[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 13, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2172-S2180]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT OF 2001
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 420. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 420) to amend title 11, United States Code, and
for other purposes.
Pending:
Schumer amendment No. 25, to ensure that the bankruptcy
code is not used to exacerbate the effects of certain illegal
predatory lending practices.
Feinstein modified amendment No. 27, to place a $2,500 cap
on any credit card issued to a minor, unless the minor
submits an application with the signature of his parents or
guardian indicating joint liability for debt or the minor
submits financial information indicating an independent means
or an ability to repay the debt that the card accrues.
Leahy amendment No. 20, to resolve an ambiguity relating to
the definition of current monthly income.
Conrad modified amendment No. 29, to establish an off-
budget lockbox to strengthen Social Security and Medicare.
Sessions amendment No. 32, to establish a procedure to
safeguard the surpluses of the Social Security and Medicare
hospital insurance trust funds.
Wellstone amendment No. 35, to clarify the duties of a
debtor who is the plan administrator of an employee benefit
plan.
Wellstone amendment No. 36, to disallow certain claims and
prohibit coercive debt collection practices.
Wellstone amendment No. 37, to provide that imports of
semifinished steel slabs shall be considered to be articles
like or directly competitive with taconite pellets for
purposes of determining the eligibility of certain workers
for trade adjustment assistance under the Trade Act of 1974.
[[Page S2173]]
Kennedy amendment No. 38, to allow for reasonable medical
expenses.
Kennedy amendment No. 39, to remove the dollar limitation
on retirement savings protected in bankruptcy.
Collins amendment No. 16, to provide family fishermen with
the same kind of protections and terms as granted to family
farmers under chapter 12 of the bankruptcy laws.
Leahy amendment No. 41, to protect the identify of minor
children in bankruptcy proceedings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, is recognized for not to exceed 20
minutes to speak on the lockbox issue.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I had a lockbox amendment at the desk,
but I am not calling it up at this time. In the limited time granted
me, I want to support the Conrad amendment, which will be introduced
later, having to do with procedure. I didn't want to bring about any
confusion because I think the Conrad amendment is a sound one. I know
that the particular amendment I have at the desk was designed by the
Administrator of Social Security. It is a true lockbox.
But we have a more serious problem here. There isn't any question
that with the Concord Coalition coming out yesterday afternoon with a
joint statement by Warren Rudman, Sam Nunn, Peter Peterson, Robert
Rubin, and Paul Volcker, we are just about ready to break the
discipline with respect to paying down the debt. They strongly point
out the reasons we should continue the discipline.
I ask unanimous consent that their particular summary be printed in
the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Concord Coalition, Mar. 12, 2001]
Joint Statement by Warren Rudman, Sam Nunn, Peter Peterson, Robert
Rubin and Paul Volcker
Washington.--Congress and the Bush administration face the
critical challenge this year of adopting a framework for
using near-term budget surpluses to help fill the huge long-
term gaps in federal entitlement programs and household
savings, and to best further our continued economic well
being. This is certainly a more welcome challenge than
eliminating budget deficits, but it is every bit as vital.
What are we concerned about?
We are concerned that the mere prospect of very large, but
highly uncertain, budget surpluses is being used as an excuse
to abandon fiscal discipline, creating the threat of renewed
non-Social Security deficits and failing to realize the full
opportunity of paying down the publicly held debt.
Then there is the fundamental long-term challenge, which
The Concord Coalition has always stressed, of setting aside
sufficient resources to meet the huge retirement and health
care costs associated with the coming ``senior boom.'' The
surpluses provide an opportunity to help meet this
challenge--but only if we are careful to preserve them.
The obvious question: How much should we be willing to
gamble on 10-year projections that the Congressional Budget
Office itself say could be off by trillions of dollars?
Answer: The Concord Coalition believes that it is unwise to
rely on these projections to commit ourselves to a series of
large escalating tax reductions over a 10-year period,
particularly in advance of addressing the huge and daunting
future deficits of Social Security and Medicare. Doing so
would be to rely on the unreliable while we ignore the
inevitable.
We believe that fiscal discipline is the key to providing
for the unmet needs of the future.
Savings from deficit reduction, and now surpluses, have
helped provide the capital to increase the productivity of
American workers--a major factor in the record growth of the
last 10 years. Further gains in productivity will become
especially urgent when the retirement of the huge baby boom
generation virtually halts the growth in the size of the U.S.
work force.
Continued debt reduction is the government's most direct
contribution to net national savings. Increasing national and
personal savings is the single most effective policy the
government can pursue to promote long-term economic growth
and retirement security. Budget proposals should be assessed
in that context.
As public debt is reduced to the low levels possible, other
policies such as retirement savings accounts also play an
important role. Household savings are nowhere near adequate
to prepare for ever-lengthening retirements.
We recommend that as Congress and the Bush administration
decide how best to deploy budget surpluses, they be guided by
the following framework:
Ensure the continued economic benefits of a stable fiscal
policy by maintaining discipline and avoiding both a spending
spree and large escalating tax cuts.
It is exceedingly unwise to lock in a large 10-year tax cut
based on unreliable long-term budget projections.
An immediate moderate tax cut is justified and reasonable
as a surplus dividend, given last year's surplus and in light
of near-term economic and budgetary prospects.
