, in his comments, talked about
how many credit card solicitations are mailed out every year. I think
he indicated the number is over 3 billion. That is a lot of mail. I
would just remind everyone, as those credit card solicitations come
into our mail boxes, of course, we do not have to take advantage of all
of them. When I drive down the road in Delaware, and I go by an ice
cream store or a doughnut shop, as much as I might be tempted to pull
in and sample their wares, I do not always do that. We have to show
some personal discretion regardless of how tempting those treats might
be.

But if financial institutions actually do make money, and if their
bottom lines are enhanced to some extent by the adoption of this
legislation, my guess is, in the end, they all do not keep that money.
My guess is, in the end, if you think about the competition--and it is
a dog-eat-dog world these days in the credit card business--if I do not
like the interest payment that comes with my credit card, I can find
dozens of other issuers with a lower rate. If I do not like the monthly
fee that I am asked to pay, I can find dozens of other issuers with
lower monthly fees.
I would simply suggest the competitive nature of the business,
including the credit card business, is such that for those issuers of
credit cards who do not pass along some of those savings to consumers,
then their competitors will. If competitors lower their interest rates
and reduce or eliminate their monthly fees, those of us who are
consumers will move off to take advantage of their lower interest rates
and lower fees.
Let me conclude with these comments. I am glad we are at this point
in the debate. I look forward to the debate over the next several days.
I am very pleased we are going to have this debate. And those who have
amendments, if they want to offer them, will have the opportunity to do
so. We will debate them, and vote on them, and then vote on final
passage.
I hope the amendments make the bill even a little better than it is
today. I think it is better today than it was going into the committee
a week or so ago. I am pleased to participate in the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, bankruptcy judges, scholars,
practitioners, labor unions, consumer advocacy organizations, and civil
rights groups have uniformly rejected the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001
because its harsh and excessive provisions will have a devastating
effect on working families.
Despite their words of warning, two of the most profitable industries
in America--the credit card industry and the banking industry--have
insisted upon a harsh bill that will fatten their bottom line while
unfairly penalizing vulnerable Americans.
While we do need to pass a bill to reduce the fraud and abuse within
the bankruptcy system, this bill will not accomplish that goal. This
bill will hurt women, children, and hard-working American families,
those who truly need the bankruptcy system to prevent unintended
financial hardship.

[[Page S1799]]

This is no time to pass such harsh legislation. For weeks, President
Bush has warned the Nation about the perils of an economic downturn.
Pointing toward layoffs and rising unemployment, decreasing consumer
confidence, and minimal economic growth, President Bush is urging
Congress to act to strengthen the economy. But punitive bankruptcy
reform legislation does not fall into that category. Now more than
ever, we need to ensure that Americans losing their jobs or struggling
with medical debt have the second chance for economic security that the
bankruptcy laws are intended to provide. It makes no sense to pull the
rug out from under them, just as the economy is weakening.
We need to separate the myths from the facts--and focus on the real
winners and losers under the proposed legislation. By any fair
analysis, this bankruptcy bill is the credit industry's wish list, a
blatant effort to increase its profits at the expense of working
families.
We know the circumstances and market forces that often push middle
class Americans into bankruptcy.
Rising unemployment and company layoffs are major parts of the
problem. In recent months, the slowing economy has caused a noticeable
jump in the national unemployment rate. It rose to 4.2 percent in
January, the highest level in 16 months. The slowing economy has also
triggered massive layoffs. Within the past weeks, Verizon announced its
plan to cut approximately 10,000 jobs, and Daimler Chrysler announced
it would drastically cut its workforce by eliminating 26,000 jobs over
the next three years. Xerox plans to eliminate 800 jobs on top of the
5,200 cut last Fall. Telecommunications giant World Com reported plans
to lay off up to 15 percent of its workforce, a loss of 11,500 jobs.
Sara Lee plans to lay off 7,000 employees. AOL-Time Warner wants to cut
2,000 jobs. Lucent Technologies plans to eliminate 10,000 workers. The
layoffs go on and on. Overall, companies have announced plans to lay
off close to 70,000 workers--and the year has just begun.
Often, when workers lose their current good jobs, they are unable to
recover. In a February 2000 survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics that approximately one-fourth of workers displaced from
full-time wage and salary jobs received earnings substantially lower
than what they had received before they lost their jobs. It is all too
common for laid-off workers to be forced to accept part-time jobs,
temporary jobs, or jobs with fewer or no benefits at all.
Divorce is another major cause of bankruptcy. Divorce rates have
soared in recent decades, and the financial consequences are
particularly devastating for women. Divorced women are four times more
likely to file for bankruptcy than married women or single men. In
1999, 540,000 women who head their own households filed for bankruptcy
to try to stabilize their lives; 200,000 of them were also creditors
trying to collect child support or alimony. The rest were debtors
struggling to make ends meet.
Another major factor in bankruptcy is the high cost of health care.
Forty-three million Americans have no health insurance, and many more
are underinsured. Each year, millions of families spend more than 20
percent of their income on medical care. Older Americans are hit
particularly hard. A 1998 CRS Report states that even though Medicare
provides generally good health coverage for older Americans, half of
this age group spend 14 percent or more of their after-tax income on
out-of-pocket health costs, including insurance premiums, co-payments
and prescription drugs.
A report published in Norton's Bankruptcy Adviser says:

