[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 32 (Monday, March 12, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2153-S2159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT OF 2001--Continued
amendment No. 29 as Modified
Mr. DOMENICI. Now let's get down to tomorrow afternoon and vote
because on the bankruptcy bill, the distinguished Senator, Mr. Kent
Conrad, ranking member, put an amendment on with reference to the
Medicare trust fund and the Medicare program. This is side by side.
There will be another amendment offered by Senator Sessions. I believe
my staff helped put it together. I was in another meeting. Senator
Sessions introduced it. I want everybody to know it is, indeed, what I
would recommend.
I would like very much tomorrow to make sure all Senators understand
that we helped prepare it and are very pleased Senator Sessions was on
the floor. We will call it the Sessions-Domenici amendment. I want
everyone to know, just as a matter of fairness to the distinguished
Senator on the Democrat side, Mr. Kent Conrad, that, in fact, the point
of order will be raised. It is not being raised now, but I believe a
point of order will be agreed to. That amendment will take 60 votes.
Obviously, on the Sessions-Domenici amendment, it is 60 votes. The
Democrat amendment hasn't changed that much. The point of order
wouldn't lie against ours, but on ours it would be subject to the same.
I hope the bankruptcy bill will pass--either of them--because they do
not belong on the bankruptcy bill.
But, first, let me emphasize that President Bush has made it very
clear--I am not quoting, I am paraphrasing--no moneys from the Medicare
trust fund will be spent on anything other than Medicare. He said that.
He has had various Members testify. There have been serious questions
made of the Secretary of Health and Human Services about this trust
fund concept that is being raised by Senator Kent Conrad's amendment.
I asked him clearly: Did the President change his mind? Is there
anything new?
No. It is just what it was, and now he looked at hundreds of millions
of Americans and said none of the Medicare trust fund money will be
used for anything other than Medicare.
As everybody knows, I don't have any intention of bringing a budget
resolution to the floor that spends any Medicare money, or on anything
other than Medicare. As a matter of fact, Medicare will be fully
funded, as it is by the President of the United States.
Having said that, we should be clear on one thing: The Conrad
amendment is not about protecting Medicare. That amendment is about
using scare tactics to prevent a tax cut. That always happens every
time we have something significant where we say, let's give the
American people back some of their money, or even better, let's not
even collect it. Let's leave it with them, never bring it up here so we
have to cut taxes; just let them keep it.
Every time that happens, it becomes obvious the arguments against it
wilt; they are not strong enough. So along comes the typical argument:
The Republicans and the President must be doing something about
Medicare, something to harm it, hurt it.
The American people, in the last election, did not buy that argument
because seniors, it seems like from at least what little we know, voted
for George Bush in pretty large numbers. They did not believe the scare
tactics that the Social Security trust fund was going to be harmed by
the President's idea in relation to the individual accounts. They did
not believe the idea that Medicare was going to be hurt.
The same thing here. Senator Conrad has taken out the traditional
tactic, and now he is making it an early issue with reference to the
budget by trying to attach it here on a bankruptcy bill that is moving
through the Senate, and because it is the third or fourth time we have
considered it, it has to get passed.
As I see it, things are certainly not going the way of those on the
other side of the aisle. The President has proposed returning a small
portion of the non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus to the
American taxpayers, and the momentum is moving with the President. On
the chart I have here, that is this small red amount that he has
proposed we give back to the American people, or never collect from
them.
But some on the other side are happy to still be against this
President's tax proposal. So out comes the Medicare card, and suddenly
it becomes a question of tax cuts versus Medicare. But Senator Breaux,
from the other side of the aisle, was correct when he said:
Medicare must not be used as a wedge issue any longer. The
question before this Congress is not whether to cut taxes or
whether to save Medicare. That's not the choice we're facing.
The choice is something different than that. And he continued:
I support a tax cut, targeted, and I'm dedicated to saving
Medicare. It's not an either/or proposition.
Now, that is a true statement, whether or not you choose to have a
targeted tax cut or the President's notion--and the notion I support--
of cutting everybody's income tax rate as described here on the chart.
The Breaux statement is:
I support a tax cut, targeted, and I'm dedicated to saving
Medicare. It's not an either/or proposition.
[[Page S2154]]
Frankly, the amendment I am talking about really attempts to make it
an either/or proposition.
I know for seniors, and for those who are worried about the seniors'
futures, and making sure we take care of Medicare, this business of
Part A and Part B is not nice to talk about, but the Part A part of
Medicare is essentially the hospital care program of Medicare; it is
the hospital care part. The assets of that trust fund are depleted in
2026. At that point, Part A of Medicare will start running an overall
deficit.