However, a back loaded 10-year tax cut is not the right
tool to provide short-term economic stimulus--particularly at
the expense of the urgent long-term need to fund our senior
entitlements and retirement savings needs.
Realize the full opportunity for paying down the public
debt to the low levels possible.
Establish a new set of firm, but realistic discretionary
spending caps.
Consider establishing a system of mandatory, individually
owned retirement accounts to help families build a more ample
nest egg while alleviating concerns that future budget
surpluses will result in either higher spending or in a large
build up of government-owned private sector financial assets.
Mr. HOLLINGS. The only objection I have to it--and I commend them for
their leadership--is they say an immediate moderate tax cut is
justified. You see, therein is the difference with this particular
Senator and the ``wag.'' Surpluses, surpluses, surpluses--everywhere
men cry surpluses. But there is no surplus. Mind you me, I have been
elected seven times to the Senate, and to paraphrase our wonderful
leader, President Richard Nixon, I am not a nut. I believe in tax cuts,
too--if you have some taxes to cut. So let's see where the taxes are to
cut. They say the so-called surpluses belong to the people, but I find
nothing but indebtedness belonging to the people.
For example, we have gone, in the past 20 years, from a creditor
nation to the largest debtor nation in history--some $2 trillion. We
actually have a current account deficit of $439 billion, or more, and
going up. There is a deficit in the balance of trade up, up, and away,
where we used to have a plus balance of trade. With respect to
surpluses, actually, we owe Social Security some $1.164 trillion
Medicare accounts are $238 billion in the red. Military retirement is
$156 billion in the red. Civilian retirement is $544 billion in the
red. Unemployment compensation is $92 billion in the red.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this table of
Congressional Budget Office figures be printed in the Record at this
particular point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
TRUST FUNDS LOOTED TO BALANCE BUDGET
[By fiscal year, in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security................................. 1,007 1,164 1,336
Medicare
HI............................................ 169 198 234
SMI........................................... 45 40 39
Military Retirement............................. 149 156 164
Civilian Retirement............................. 512 544 575
Unemployment.................................... 86 92 98
Highway......................................... 31 31 30
Airport......................................... 13 15 17
Railroad Retirement............................. 25 26 27
Other........................................... 72 74 77
-----------------------
Total..................................... 2,109 2,340 2,597
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HOLLINGS. This shows the total sum of all trust funds--not just
Social Security, but all the trust funds--including black lung, nuclear
and otherwise. So the total amount that we now owe in Government
accounts--since they want to split it--is $2.3 trillion.
Let me go right to that particular point: $2.3 trillion, as compared
to the $3.4 trillion they call public debt. You see, that is where Mr.
Greenspan and others start the monkey business of dividing the debt
that belongs to us all. We are the Government, and the public debt and
the Government debt, or the intergovernmental accounts, are all our
indebtedness. It is $5.7 trillion. Now that Government debt has not
gone down. We ended the last fiscal year $23 billion in debt. The
national debt went up some $23 billion.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record page 20 of the
Treasurer's report showing the difference in how it increased.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S2174]]
TABLE 6.--MEANS OF FINANCING THE DEFICIT OR DISPOSTION OF SURPLUS BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, SEPTEMBER 2000 and
OTHER PERIODS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net transactions (-) denotes net Account balances curent fiscal year
reduction of either liability or asset -----------------------------------------
Assets and liabilities accounts Beginning of
directly related to budget ----------------------------------------------------------------------
off-budget activity Fiscal year to date Close of
This month ---------------------------- This year This month this month
This year Prior year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liability accounts
Borrowing from the public:
Public debt securities,
issued under general
Financing authorities:
Obligations of the
United States, issued
by:
United States -3,644 17,908 130,078 5,641,271 5,662,822 5,659,178
Treasury...........
Federal Financing ............ ............ ............ 15,000 15,000 15,000
Bank...............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, public debt -3,644 17,908 130,078 5,656,271 5,677,822 5,674,178
securities.......
===================================================================================
Plus premium on -26 697 -200 2,002 2,725 2,699
public debt
securities.........
Less premium on -832 -5,157 1,648 80,698 76,373 75,541
public debt
securities.........
===================================================================================
Total public debt -2,839 23,761 128,230 5,577,575 5,604,175 5,601,336
securities net of
Premium and
discount.........
===================================================================================
Agegncy securities, issued 31 -832 -854 28,605 27,641 27,672
under special financing
authorities (see Schedule
B, for other Agency
Borrowing, see Schedule C)
===================================================================================
Total federal -2,808 22,929 127,376 5,606,080 5,631,817 5,629,009
securities...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deduct:.................
Federal securities 29,557 246,453 221,530 1,989,308 2,206,204 2,235,761
held as investments
of government
accounts (see
Schedule D)........
Less discount on 30 853 5,460 16,148 16,970 17,001
federal securities
held as investments
of government
accounts...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net federal 29,527 245,600 216,070 1,973,160 2,189,234 2,218,760
securities held as
investments of
government accounts
===================================================================================
Total borrowing -32,334 -222,671 -88,694 3,632,920 3,442,583 3,410,248
from the public..
===================================================================================
Accrued interest payable to 13,024 1,608 -2,845 42,603 31,187 44,211
the public.................
Allocations of special -21 -440 80 6,799 6,380 6,359
drawing rights.............