The data reported here serve as a reminder that self-
funding medical treatment and loss of income during a bout of
illness or recovery from an accident make a substantial
number of middle class families vulnerable to financial
collapse. For middle class people, there is little government
help, so that when private insurance is inadequate,
bankruptcy serves by default as a means for dealing with the
financial consequences of a serious medical problem.

These are the desperate individuals and families from whom the credit
card industry believes it can squeeze higher profits. The industry
claims that these men and women are cheating and abusing the bankruptcy
system, and are irresponsibly using their credit cards to live in a
luxury they cannot afford.
These Americans are not cheats and frauds, but they do constitute the
vast number of Americans in bankruptcy. Two out of every three
bankruptcy filers have an employment problem. Two out of every five
bankruptcy filers have a health care problem. Divorced or separated
people are three times more likely than married couples to file for
bankruptcy. Working men and women in economic free fall often have no
choice except bankruptcy. Yet, the credit card industry is determined
to deny them the safety net they need.
There is no doubt that large numbers of Americans will be harmed by
this legislation. They do the right thing and play by the rules. They
work hard and try to provide for their children. But sometimes,
unexpected tragedy strikes, and nothing can prepare them for the
financial difficulties they will encounter.
The Trapp family of Plantation, FL is one of these families. They are
not wealthy cheats trying to escape from their financial
responsibilities. They are a middle class family engulfed in debt,
because of circumstances beyond their control.
Mr. and Mrs. Trapp worked as letter carriers for 12 years. Both
worked before and after their three children were born. They had a good
life, but an unexpected medical obstacle occurred. Their 4 year old
daughter, Annelise, contracted a muscle disease that is similar to a
very rare form of Muscular Dystrophy. Her muscles are very weak. She
needs a respirator to breathe, and she also needs constant nursing
care.
The Trapps had good health insurance through the United States Postal
Service. But even with this comprehensive coverage, Annelise's medical
expenses left the family with massive debts. Their insurance has paid
millions of dollars, but the Trapps' portion of the bills was still
$124,000. This debt combined with $26,000 owed on a specially
manufactured van to accommodate Annelise made it impossible for the
family to meet its financial obligations. They were forced to declare
bankruptcy.
Proponents of the bill argue that the Trapp family would not be
affected by the means test, because their current income is below the
State median income. That is not true. Before Mrs. Trapp left her job,
the family's annual income was $83,000 a year or $6,900 a month. Under
the bill, the Trapp family's previous six months' income would be
averaged, so that they would have an average monthly income of about
$6,200--above the State median --even though their actual monthly gross
income at the time of filing was $4,800.
Based upon the fictitious income assumed by the legislation, the
Trapp family would be subject to the means test. And the means test
formula--using the IRS standards--assumes that the Trapps have the
ability to repay more than their actual income would allow.
This harsh legislation is an undeserved windfall for one of the most
profitable and powerful industries in America. Credit card companies
are engaged in massive and unseemly nationwide campaigns to hook
unsuspecting citizens; like the elderly, college students, and the
working poor, on credit card debt. In 1999 alone, Americans received 3
billion--3 billion--credit card solicitations. That's more than three
times the 900 million mailings they received in 1992.
The average American household is carrying $7,500 worth of debt, 150
percent higher than a decade ago. A major cause of the problem is that
the cost of credit has gone up, and credit card companies are
bolstering their profits through heavy penalties and aggressive
collection practices. Credit card companies are also targeting
marketing campaigns at those who cannot afford to pile up such debts.
Instead of helping these individuals recover from their debts, the
industry is supporting legislation that will only drive them deeper
into financial despair.
Supporters of the bill argue that it is not a pro-credit card
industry bill. But, to deal effectively and comprehensively with the
problem of bankruptcy, we have to deal with the problem of debt. We
must see that the credit card industry does not abandon fair lending
policies to fatten its bottom line, or ask Congress to become the
collector for its unpaid credit card bills.