As we look at the entire Medicare program, instead of just Part A,
what is the rest of it? The rest of it, Part B, are all the other
services that many senior citizens get under the collar and title of
Medicare. All of those programs are Part B, except essentially the
hospital ones which are hospital bills and are Part A.
So if we look at this program instead of just Part A, we see that
Medicare is already running a deficit. Let's look at it. There is a $58
billion total Medicare deficit--$58 billion--in the year 2002. Very
simple. It is shown right there on the graph. There will be a nearly $1
trillion Medicare deficit over the next 10 years. It is shown right
there on the graph.
So what do we need to do? Everybody knows what we have to do. We have
to reform Medicare, not just shuffle money around. We have to reform
it. But this amendment I am talking about, that I oppose, will make
reforming Medicare more difficult.
The amendment wants to take half the Medicare program off budget
while leaving the other half on budget. How can we reform a program
that is half on budget and half off budget when we need to reform the
whole package?
I want to point out, the amendment is not the same one that was
offered last session by the same Senator. Under his current amendment,
the Part A surplus cannot be reduced for any reason, even for
additional Part A spending. At least last year, his similar amendment
would allow Part A surpluses to be spent on Part A Medicare expenses.
So while President Bush has promised that Medicare funds will be
spent only on Medicare, the amendment I am opposing does not allow
Medicare funds spent at all, even for Medicare. They are off budget.
And I assume they are expecting us to use all of them to buy down debt.
Now, maybe I am mistaken, but that is the way I read it.
We believe, if we are reducing the deficit of the United States by $2
trillion, as the budget resolution and the President request, which is
what we are doing--we are going to leave $1.2 trillion there for
remaining debt--that you cannot reduce the debt any more. What are you
going to do with this Medicare trust fund taking it off budget? Where
are you going to invest it?
It seems to me we have to invent a whole new way to permit it to be
invested. Frankly, I do not know what that would be. And I do not think
that helps. I do not think that helps save the Medicare program.
I want to show my colleagues, on this graph, the red is income to the
trust fund, the green is spending, and the blue is assets. Look at
this. Look what has happened. The trust fund will be depleted by the
year 2026. Spending will exceed income plus interest in 2018. And
spending will exceed income in 2010.
But if you were to adopt the Conrad amendment, ``spending exceeding
income plus interest'' would not be changed one nickel. And the year
2026 event would not change at all. So what is the purpose of this? I
believe it is to attempt to frustrate our ability to give back to the
American people $1.6 trillion, which I have just alluded to and have
shown you in the previous chart, which ought to be done.
Tomorrow, we will have another opportunity to discuss this. I am not
clamoring to adopt, unless the Senate really wants to, the Sessions-
Domenici amendment, but it was actually passed by the House by an
overwhelming margin. It permits you to reform Medicare. It permits you
to do the proposal that we want to do with reference to prescription
drugs. It permits that to occur. And if, in fact, the reform is within
that Medicare fund, it is OK to be there. Under the Conrad amendment
you could do neither of those things with this trust fund, which I do
not think the Senate really wants to do. We will have a chance to refer
to it further tomorrow.
I point out that the amendment Senator Conrad has offered is not the
same as the one he offered in the last session. Under his current
amendment, the Part A surpluses cannot be reduced for any reason--even
for additional Part A spending.
At least last year, Senator Conrad would allow Part A surpluses to be
spent on Part A Medicare expenses.
So while President Bush has promised that Medicare funds will be
spent only for Medicare, Senator Conrad doesn't want Medicare funds
spent at all, even for Medicare.
This amendment will also encourage more of the accounting gimmicks we
have seen in the past. We are all aware that the current Part A
surpluses were generated because we shifted home health services from
Part A to Part B back in 1997.
This change did nothing to improve the overall state of the Medicare
program--it just made Part A look better.
So let's not be lulled into a false state of complacency in thinking
that playing political games with the Medicare trust fund will in any
way protect Medicare.
Only reform of the program can truly protect Medicare for future
generations.
Senator Conrad claims that his amendment is the fiscally responsible
thing to do. But in fact, the fiscally responsible thing to do is to
reform the entire Medicare program.
Senator Conrad's amendment will set back the cause of reform by
splitting Medicare permanently in two.
If Senators truly care about Medicare reform and they believe, as I
do, that the time has come to take serious action to save this program
for the future, then they should not support Senator Conrad's
amendment.