Deposit funds............... -1,171 \1\ -1,151 97 3,997 4,017 2,846
Miscellaneous liability 5,329 -461 498 4,420 -1,370 3,959
accounts (includes checks
outstanding etc.)..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total liability -15,174 -223,116 -90,864 3,690,739 3,482,798 3,467,624
accounts.............
===================================================================================
Asset accounts (deduct)
Cash and monetary assets:
U.S. Treasury operating
cash: \2\
Federal Reserve 2,498 1,818 1,689 6,641 5,961 8,459
accounts...........
Tax and loan note 36,981 -5,618 15,891 49,817 7,218 44,199
accounts...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balance........... 39,479 -3,799 17,580 56,458 13,180 52,659
===================================================================================
Special drawing rights:
Total holdings...... -34 33 178 10,284 10,350 10,316
SDR certificates 1,000 4,000 2,000 -7,200 -4,200 -3,200
issued to Federal
Reserve Banks......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balance........... 966 4,033 2,178 3,084 6,150 7,116
===================================================================================
Reserve position on the
U.S. quota in the IMF:
U.S. subscription to
International
Monetary Fund:
Direct quota ............ ............ 14,763 46,525 46,525 46,525
payments.......
Maintenance of -257 -3,336 412 5,027 1,947 1,691
value
adjustments....
Letter of credit -43 -5,194 -15,750 -30,633 -35,784 -35,827
issued to IMF......
Dollar deposits with 2 4 -36 -121 -119 -117
the IMF............
Receivable/Payable (- 183 2,234 -562 -815 1,235 1,418
) for interim
maintenance of
value adjustments..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balance........... -114 -6,292 -1,173 19,982 13,804 13,690
===================================================================================
Loans to International ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............
Monetary Fund..........
Other cash and monetary 927 908 386 23,983 23,964 24,891
assets.................
===================================================================================
Total cash and 41,258 -5,151 18,476 103,507 57,098 98,356
monetary assets......
===================================================================================
Net Activity, Guaranteed -2,472 -4,327 -4,156 -18,518 -20,373 -22,845
Loan Financing.............
Net Activity, Direct Loan 9,727 21,744 18,605 83,894 95,911 105,638
Financing..................
Miscellaneous asset accounts 2,181 -1,602 1,579 1,496 -2,288 -106
===================================================================================
Total asset accounts.. 50,694 10,664 34,505 170,378 130,348 181,043
===================================================================================
Excess of liabilities (+) or -65,868 -233,780 -125,369 +3,520,361 +3,352,449 +3,286,581
assets (-).................
===================================================================================
Transactions not applied to 46 -3,213 1,009 ............ -3,258 -3,213
current year's surplus or
deficit (see Schedule a for
Details)...................
===================================================================================
Total budget and off-budget -65,822 -236,993 -124,360 +3,520,361 +3,349,191 +3,283,369
federal entities (financing
of deficit (+) or
disposition of surplus (-))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Outlays for the Department of the Interior have been decreased in October 1999 by $329 million; to reflect
the reclassification of the ``Tribal Trust funds'', Office of the Special Trustee for the American Indians;
from a trust fund to a deposit fund.
\2\ Major sources of information used to determine Treasury's operating cash income include Federal Reserve
Banks, the Treasury Regional Finance Centers, the Internal Revenue Service Centers, the Bureau of the Public
Debt and various electronic systems. Deposits are reflected as received and withdraws are reflected as
processed.
. . . No Transactions.
(**) Less than $500,000.
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we not only ended the fiscal year with a
$23 billion deficit, but look at the debt to the penny, which I printed
just a half hour ago from the U.S. Treasury Web site, and you will see
that we continue to run deficits. U.S. Treasury Secretary O'Neill, when
I had him at the hearing, said, ``That is your paper, Senator.'' I
said, ``No, this is your paper, Secretary O'Neill.'' The public debt
numbers found on-line show that the debt has increased from $5.674
trillion at the end of September last year--at the beginning of this
fiscal year, 2001--to $5.747 trillion. So the debt has gone up $73
billion.
Let me emphasize the split in the debt. The Treasury Secretary says
who owes the public debt. He has the public debt held by the public,
and he has another listing of intergovernmental holdings. In January,
for the years preceding--Mr. President, that used to be Government
debt. Now they are trying to change the phraseology so you are misled--
intergovernmental holdings. That is an indebtedness. The public debt
has gone up $21 billion. Did you hear that? Mr. Greenspan, Chairman of
the Federal Reserve, is running around saying, ``My problem is we are
going to pay down too much debt,'' when it has gone up in the beginning
of the fiscal year some $21 billion. It is $3.4 trillion, going down
$21 billion. Go down $100 billion, go down $200 billion, go down $300
billion, $400 billion, and you still
[[Page S2175]]
have $3 trillion to pay off. Don't worry about paying down too much
debt.
It was an absolute charade to see the Chairman of the Federal Reserve
come to the Congress with that nonsense about ``we have too much debt
to pay down.'' I mean, we are paying down too much debt and we are
going to have to pay a penalty on our fiscal holdings.
With respect to the intergovernmental holdings, or public debt, it is
$52 billion. So as of this morning, a half hour ago, the Secretary of
the Treasury reports that the debt has gone up $73 billion. It is not
going down. That is the problem with the Concord Coalition.