[[Page S1800]]

The industry and congressional supporters of the bill attempt to
argue that the bankruptcy bill will help, not hurt, women and children.
But that is false and misleading.
Proponents of the bill praise the alimony and child support
provisions. They say that these provisions will make child support and
alimony payments the number one priority in bankruptcy. But this
rhetoric masks the complexity of the bankruptcy system. When taken
individually, some of these provisions are positive steps towards
helping women and children collect the support to which they are
entitled. However, they do not address the main problem created by the
bankruptcy bill.
Thirty-one organizations that support women and children have said,
``Some improvements were made in the domestic support provisions . . .
However, even the revised provisions fail to solve the problems created
by the rest of the bill, which gives many other creditors greater
claims--both during and after bankruptcy--than they have under current
law.'' It is obvious that if this bankruptcy legislation is enacted,
women and children will be the ultimate losers in the process.
It is true that the pending legislation moves support payments to
first priority in the bankruptcy code. But the first priority ranking
only matters in the limited number of cases in which the debtor
actually has assets to distribute to a creditor. As 116 professors of
bankruptcy and commercial law have stated:

Granting ``first priority'' to alimony and support claims
is not the major solution the consumer credit industry
claims, because ``priority'' is relevant only for
distributions made to creditors in the bankruptcy case
itself. Such distributions are made in only a negligible
percentage of cases. More than 95 percent of bankruptcy cases
make NO distributions to any creditors because there are no
assets to distribute. Granting women and children first
priority for bankruptcy distributions permits them to stand
first in line to collect nothing.

Beyond the false rhetoric claiming that women and children receive
``first priority'' lies an ugly truth--in many instances, women and
children will be last in line. Under current law, an ex-wife trying to
collect support has special protection. But under the pending bill,
more debt is created that cannot be discharged after bankruptcy--credit
card debt. This step will certainly create intense competition for the
former husband's limited income. Under current law, he can use his
post-bankruptcy income to meet his basic responsibilities, including
his student loans, his tax liability, and his support payments to his
former wife and children. But if this bill becomes law, one of his so-
called ``basic'' responsibilities will be a new one--to Visa and
Mastercard. We all know what happens when women and children are forced
to compete for these scare resources with these sophisticated lenders--
they lose!
Although many of the new domestic support provisions are helpful,
they don't solve the problem created by this bill--and some of those
provisions undermine the ability of women to collect support payments.
Under the bill, a prerequisite to Chapter 13 approval is the payment of
support claims. The goal is worthwhile, but other provisions in this
bill will drain debtors of available funds and prevent them from
meeting the requirements of a Chapter 13 plan and from making child
support payments. If there is not enough money to cover all
obligations, including the new obligations created by this bill, more
Chapter 13 plans will fail, making the provision worthless and making
it less likely that women and children will get the support they
deserve.

This legislation not only unfairly targets middle class and poor
families--it also leaves flagrant abuses in place. Any credible
bankruptcy reform bill must include a homestead provision without
loopholes for the wealthy.
The pending bill does include a half-hearted loophole-filled
homestead provision. However, it will do very little to eliminate
fraud. With a little planning--or in some cases, no planning at all--
wealthy debtors will be able to hide millions of dollars in assets from
their creditors. For example, Allen Smith of Delaware--a State with no
homestead exemption--and James Villa of Florida--a State with an
unlimited homestead exemption--were treated very differently by the
bankruptcy system. After trying desperately to make ends meet in the
midst of financial distress, Allen Smith eventually lost his home.
However, James Villa was able to hide $1.4 million from his creditors
by purchasing a luxury mansion in Florida which he was able to keep
after bankruptcy.
Last year, the Senate passed the Sessions-Kohl homestead amendment
which corrected this abuse of the bankruptcy system. But that provision
is not in this bill. Surely, a bill designed to end fraud and abuse
should include a loophole-free homestead provision.
For any bankruptcy reform to be effective, the homestead loophole
must be closed permanently. It should not be left open just for the
wealthy. Yet the bill's supporters refuse to fight for such a
responsible provision with the same intensity they are fighting for the
credit card industry's wish list, and fighting against women, against
the sick, against laid-off workers, and against other individuals and
families who will have no safety net if this unjust bill passes.
Proponents of the bill also argue that it will help small businesses.
This is another credit card industry myth.
This bankruptcy reform bill is not based on any serious business
need. In fact, its overhaul of Chapter 11 will hurt, not help, small
businesses. Chapter 11 was enacted to serve the interests of business
debtors, creditors, and other constituencies affected by business
failures--particularly employees. A principal goal of Chapter 11 is to
encourage business reorganization in order to preserve jobs. Supporters
of the bill ride roughshod over this important goal. They create more
hurdles, additional costs, and a rigid, inflexible structure for small
businesses in bankruptcy. As a result, fewer small business creditors
will be paid, and more jobs will be lost.
It is a travesty that hard-working American families will be the
victims of bankruptcy reform. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said it
well:

This bill punishes working families who need protection
from financial distress--distress all too often the result of
the terrible financial burden of catastrophic illness or
other personal tragedies. It threatens jobs in financially
distressed companies, all while it carefully protects abuses
of the bankruptcy system that benefit the rich--abuses like
the homestead exemption.