Once again, I say to my friend, and ranking member, Senator Conrad, a
point of order will be made tomorrow in a timely manner. Obviously, we
will do that when somebody is around on the other side of the aisle so
they can ask that it be waived and we can vote on it. There will be a
60-vote requirement.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grassley). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 16
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 16, which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator may proceed
with her amendment. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment
numbered 16.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for family fishermen)
At the appropriate place insert the following:
SEC. ____. FAMILY FISHERMEN.
(a) Definitions.--Section 101 of title 11, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
``(7A) `commercial fishing operation' includes--
``(A) the catching or harvesting of fish, shrimp, lobsters,
urchins, seaweed, shellfish, or other aquatic species or
products;
``(B) for purposes of section 109 and chapter 12,
aquaculture activities consisting of raising for market any
species or product described in subparagraph (A); and
``(C) the transporting by vessel of a passenger for hire
(as defined in section 2101 of title 46) who is engaged in
recreational fishing;
``(7B) `commercial fishing vessel' means a vessel used by a
fisherman to carry out a commercial fishing operation;'';
(2) by inserting after paragraph (19) the following:
``(19A) `family fisherman' means--
``(A) an individual or individual and spouse engaged in a
commercial fishing operation
[[Page S2155]]
(including aquaculture for purposes of chapter 12)--
``(i) whose aggregate debts do not exceed $1,500,000 and
not less than 80 percent of whose aggregate noncontingent,
liquidated debts (excluding a debt for the principal
residence of such individual or such individual and spouse,
unless such debt arises out of a commercial fishing
operation), on the date the case is filed, arise out of a
commercial fishing operation owned or operated by such
individual or such individual and spouse; and
``(ii) who receive from such commercial fishing operation
more than 50 percent of such individual's or such
individual's and spouse's gross income for the taxable year
preceding the taxable year in which the case concerning such
individual or such individual and spouse was filed; or
``(B) a corporation or partnership--
``(i) in which more than 50 percent of the outstanding
stock or equity is held by--
``(I) 1 family that conducts the commercial fishing
operation; or
``(II) 1 family and the relatives of the members of such
family, and such family or such relatives conduct the
commercial fishing operation; and
``(ii)(I) more than 80 percent of the value of its assets
consists of assets related to the commercial fishing
operation;
``(II) its aggregate debts do not exceed $1,500,000 and not
less than 80 percent of its aggregate noncontingent,
liquidated debts (excluding a debt for 1 dwelling which is
owned by such corporation or partnership and which a
shareholder or partner maintains as a principal residence,
unless such debt arises out of a commercial fishing
operation), on the date the case is filed, arise out of a
commercial fishing operation owned or operated by such
corporation or such partnership; and
``(III) if such corporation issues stock, such stock is not
publicly traded;''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (19A) the following:
``(19B) `family fisherman with regular annual income' means
a family fisherman whose annual income is sufficiently stable
and regular to enable such family fisherman to make payments
under a plan under chapter 12 of this title;''.
(b) Who May Be a Debtor.--Section 109(f) of title 11,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or family
fisherman'' after ``family farmer''.
(c) Chapter 12.--Chapter 12 of title 11, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in the chapter heading, by inserting ``OR FISHERMAN''
after ``FAMILY FARMER'';
(2) in section 1201, by adding at the end the following:
``(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
purposes of this subsection, a guarantor of a claim of a
creditor under this section shall be treated in the same
manner as a creditor with respect to the operation of a stay
under this section.
``(2) For purposes of a claim that arises from the
ownership or operation of a commercial fishing operation, a
co-maker of a loan made by a creditor under this section
shall be treated in the same manner as a creditor with
respect to the operation of a stay under this section.'';
(3) in section 1203, by inserting ``or commercial fishing
operation'' after ``farm'';
(4) in section 1206, by striking ``if the property is
farmland or farm equipment'' and inserting ``if the property
is farmland, farm equipment, or property of a commercial
fishing operation (including a commercial fishing vessel)'';
and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1232. Additional provisions relating to family
fishermen
``(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except
as provided in subsection (c), with respect to any commercial
fishing vessel of a family fisherman, the debts of that
family fisherman shall be treated in the manner prescribed in
paragraph (2).
``(2)(A) For purposes of this chapter, a claim for a lien
described in subsection (b) for a commercial fishing vessel
of a family fisherman that could, but for this subsection, be
subject to a lien under otherwise applicable maritime law,
shall be treated as an unsecured claim.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) applies to a claim for a lien
resulting from a debt of a family fisherman incurred on or
after the date of enactment of this chapter.