I ask unanimous consent that these documents be printed in the Record
at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
THE DEBT TO THE PENNY
[Updated March 12, 2001]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 03/09/2001........................... $5,747,792,825,182.88
Current month:
03/08/2001.................................. 5,747,550,277,632.42
03/07/2001.................................. 5,747,491,094,329.69
03/06/2001.................................. 5,749,734,337,611.83
03/05/2001.................................. 5,743,401,716,650.84
03/02/2001.................................. 5,742,769,797,856.70
03/01/2001.................................. 5,726,774,439,028.95
Prior months:
02/28/2001.................................. 5,735,859,380,573.98
01/31/2001.................................. 5,716,070,587,057.36
12/29/2000.................................. 5,662,216,013,697.37
11/30/2000.................................. 5,709,699,281,427.00
10/31/2000.................................. 5,657,327,531,667.14
Prior fiscal years:
09/29/2000.................................. 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999.................................. 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998.................................. 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997.................................. 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996.................................. 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995.................................. 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994.................................. 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993.................................. 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992.................................. 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991.................................. 3,655,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990.................................. 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989.................................. 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988.................................. 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987.................................. 2,350,276,890,953.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of the Public Debt.
WHO HOLDS THE DEBT?
[Beginning 1/31/2001 (debt held by the public vs. intragovernmental holdings) historical debt prior to January 31, 2001]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt held by the public Intragovernmental holdings Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current:
03/09/2001.............................. $3,426,528,227,885.96 $2,321,264,597,296.92 $5,747,792,825,182.88
Prior months:
02/28/2001.............................. 3,401,737,625,377.06 2,334,121,755,196.92 5,735,859,380,573.98
01/31/2001.............................. 3,388,015,685,287.98 2,328,054,901,769.38 5,716,070,587,058.36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHO HOLDS THE DEBT?
[Thru 1/30/2001 (debt held by the public vs. intragovernmental holdings) historical debt beginning with January 31, 2001]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt held by the public Intragovernmental holdings Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior months:
01/30/2001.............................. 3,369,903,111,703.32 2,370,388,014,843.13 5,740,291,126,546.45
12/29/2000.............................. 3,380,398,279,538.38 2,281,817,734,158.99 5,662,216,013,697.37
11/30/2000.............................. 3,417,401,544,006.82 2,292,297,737,420.18 5,709,699,281,427.00
10/31/2000.............................. 3,374,976,727,197.79 2,282,350,804,469.35 5,657,327,531,667.14
Prior fiscal years:
09/29/2000.............................. 3,405,303,490,221.20 2,268,874,719,665.66 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999.............................. 3,636,104,594,501.81 2,020,166,307,131.62 5,656,270,901,633.43
09/30/1998.............................. 3,733,864,472,163.53 1,792,328,536,734.09 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997.............................. 3,789,667,546,849.60 1,623,478,464,547.74 5,413,146,011,397.34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, what is happening? Well, we got on
course. Reaganomics II. We know what Reaganomics I did. I notice my
friend, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter,
called it in the interviews over the weekend Kemp-Roth. He didn't want
to hurt President Reagan's feelings. I don't either, but President
Reagan adopted this idea of ``starve the beast.'' All we have to do is
cut the revenues. The money belongs to the people, and the people know
how best to spend their money, and we will have prosperity galore.
What happened? Well, President Lyndon Johnson last balanced the
budget. During 200 years of history, in the course of all the wars, we
had accumulated less than a trillion dollars in debt.
But when President Reagan came in with Reaganomics, that less than a
trillion dollars in debt went up to $4 trillion and is now up to $5.7
trillion. What happens? I speak now to my colleagues because this is
the greatest waste. I served on the Grace Commission to abolish waste,
fraud, and abuse. The greatest waste ever proposed or propounded in the
history of Government is the interest costs, the carrying charges on
the national debt.
When President Johnson balanced the budget and for the 200 years of
history, the interest cost on the debt was only $16 billion. Now it has
gone up to $365 billion and is projected by CBO to go to $371 billion.
The first thing the Government did this morning at 8 o'clock was go
down to the bank, borrow $1 billion and add it to the debt. Tomorrow we
are going to do the same thing. On Saturday do you think the banks are
closed? No. We are going to borrow another $1 billion on Saturday, and
on Sunday and on Christmas Day. Each and every day, we are going to
borrow $1 billion for nothing--$365 billion.
The distinguished Presiding Officer could buy all sorts of things
with this money. We could get an energy policy, a forestry policy, a
research policy. We could pay for education. We could almost double
everything that anybody wanted. This $365 billion amount is bigger than
the national defense. National defense is supposed to go from $305
billion to $310 billion. We are paying out more just in carrying
charges, waste, and nobody seems to care.
The point is, when you are in a deficit and debt position, you cannot
cut taxes without increasing taxes. That is exactly where we are. The
so-called tax cut that President Bush is insisting upon is a tax cut
that wore no clothes.
He is running all around the country. Talk of a tax cut started back
in September and October, when he was ascending in the polls. Then the
market started to decline. In November, the distinguished Mr. Cheney
said it looked like a recession. They insisted on the tax cut in
December, January, and February. Can you imagine the President having
to go out and sell a tax cut?