I agree with John Sweeney and the scores of labor, consumer,
religious, and civil rights groups who oppose this bill. It is clear
that the bill before us is designed to increase the profits of the
credit card industry at the expense of working families. If the bill
becomes law, the effects will be devastating, and I urge my colleagues
to reject it.
Mr. President, I want to take a few moments of the Senate's time to
go through these charts and illustrate some of the points I mentioned
in my earlier statement. This chart represents why Americans file for
bankruptcy.
Medical problems, or substantial medical debt, are the reasons for 45
percent of bankruptcy filings. Job problems are 68.9 percent,
effectively 70 percent. Those reasons taken together--job and medical
problems--amount to 75 percent of all bankruptcies.
This obviously is accelerated. For what reasons? One reason is the
increasing softness of the economy at the current time and the
increasing number of unemployed, particularly with many mergers leading
to dramatic changes in income over a relatively short period of time.
Another reason is the increasing number of Americans who do not have
health insurance and, correspondingly, the increasing amount being paid
for prescription drugs. If one looks behind these figures with
reference to medical problems, one will find most of them are older
workers in their fifties, prior to the time they are eligible for
Medicare.
The total number of Americans who are uninsured is increasing. All of
that is related to the increasing number of layoffs. The increasing
number of uninsured and the increasing costs of prescription drugs are
reflected in this figure.
Let's look at the remaining approximately 25 percent. Basically, the
other 25 percent are women who are single, women involved in divorce.
If we look over this chart, we see that in 1981--red representing joint
bankruptcies, yellow the men, and blue the women--single women were
third, behind joint filers

[[Page S1801]]

and less than men. Joint bankruptcies continued. The women passed the
men in 1991. In 1999, the women were No. 1. They came from being third,
virtually about one-fifth of the total, to now being almost half the
total.
Who are these individuals? Who are these women? These are women who
have not been able to claim their alimony. A great percentage of these
are women who are unable to get child support to which they are
entitled. What happens to them? They end up in bankruptcy.
Then we find out how the new provisions in this bill treat them. They
treat them much more harshly. I'm not the only one saying it, although
I have repeated it. Virtually every single group that is an advocate
for children, women, or workers agrees, let alone the bankruptcy
professionals involved in this. That is what this bill is about.
I have a list of those groups that are strongly opposed to it. The
various women's groups include: National Women's Law Center, National
Partnership for Women and Families, Children's Defense Fund, American
Association of University Women, Church Women United, Coalition of
Labor Union Women, National Center for Youth Law, Center for Child Care
Workforce, the YMCA, and Children NOW. The labor groups include: The
AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America, United Steelworkers of
America, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the list goes on.
Other key groups include: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Religious Action
Center, Alliance of Retired Americans, and National Senior Citizens Law
Center.
This is just part of the list of groups whose prime responsibility is
representing vulnerable children. That is the purpose of the Children's
Defense Fund. The other organizations protect women in our society from
the harshness of legislation and from the inequities of the workplace.
All of them are universally against this legislation because they find
it puts a harsh burden on children, women, workers, and on those who
have experienced a significant increase in their medical bills. That is
what is happening. This is a profile of those individuals who are going
into bankruptcy.
Generally at the end of the day around here, we look at pieces of
legislation and ask on the one hand, who benefits and on the other, who
pays. It is not a bad way of looking over legislation. If we had more
of that around here and we looked out for average working families, we
would come to some rather different conclusions. We certainly would on
this one because virtually the entire bankruptcy bar, those professors
who are teaching in law schools in the North, South, East, and West, as
well as judges, have come to the same conclusions.

Members of the Judiciary Committee have reviewed it as a result of
the hearings. Advocates of the various groups have been out there time
and time again. One might find fault with one particular group, but
virtually all the groups that represent children and workers are
opposed to this legislation because of its unfairness.
Those who will benefit are the credit card industry and the banks,
make no mistake about it. That is enormously interesting to me, as
someone who is the prime sponsor of the minimum wage. We can find time
for consideration of the bankruptcy bill; yet we do not have time to
look at an increase in the minimum wage for hard-working Americans. We
cannot find time to schedule that, but we can find time to consider
legislation that is going to benefit some of the wealthiest and most
powerful companies and corporations in America. Make no mistake about
it, that is what this legislation is about.
As this institution and its leadership is about choices, make no
mistake what the choice is. The choice is to look after the interest of
the credit card companies and the banks. That is first. It is early
March, and that is where we are. I hope the American people are aware
of this legislation and its implications.

____________________