``(b) A lien described in this subsection is--
``(1) a maritime lien under subchapter III of chapter 313
of title 46 without regard to whether that lien is recorded
under section 31343 of title 46; or
``(2) a lien under applicable State law (or the law of a
political subdivision thereof).
``(c) Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
``(1) a claim made by a member of a crew or a seaman
including a claim made for--
``(A) wages, maintenance, or cure; or
``(B) personal injury; or
``(2) a preferred ship mortgage that has been perfected
under subchapter II of chapter 313 of title 46.
``(d) For purposes of this chapter, a mortgage described in
subsection (c)(2) shall be treated as a secured claim.''.
(d) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) Table of chapters.--In the table of chapters for title
11, United States Code, the item relating to chapter 12, is
amended to read as follows:
``12. Adjustments of Debts of a Family Farmer or Family Fisherman with
Regular Annual Income...................................1201''.....
(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter
12 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new item:
``1232. Additional provisions relating to family fishermen.''.
(e) Applicability.--
Nothing in this section shall change, affect, or amend the
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C.
1801, et seq.).
Amend the table of contents accordingly.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Presiding Officer for replacing me as the
Chair so I could offer the amendment to the bill he is managing so
effectively on the Senate floor. I appreciate his courtesy.
I rise to offer an amendment to the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001. I
am very pleased to be joined by Senators Kerry, Stevens, and Kennedy.
Our amendment provides the family fisherman with the same kind of
protections and terms as granted family farmers under chapter 12 of our
bankruptcy laws. It was passed by the Senate last year as part of
bankruptcy reform legislation, but I rise, once again, to briefly take
the opportunity to explain the amendment and its importance to
commercial fishermen in coastal States.
I do not condone those who use the bankruptcy code as a tool to cure
their self-induced financial woes. I have supported and will continue
to support reasonable reforms to the bankruptcy laws that ensure the
responsible use of its provisions.
All consumers bear the burden of irresponsible debtors who abuse the
system. At the same time, there are those who legitimately need the
protection of our bankruptcy laws and who do not abuse it. I commend
the Presiding Officer for striking the right balance in the legislation
he has brought before the Senate.
I believe bankruptcy should remain a tool of last resort for those in
severe financial distress. As those familiar with the bankruptcy code
know, however, a business reorganization in bankruptcy is very
different from a business dissolution. Reorganization embodies the hope
that by providing a business with some relief and allowing debt to be
adjusted, the business will have the opportunity to get back on sound
financial footing and thrive. In that vein, chapter 12 was added to the
bankruptcy code in 1986 by the Presiding Officer, the distinguished
Senator from Iowa, to provide for bankruptcy reorganization of the
family farm and to give family farmers ``a fighting chance to
reorganize their debts and keep their lands.''
To provide the fighting chance envisioned by the authors of chapter
12, Congress provided a distinctive set of rules to govern the
reorganization of a family farm. In essence, chapter 12 recognized the
unique situation of family-owned businesses and the enormous value of
the family farmer to the American economy and to our American heritage.
Chapter 12 provides, for example, significant advantages over the
standard chapter 13 proceeding, including a longer time period in which
to file a plan for relief, greater flexibility for the debtor to modify
the debts secured by their assets, and the alteration of the statutory
time limit to repay secured debt. The chapter 12 debtor is also given
the freedom to sell off parts of his or her property as part of a
reorganization plan.
As the Chair well knows, chapter 12 has been a considerable success
in the farm community. According to a recent University of Iowa study,
74 percent of family farmers who file chapter 12 bankruptcy are still
farming, and 61 percent of the farmers who went through chapter 12
believe the law was very helpful in getting them back on their feet.
Recognizing the effectiveness of this law for farmers, I have
supported making chapter 12 a permanent part of the bankruptcy code.
Now I am proposing to extend its protections to the family fisherman as
well as the family farmer.
In the State of Maine, fishing is a vital part of our economy and our
way of life. The commercial fishing industry is made up of proud and
fiercely independent individuals whose goal is to simply preserve their
business, family income, and community. My legislation would afford
fishermen the same protection of business reorganization as is provided
to family farmers.
There are many similarities between the family farmer and the
fisherman.
[[Page S2156]]
Like the family farmer, the fisherman should be valued not only for
his contributions to our economy and to our food supply, but also for
his contributions to our heritage and our precious way of life. Like
farmers, fishermen face perennial threats from nature and the elements,
as well as from the laws and regulations that, unfortunately, can at
times threaten their very existence.