People ought to sober up on that particular point. Do you have to
sell a tax cut? What is the market saying? The market is saying: Look,
with all this indebtedness, awash in debt, a devalued dollar, they are
not going to, by gosh, buy our instruments, our bonds, they are not
going to continue to finance our debt, and they are going to have to
raise the interest rates. That is exactly what happened in Reaganomics
I, and we have Reaganomics II on course. There is no education in the
second kick of a mule. We should all like the Concord Coalition: Pay
down the debt; enforce the discipline; quit running around bribing, if
you please, the people with their own money.
It is a sordid trick. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves.
Responsible Congressmen and Senators ought to tell the truth. We have
gone bilingual when it comes to the budget. The second language is
truth. We are running around here saying surplus, surplus, surplus
everywhere, and there is no surplus. Even the President says there is
no surplus.
I hold in my hand President Bush's document that he just submitted.
On page 201, you can see the debt this year: $5.637 trillion. He
projects that the national debt will go to $7.159 trillion--not a
surplus. This is President Bush. Why don't they ask him: Mr.
[[Page S2176]]
President, you say ``surplus,'' but your own budget shows the debt
increasing.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record page 201.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
TABLE S-16.--FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FINANCING AND DEBT
[In billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate
Actual -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financing:
Unified budget surplus...... 236 281 231 246 268 273 307 341 372 412 459 524
On-budget surplus/ 86 124 60 53 57 36 55 71 84 109 136 181
reserve for
contingencies..........
Off-budget surplus...... 150 157 171 193 211 237 252 270 287 303 323 343
Means of financing other
than borrowing from the
public:
Premiums paid (-) on -6 -10 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
buybacks of Treasury
securities.............
Changes in:
Treasury operating 4 3 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
cash balance.......
Checks outstanding, 3 -* -1 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
deposit funds, etc.
Seigniorage on coins.... 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Less: Net financing
disbursements:
Direct loan -22 -39 -4 -17 -18 -17 -16 -16 -16 -16 -16 -15
financing accounts.
Guaranteed loan 4 -1 -1 1 -- -- 1 1 1 1 1 1
financing accounts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total; means of -13 -45 -4 -15 -16 -15 -14 -13 -13 -13 -13 -13
financing other
than borrowing
from the public..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, amount 223 236 227 232 252 257 294 328 359 399 446 511
available to
repay debt held
by the public....
Change in debt held by the
public:
Change in debt held by -223 -236 -227 -232 -252 -257 -294 -328 -181 -125 -71 -50
the public (gross).....
Less change in excess ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ -178 -274 -375 -461
balances...............
Change in debt held -223 -236 -227 -232 -252 -257 -294 -328 -359 -399 -446 -511
by the public (net)
Debt Subject to Statutory
Limitation, End of Year:
Debt issued by Treasury..... 5,601 5,610 5,640 5,697 5,752 5,822 5,878 5,918 6,120 6,396 6,750 7,139
Adjustment for Treasury debt -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15
not subject to limitation
and agency debt subject to
limitation.................
Adjustment for discount and 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
premium....................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, debt subject to 5,592 5,600 5,630 5,687 5,743 5,813 5,868 5,908 6,110 6,386 6,740 7,129
statutory limitation.....
Debt Outstanding, End of Year:
Gross Federal Debt:
Debt issued by Treasury. 5,601 5,610 5,640 5,697 5,752 5,822 5,878 5,918 6,120 6,396 6,750 7,139
Debt issued by other 28 27 27 26 25 24 23 21 21 21 20 20
agencies...............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, gross Federal 5,629 5,637 5,666 5,723 5,777 5,846 5,901 5,939 6,141 6,417 6,770 7,159
debt.................
Held by:
Debt securities held as 2,219 2,463 2,719 3,007 3,314 3,640 3,988 4,355 4,737 5,138 5,562 6,001
assets by Government
accounts...................
Debt Securities held as
assetes by the public:
Debt held by the public 3,410 3,174 2,947 2,715 2,463 2,206 1,912 1,585 1,404 1,279 1,208 1,158
(gross)................
Less excess balances.... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ -178 -452 -827 -1,288
Debt held by the 3,410 3,174 2,947 2,715 2,463 2,206 1,912 1,585 1,226 827 381 -130
public (net).......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, there it is. We have been engaged in the
most sordid activity one can possibly imagine with these 10-year
budgets. I remember when I was chairman of the Budget Committee in 1979
and 1980, we had a 1-year budget. The country sustained, survived,
succeeded 200 years of history on 1-year budgets. If you were a
Governor of a State and you submitted a 10-year budget, Moody's and
Standard & Poor's would immediately lift your credit rating. But wait a
minute, the best campaign finance trick is to use the Government's
budget to get ourselves reelected, running around and promising visions
of sugarplums dancing in their heads: Give the money back; the people
know how to spend their money.
Of course, every morning we are borrowing $1 billion, and they say
give it back to the people, but we are increasing the debt and
increasing the waste. We run amok with these 10-year budgets, and we
ought to go back to 1-year budgets. Let's take the budget we passed in
December, a few months ago, and debate all the cuts and vote on them.
With respect to the increase, we should have the pay-go rule. You
have to have an offset and withhold, not abolish. If President Bush and
this Government has a surplus by the end of this fiscal year, I will
vote for President George W. Bush's tax cut. I will vote for it--I have
to say that publicly--if we have a surplus. But as long as we continue
to increase the debt, let's hold up and find out.
As much as I hate to, I think we might have to go with a capital
gains tax cut, instead of an across-the-board tax cut, to really get
the market going. An across-the-board cut is not going to infuse
consumer confidence.
If the President came back here today--that is our problem. These
Presidents continue to run for office, they continue to work at keeping
the job rather than doing the job. If he would only come back and tend
to the real problems of the country and quit running all over the place
trying to sell a tax cut, I think the market would start back up. It is
not lack of consumer confidence in the economy, it is citizens' lack of
confidence in their Government. When they see us play this sordid game
of 10-year budgets, calling deficits and debt surpluses and sending the
money back with a childish cause that people are going out and spending
their money best and that kind of nonsense, that is what is happening
to the stock market. They can see we are going to an inflated economy,
the results we had from Reaganomics I. We are going to have Reaganomics
II, and we are going to really be in economic trouble.
The ox is in the ditch. We have everyone running around talking about
surpluses and 10-year budgets where everybody is right and everybody is
wrong. If we can just hold the line and get back to that 8-year record
of paying down the debt and fiscal discipline, then the people will
begin to appreciate this Congress at the market level.
Right now, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves with this sordid game
of again and again calling deficits and debt surpluses in order to buy
the people's vote. That is all we are doing. We will, with April 15,
have a large influx of revenues, and some debt will be paid down, but
they will never get to paying down $3.4 trillion in the Presiding
Officer's time and in my time.
Do not worry about paying down the public debt. Let us worry about
the increase of the overall national debt and go back to the Concord
Coalition's recommendation of fiscal discipline.
I yield the floor and 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are now proceeding on our debate and
discussion on the bankruptcy bill that is pending. I do hope those who
have amendments and want to make statements on them will come down and
take advantage of this time. It is an opportunity to discuss the
important questions that are before us.
As I have noted before, bankruptcy reform is, in fact, a second look
at the 1978 bankruptcy law. That law reformed the way bankruptcy courts
deal with debt in America. We have had experience now for over 20 years
with
[[Page S2177]]
that reform. We have seen how the law has been manipulated and abused,
and it is perfectly appropriate for us to try to create a system that
is honest and fair, eliminates abuses, and helps us make sure that what
happens in bankruptcy court is rational and defensible and furthers
good public policy.
That is what we are about. It is not legislation to fix all problems
dealing with credit in America. It is what happens when a person files
in bankruptcy. As the Members of this body know, we have in this
legislation a provision that says if you make above median income in
America, and a judge finds you are capable of paying back as much as 25
percent of your debts, and he calculates the current income and what
your debts are, if he determines that is possible, instead of wiping
out all your debt, you may be moved from chapter 7--in which debt is
wiped out in bankruptcy--to chapter 13, in which you would pay back,
over a number of years, 25 percent of the debts you owe.
It is my view, and I think the view of a majority of Americans, that
bankruptcy is a good thing. But if you can pay back your debts, you
ought to pay them; that we ought not say a person with a $100,000
income, perfectly capable of paying back a substantial portion of his
debts, can just not pay them. In fact, some of these people, over a
period of 3 to 5 years, can pay back all of their debts, we have
learned.
That is the change. I think well over half of the people who file
bankruptcy, maybe three-fourths, maybe even more, will be below median
income, so they will not be affected by this means testing of
bankruptcy. It is just those above median income based on family size
and other criteria.
I believe we are doing the right thing. I believe it is the right
approach, it is fair and just, and we ought to move in that direction.
We have also improved the system by eliminating quite a number of
abuses by good lawyers. Some people put them down, but I cannot blame a
lawyer for advising his client there is an opportunity to not pay
something if they do not have to under the current bankruptcy law. They
have learned how to advise clients to take advantage of the current
law. It is up to us now to fix that.
One of the aspects in the bill that I think is of great value is an
amendment I offered to encourage credit counseling. A lot of people do
not understand credit counseling. I, frankly, did not fully understand
it until I spent virtually a day with a good credit counseling agency
in Mobile, AL. They are off the main thoroughfare. They had a nice
area. People came there to deal with their debts.
What they do is negotiate with the creditors of the people who come
in to see them for counseling, and they will get them to reduce their
interest rates, get them to stretch out their payments, and they will
help that family develop a budget by which they can pay off their
existing debts.
Not only do they get them on a budget, but they save marriages. That
is because one of the highest causes of marital breakup is financial
discord. They sit the whole family down--children, wife, husband--and
go over their income. They go over their expenditures, what they can
reduce in their budget expenditures: Do they really need this cell
phone? Do they really need the higher level cable TV? They knock it
down.
Then they get the creditors to see this family is in trouble. If you
reduce your interest rate so that payment to the credit card company is
reduced, the payment to the furniture store is reduced, the payment to
the brother-in-law is reduced, maybe the deficiency on rent is
reduced--they work out a budget so the family can work themselves out
of this.
The beauty of this is that for the first time, many of these families
learn how to manage money. Too often they have not been taught that in
America today. I think it is a very good thing. I believe that is
healthy. Some have complained that our amendment says before you go to
bankruptcy, you should go to a credit counseling agency and at least
discuss with them the possibility that you could work out a debt
repayment plan and come out better doing it that way rather than going
straight into bankruptcy without that option.