Like family farmers, fishermen are not seeking special treatment or a
handout from the Federal Government. They seek only the fighting chance
to remain afloat so they can continue their way of life.
Recently I attended the Maine Fishermen's Forum, an annual event
which provides the opportunity for policymakers to meet and discuss
issues affecting our fishing communities. I spoke with many fishermen,
and they told me they believe they need and deserve the protections
granted under the bankruptcy code to others who face similar, often
unavoidable problems. Fishermen should not be denied the special
bankruptcy protections accorded to farmers solely because they harvest
the sea and not the land.
Our amendment tracks closely how chapter 12 applies to family
farmers. Its protections are restricted to those fishermen with a
regular income who have total debt of less than $1.5 million, most of
which, 80 percent, must stem from commercial fishing. Moreover,
families must rely on fishing income for these provisions to apply.
The same protections and flexibility we grant to farmers should also
be granted to fishermen. By making this modest but important change to
our bankruptcy laws, we will express our respect for the business of
fishing and our shared wish that this unique way of life, which so
embodies the State of Maine, should continue.
I ask that at the appropriate time my amendment be considered. I am
hopeful it will be accepted by the Presiding Officer and the
committee's ranking majority member, and that it will be adopted as we
continue the debate on the bankruptcy legislation.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Susan Collins for her work
in developing this important amendment, which will extend chapter 12
bankruptcy protections to our family fishermen. I believe we should do
everything possible to protect and preserve the small family-owned
fishing businesses in this country.
In 1999, American fishermen harvested 9.3 billion pounds of seafood
valued at $3.5 billion dockside. The commercial marine fishing industry
contributed more than $27 billion to the Gross National Product in
1999. In 1999, Massachusetts fishermen landed more than 198,000 pounds
of seafood worth more than $260 million. The fishing port of New
Bedford, Massachusetts ranks second nationally in terms of the value of
the fishery landings in 1999 with nearly $130 million in seafood
landed.
These numbers sound great, but small, family-owned fishing businesses
are in serious trouble. In Gloucester, America's oldest fishing port,
landings declined by 9 percent in 1999 to just less than $26 million.
This once proud fishing community, along with several other New England
communities that borders the Gulf of Maine, have been rocked by the
dramatic decline in inshore cod stocks. Gulf of Maine fishermen are
feeling the pain caused by low trip limits and closed fishing areas.
Massachusetts Bay, the prime fishing grounds for much of the inshore
fleet, is currently closed six months of the year to allow the cod fish
to rebuild. Think of the effect that closing a family farm for six
months each year would have on its profitability.
Decreasing fish stocks coupled with severe environmental factors such
as coastal pollution and warmer oceans with changing currents has
resulted in severely depleted fish stocks around the country. We are
making progress in rebuilding stocks, however, the cost of this
progress has been a steep decline in the amount of fishing allowed in
Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine. This in turn has made it much more
difficult for fishermen in Massachusetts and Maine to maintain
profitable businesses. That is why the Collins amendment is so
important. It will ensure that fishermen have the flexibility under
chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code to wait out the rebuilding of our
commercial fish stocks without back tracking on our conservation gains
to date.
We are making progress rebuilding our fish stocks, but the social and
economic costs have been enormous. I strongly believe we must do
everything we can to preserve the rich New England fishing heritage in
Massachusetts without wiping out the fiercely independent small-boat
fishermen.
In their annual report to the Congress released last month on the
health of our Nation's fisheries, the National Marine Fisheries Service
reported that there was no overfishing in 210 fish stocks in 2000 as
compared to 159 stocks in 1999, a significant improvement. This means
that we have reduced fishing pressure on many stocks to the point where
we can continue harvesting on a sustainable basis. Additionally, the
number of stocks that are fully rebuilt has increased to 145 in 2000
from 122 stocks in 1999. Another significant improvement. My point is
that we are making real progress, however, the temptation will always
exist to forgo what is in the long-term best interest of our fisheries,
to relieve some of the short term pains that the fishing industry is
going through.
The same protections and flexibility afforded the farming community
should be made available to family fishermen. By adopting this modest
but important change to the bankruptcy laws, we will not only preserve
and protect a very important industry but a cherished way of life as
well.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 29, as Modified
Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I will speak to one of the pending
amendments. I rise today to offer my support for a pending amendment
offered by Senator Conrad, the Social Security and Medicare Off-Budget
Lockbox Act of 2001.