What is happening is there are lawyer mills in the country. You turn
on your television; you look at your little flier at the corner market
that shows what you buy and sell, automobiles, furniture and things,
and you see advertisements by these lawyers about how to wipe out your
debts and avoid paying what you owe.
People respond. When they go down to the lawyer's office, essentially
the lawyer tells them--there is no mystery about this; I don't think I
am misstating it--I believe you are entitled to bankruptcy. I believe
you can wipe out these debts. It is now January 1, so you will need to
pay me $1,000. What I want you to do is live off your credit card and
all, but do not pay any of your other debts. Save up until you get the
$1,000 and pay me, and I will file the bankruptcy. Then you can wipe
out all your debts.
That is what they do, and they make money off that. I know an
instance where one of these lawyers does at least 1,000 of those cases
a year. That is $1 million in income in chapter 7, chapter 13, routine
filings. He doesn't even meet his clients. Basically his paralegals do
that and pretty much that is what goes on in America.
For people who need that, that is fine. For people who are not able,
hopelessly in debt for various reasons, that is fine. But if they can
pay their way out of it, I think somebody ought to be concerned about
helping them figure a way to do so. They will feel better about paying
their debt.
We don't need a legal system in America that suggests paying your
debt isn't important. What does that do for us on a moral basis--that
we have a legal bankruptcy system that suggests you have no
responsibility to pay your debt if you can pay those debts? I don't
think that is good public policy.
I suggest at least there be an opportunity for every bankrupt to
consider credit counseling. They are in virtually every community in
America. If they are not there, the bankruptcy judge can certify that
and the person doesn't have to go to credit counseling. But if there is
a credit counselling agency, this bill would say to a bankrupt who is
thinking about bankruptcy to go to them and talk to them. It is
fundamentally an interview. They do not have to fill out forms or do
anything at the credit counseling agency. They just have to certify
that they have been there and they have considered that option because
it is not being provided to them in the lawyer's office. Trust me. I
believe for a certain number they are going to conclude that credit
counseling--a matter they have never considered before--is better for
them than going into bankruptcy. And the family will be better for it,
and the legal system will be better for it.
That is what we are about today. Many people are in debt for many
different reasons. Some say: Well, it is credit card debt.
Some college students are filing, but their numbers are not
exceedingly high. The reason college students primarily are filing
bankruptcy and the reason many of them are deeply in debt is paying for
their tuition and fees--not on their credit card. It is their loan
payment which has put them in debt very deeply. And at some point they
end up running up credit card bills too, perhaps. But the biggest
amount of debt for college students is a student loan and the money on
which they have to borrow to live. Whatever the reason, we are not
certain.
We know hospital bills are a big factor in tipping people into
bankruptcy. That is a legitimate reason. We know many people are in
bankruptcy because they have a compulsion to spend; one or more family
members just cannot discipline themselves. I do not know if it is an
illness or what it is, but they cannot discipline themselves and are
unable to work their way out of adverse financial circumstances as
other family members are able to do. Other family members every day in
America are sitting down and deciding when they can buy a new suit of
clothes, or whether or not they can take a vacation this year, or
whether or not they can go on a school trip, or buy a new car. What are
they asking themselves? How can we pay the money we owe and buy
something new? Maybe we can't afford to do both this year. Maybe we
need to pay down our debt.
We don't want to create a system that makes the honest, disciplined,
frugal family look like a chump or look
[[Page S2178]]
like they are silly by working hard to pay off unexpected debt and
rewarding those who do not make the effort.
This is a fundamental question to me. This bill provides all the
protections for median income and below that are in the previous
legislation, and it provides other benefits also. It places women and
children at the highest possible level of protection. They get the
first money out of a bankruptcy estate today under the new legislation
instead of being seventh or eighth under the current bill in who gets
paid from what is left in the bankruptcy.
It provides priority to pay alimony and child support in a way that
we have never done before. It provides many other good provisions that
help our country socially and economically do the right thing.
We are excited about that possibility. Just because you move from
chapter 7 to chapter 13, if you are above median income--in fact, it
isn't all bad that you have been damaged dramatically.
I saw an article recently where someone was talking to a bankruptcy
lawyer. He said one person he was talking to had a $70,000-a-year
income and wanted to rush out and file his bankruptcy bill under
current law because under the new law he might have to go into chapter
13 and pay back some of his debts.
I ask you why a person who makes $70,000 a year shouldn't pay back
some of his debt. They say: Well, it is medical bills. Maybe it is an
unexpected medical bill. If he is making $70,000, why didn't he have
insurance? If he is making below median income, or a low income, maybe
I could be sympathetic because they didn't take out insurance. But if
he is making $70,000, he ought to be able to provide some medical
insurance. Maybe he shouldn't have such medical debts, No. 1. But, No.
2, why should we take the view that if you are able to pay back to your
hospital some of the costs of the service that hospital provided you,
why shouldn't you pay them?
I visited 20 hospitals in Alabama this year. I have talked to
administrators, nurses, and doctors. They are in trouble. It is
difficult for hospitals to make a living. They have a factor of
uncollected debt. They do not abuse people. But they are not being paid
a lot.