This legislation would protect Social Security and Medicare trust
funds from being raided to pay for tax cuts or programs and would
ensure our continuing commitment of the surpluses to debt reduction. I
am pleased that similar legislation has had broad, bipartisan support
in both the Senate and the House over the past years, as I believe it
is the responsible step that we should take to ensure these vital
benefits remain available, with the paying down of the debt, with
assuring that we have affordable tax cuts, and with the investments
that we need to make to ensure our country is stronger in the future.
Now, I know that the chairman of the Budget Committee, for whom I
have the greatest respect, suggests this amendment is more of a scare
tactic than a real effort to protect Medicare and Social Security. But
I have to respectfully disagree. This amendment is nearly identical to
the amendment for which 60 Senators, including 16 of our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle, voted in favor of last year as an
amendment to the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, but it was
unfortunately dropped in conference. It is important to raise it again
now because, much to my disappointment, President Bush's budget
blueprint does appear to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust
funds to pay for his tax cut proposal.
Over the past several weeks, members of the administration have come
before the Budget Committee, on which I serve, and argued that
President Bush's blueprint protects the Social Security and Medicare
trust funds. But you can look at the numbers and see that is not the
case. A table in the blueprint entitled ``The President's 10-year
Plan,'' for example, refers to a contingency reserve of over $840
billion, of which over $500 billion of that comes from the Medicare
trust fund.
Since other parts of the administration's budget seriously underfund
many important priorities, such as a
[[Page S2157]]
prescription drug benefit for our seniors on Medicare, national
defense, investments in our schools and our children, our teachers, and
other significant areas for which there is broad bipartisan support, it
also proposes hundreds of billions of dollars in unspecified cuts
across programs. And there isn't any mystery. There can't be any
mystery that if you combine a very large tax cut with underfunding
important programs and leaving out many others, then there will not be
the money in this reserve, and it is money taken out of the Medicare
trust fund that will be available to cover the priorities that we would
determine are in our national interest.
During the time of projected surpluses, I have to ask, is this really
the choice that we want to be making? Madam President, I know most New
Yorkers would agree that it would be both unfair and wrong to
shortchange either our seniors or our children when it comes to
prescription drug benefits, or investments in smaller class sizes,
school construction, and other important programs that will improve the
quality of education.
The real choice we face should be between a very large tax cut from
which millions of working Americans would receive little to no tax
relief and the three priorities which I think we can agree on in this
body--a priority for affordable tax cuts, a priority to continue to pay
down the debt, and a priority of the kind of investment that we need to
make.
For example, I believe we should invest in a real prescription drug
benefit. The President's immediate helping hand proposal denies
eligibility for prescription drugs to nearly 25 million Medicare
beneficiaries, most of whom today lack affordable, dependable
prescription drug coverage.
Republican and Democratic Governors have also raised concerns with
this proposal, noting that it fails to meet the immediate prescription
drug needs of their elderly and disabled residents.
The challenge should be not deciding to shortchange our seniors on
prescription drugs in order to give a very large tax cut to people at
the upper end of the income scale, but it should be between how do we
keep all of our priorities in order and how do we provide prudent tax
relief, continue to pay down the debt, and invest in what will make us
a healthier, better-educated, stronger Nation.
I believe Senator Conrad's amendment to lock away the Social Security
and Medicare trust funds sets the right balance. It clearly takes off
budget what should be off budget. It should not be used for a
contingency, for tax cuts, or for spending; it should be used for what
it was intended to be used for: to meet the Social Security and
Medicare needs of our seniors.
I ask that I be added as a cosponsor, and I urge my colleagues, as
they did once before on an appropriations measure, to ensure the
solvency of the important programs, such as Medicare, and to ensure the
provision of a prescription drug benefit to our seniors on Medicare,
and to deal with the other important priorities that we face.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 39
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order to
ask for the yeas and nays on the Kennedy-Jeffords amendment on the
bankruptcy bill, amendment number 39, with the vote to occur at
whatever appropriate time the votes are being stacked.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Is there
a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 16
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I commend the Presiding Officer for her
amendment to protect family fishermen. I know the distinguished Senator
from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, also strongly supports it. It is the
type of bipartisan amendment that can be agreed to on this side of the
aisle.
I have been checking around, and I do not find anyone over here who
disagrees with it. I hope on the other side it can also be agreed to.
If so, that is one we can move quickly to accept.
I want the distinguished Presiding Officer to know I checked on this
side and there are no objections to her amendment, which is a good one.
However, I am disappointed that my good friend, the majority leader,
has filed cloture on this bill. The Democratic leader, Senator Daschle,
Senator Reid, and I have been working to get amendments offered, filed,
agreed to, if possible, and modified, if needed. We presented a good-
faith list of about 15 amendments on our side of the aisle as of last
Friday. We are awaiting a response. I know a number of amendments have
been filed by Republican Senators, and we are trying to quickly clear
them on our side if we can. I will continue to work to move forward on
this.
Amendment No. 41
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
to send to the desk an amendment on the prohibition and disclosure of
the identity of minor children.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment
numbered 41.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To protect the identity of minor children in bankruptcy
proceedings)
On page 124, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
SEC. 233. PROHIBITION ON DISCLOSURE OF IDENTITY OF MINOR
CHILDREN.
(a) Prohibition.--Chapter 1 of title 11, United States
Code, is amended by adding after section 111, as added by
this Act, the following:
``Sec. 112. Prohibition on disclosure of identity of minor
children
``In a case under this title, the debtor may be required to
provide information regarding a minor child involved in
matters under this title, but may not be required to disclose
in the public records in the case the name of such minor
child.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
1 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``112. Prohibition on disclosure of identity of minor children.''.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this is an amendment to protect the
identity of minor children in bankruptcy court records. My amendment
permits a debtor to withhold the name of a minor child in the public
records of the bankruptcy case.
I submit this out of a sense of child safety. There is an unintended
loophole, as the bill is written, in child safety. Sometimes
bankruptcies occur when there have been a great deal of problems
between parents. With that, nobody should know the name of the minor
children.
The closing loophole does not restrict the necessary flow of
information regarding a debtor's financial records. The House of
Representatives adopted a similar amendment authored by Congressman
Mark Green during its debate on bankruptcy reform legislation.
The amendment is a modest but important first step to protecting
personal privacy and preventing criminal activity through the
unnecessary disclosure of personal information in the public domain.
When individuals file for bankruptcy, of course, they are required to
disclose information regarding themselves and also their dependents.
Most of this information is vital to ensuring the integrity of the
bankruptcy process, but if you look at these forms, you realize a lot
of this information is very personal, very detailed.
Indeed, bankruptcy records contain all kinds of highly sensitive
personal, financial, and medical information. I didn't realize how much
information was in there while preparing for the bill. I was amazed at
the amount of personal, financial, and medical information. More and
more, Federal courts are making these court records that contain the
very highly sensitive personal, financial, and medical information
available for all to see, without
[[Page S2158]]
any privacy safeguards, and are available on the Internet.
Each Member can go on the Internet and get medical, personal, and
privacy records on bankruptcy debtors. For example, schedule 1 has a
document entitled ``The Current Income of Individual Debtors'' that
requires a debtor to list his or her dependents' names, ages, and
relationship to the debtor. Some of this information is very important
to creditors. I don't have any question about that.
It is also the type of information that some dangerous people could
use to seek out and contact children. We have seen predators of
children who have sought this information over the Internet. Any
parent, any grandparent, or any Senator should worry about someone
getting this information on children. My amendment simply protects
minor children to unnecessary exposure from harm.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, has
agreed to future hearings in the Judiciary Committee to consider the
issue of personal information in paper and electronic court records and
other governmental records. The manner in which all three branches of
the Federal Government, Federal agencies, the Congress, and the
judiciary protect the privacy and personal information that Americans
are required to divulge is an important area that needs our attention.
Earlier, we had a Leahy-Hatch amendment regarding protection of
customer databases and consumer lists to prevent future ToySmart.com
cases. We created omnibus bankruptcy proceedings as part of that Leahy-
Hatch amendment, the first consumer privacy advocate in consumer law.
Working together, we have proven that Republicans and Democrats can
come together in commonsense matters.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Iowa.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his
kind words about the amendment I offered to extend the protections of
chapter 12 of our bankruptcy code to our fishermen so that a fisherman
can be treated the same way as a farmer is treated. I appreciate his
efforts to clear the amendment, which is a bipartisan amendment, on his
side of the aisle.
I also commend the Senator from Vermont for the amendment he just
proposed that safeguards the names of minor children in bankruptcy
proceedings.
Last weekend, I had a discussion with a member of my staff who is
responsible for Cumberland and York Counties. He told me of our
office's attempts to assist women who are legally establishing new
identities in order to avoid being pursued by a violent ex-spouse or
former boyfriend. He told me the Social Security Administration, for
example, is very helpful once these women have gone to court and
legally changed their names for these very good reasons and helping
them to get new Social Security numbers. But he mentioned to me that
oftentimes the violent former spouse or boyfriend pursues these women
using other public records. For example, when they get a new driver's
license in the State of Maine, Maine has the requirement that the State
where they previously held a driver's license be notified. That creates
a paper trail by which the former spouse can pursue the woman who is
trying to get a fresh start for herself.
It occurs to me while listening to the comments of the Senator from
Vermont that the bankruptcy proceedings could also be a way that this
information is disclosed, and that in cases where parental rights have
been terminated this would be a means of a former spouse tracing the
children to which he no longer has any parental rights.
There are a number of other examples where children can be preyed on
by predators who gain access to this information. But I wanted to share
the experience that I had this last weekend with my staff's efforts to
assist abused women in starting new lives through legally assuming a
new identity.
I commend the Senator from Vermont for his efforts. I look forward to
working further with him on this issue.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and neighbor from
Maine. I appreciate her willingness to work together on this.
The Senator from Iowa is off the floor at the moment. He is in a
meeting. But while we wait for the Senator from Iowa, I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 27, As Modified
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
to modify, on behalf of the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein,
her amendment. I send that amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be set aside.
Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 27), as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To make an amendment with respect to extensions of credit to
underage consumers)
At the end of Title XIII, add the following:
SEC. 1311. ISSUANCE OF CREDIT CARDS TO UNDERAGE CONSUMERS.
(a) Applications by Underage Consumers.--Section 127(c) of
the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1637(c)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(8) Applications from underage obligors.--
``(A) Prohibition on issuance.--Except in response to a
written request or application to the card issuer that meets
the requirements of subparagraph (B), a card issuer may not--
``(i) issue a credit card account under an open end
consumer credit plan to, or establish such an account on
behalf of, an obligor who has not attained the age of 21, if
the total amount of credit extended to the obligor under that
account exceeds $2,500 (which amount shall be adjusted
annually by the Board to account for any increase in the
Consumer Price Index); or
``(ii) increase the total amount of credit authorized to be
extended under that account to an obligor described in clause
(i) to an amount equal to more than $2,500.
``(B) Exceptions.--Clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A)
do not apply if the issuer requires, in connection with the
issuance or establishment of the account or the increase, as
applicable--
``(i) the signature of a parent or guardian of that obligor
indicating joint liability for debts incurred in connection
with the account before the obligor attains the age of 21; or
``(ii) submission by the obligor of financial information
indicating an independent means of repaying any obligation
arising from the proposed extension of credit in connection
with the account.
``(C) Notification.--A card issuer of a credit card account
under an open end consumer credit plan shall notify any
obligor who has not attained the age of 21 that the obligor
is not eligible for an extension of credit in connection with
the account unless the requirements of this paragraph are
met.
``(D) Limit on enforcement.--A card issuer may not collect
or otherwise enforce a debt arising from a credit card
account under an open end consumer credit plan if the obligor
had not attained the age of 21 at the time the debt was
incurred, unless the requirements of this paragraph have been
met with respect to that obligor.
``(9) Parental approval required to increase credit lines
for accounts for which parent is jointly liable.--In addition
to the requirements of paragraph (8), no increase may be made
in the amount of credit authorized to be extended under a
credit card account under an open end credit plan for which a
parent or guardian of the obligor has joint liability for
debts incurred in connection with the account before the
obligor attains the age of 21, unless the parent or guardian
of the obligor approves, in writing, and assumes joint
liability for, such increase.''.
(b) Regulatory Authority.--The Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System may issue such rules or publish such
model forms as it considers necessary to carry out paragraphs
(8) and (9) of section 127(c) of the Truth in Lending Act, as
added by this section.
[[Page S2159]]
(c) Effective Date.--Paragraphs (8) and (9) of section
127(c) of the Truth in Lending Act, as added by this section,
shall apply to the issuance of credit card accounts under
open end consumer credit plans, and any increase of the
amount of credit authorized to be extended thereunder, as
described in those paragraphs, on and after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not have further matters. I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have some unanimous consent requests
that the leader has asked me to make.
ORDER FOR VOTES ON AMENDMENTS
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m.
on Tuesday, as under the order, the Senate proceed to a vote in
relation to the following amendments, and further, no amendments be
ordered to the amendments prior to the votes: the Feinstein amendment
No. 27, as modified, and the Kennedy amendment No. 39.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________