If a person cannot pay the hospital, and they are making below median
income in America, I don't want them to have to worry about it. Wipe
out the debt and go forward under this bill. But if they are making
above median income and they owe the hospital $10,000 and over 5 years
they can pay them $2,500, why shouldn't they? They got a benefit from
the hospital. Somebody else is going to pay for it, if they don't. Who
else is going to pay it? People are going to be paying for it through
their taxes and other payments, and they will be making below median
income. Why should a person who is honest and frugal making below
median income pay for the hospital bill for somebody making $70,000 who
can pay a portion of his hospital bill? Answer that. That is not
justice.
We have a bill that takes a step toward achieving justice. They say:
Well, you are just out defending big corporations, banks, and these
collection agencies, and you are oppressing the poor. There is no
change for the poor. There is no change in this bill for the 75 or 80
percent of the people who file bankruptcy who already make below median
income. There is no change in that. It is only if you make above median
income that a judge can order you to pay some of your debt.
I think that is right. I don't apologize for that. I do not believe
in this class warfare argument we are hearing time and time again that
it is oppression of the poor. Those are the same arguments we have
heard today. It seems that the hospital providing good care to an
individual and does not get paid for it is oppressing the person who is
making above median income by asking them to pay for it; if a credit
card company has loaned money, or a bank has loaned money to somebody
to go out and buy a house, buy a car, buy things a family needs, they
are oppressing them by giving them the money and asking them to pay it
back when the time comes to pay your debts back. Most Americans pay
their debts. I think credit cards are great.
We have had serious complaints in this body--and rightly so--that
banks and credit companies are not fairly making credit available to
poor people.
We have a bill called redlining that prohibits banks from opposing
and refusing to allow people with marginal incomes to borrow money
because they might think it is risky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Under the
previous order, 5 minutes was reserved for Senator Feinstein to begin
at 11 o'clock.
Mr. SESSIONS. I see Senator Feinstein is here. I will be glad to
conclude.
Fundamentally, this bill is not unfair. I would be willing to look at
any particular part of it. It has been pounded on for 4 years now.
Every jot and tittle of it has been looked at. We have tried to make
sure it is fair in every way. But we do say you ought to seek credit
counseling. Maybe there is an alternative to bankruptcy.
We say, if you make above the median income, you can pay back some of
your debts. But if your debts are so big, even if you make above median
income, you do not have to pay them; you can wipe them out, and that is
OK. And remember the great protection of bankruptcy for people in debt
is they cannot be subject to harassing phone calls and letters, demands
for payment and lawsuits.
When you file bankruptcy, all lawsuits and demands for payment have
to stop, whether you are in chapter 7 or chapter 13. A family can put
their lives in order under the bankruptcy laws now and in this new bill
in the same way that will allow them to have some stability in their
lives, to bring a conclusion to their credit difficulties, to not be
fighting lawsuits and credit demands that disrupt their lives.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Amendment No. 27, As Modified
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the amendment on the bankruptcy bill
that I have proposed is a very straightforward amendment. It simply
says credit card companies that issue credit cards to minors must limit
that debt to $2,500 a credit card, unless the minor demonstrates the
means to pay back the debt, or a parent cosigns for the debt.
In addition, the amendment would entitle parents who cosign on their
child's credit card the opportunity to be consulted before the debt
limit on the card is increased.
The amendment is basically a compromise. I amended the amendment to
place a cap of $2,500 a card rather than $2,500 on all cards a minor
might have.
The reason for the amendment is a simple one. Student credit card
debt has increased 46 percent over the last 2 years alone. Bankruptcy
filings among youth have increased sevenfold since 1996. The problem
is, there is no limit on the credit card debt a youngster can
accumulate. This amendment would end that problem, give parents the
responsibility of choosing to cosign for their youngster if they want
more than a $2,500 cap, unless the youngster could demonstrate that
they had the source of income to support the debt.
So essentially what this amendment does is provide a credit card
limit of debt of $2,500 a card for a youngster who is under the age of
21.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to each side.
Approximately 2 minutes remain in opposition to the Feinstein
amendment.
Amendment No. 39
Mr. SESSIONS. I will confine my remarks to the other amendment we
will be voting on, unless someone else wants to respond to the
Feinstein amendment.
At 11 o'clock, we will also be voting on the Kennedy amendment that
attempts to remove the cap of $1 million on how much a bankrupt can
protect in their IRA account.
I know Senator Kennedy steadfastly opposed the homestead law under
the current bill and I agreed. We made substantial progress in
containing the abuse of homestead that is unlimited in a few States.
Right now, if you pour millions of dollars into a home, you can protect
that home, you can file bankruptcy, and not pay your debtors, and keep
the $2 million home. To me,
[[Page S2179]]
that is not right, so I have supported that change. And we could not
get as far as we wanted because a number of States have provisions in
their constitutions that protect homesteads. We made a number of steps
to curtail that abuse--real steps--but we did not go as far as I wished
we could have gone.
This is a very similar situation. Why should you not pay individual
debtors--why should you not pay your hospital debt and other debts and
be able to file bankruptcy and have $2 million in your IRA account?
Can't a person live on $1 million at a 6-percent return a year? That is
$60,000 a year the rest of your life without touching the principal.
So I think this is an abuse by rich people, really, to protect over
$1 million in savings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the Feinstein
amendment.
Does the Senator wish to continue under the 2\1/2\ minutes in
opposition to the----
Mr. SESSIONS. I think Senator Kennedy is here. He would wish to speak
on his amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the first time in the history of
bankruptcy, we will put at risk the retirement savings of workers. In
this instance, we do not have a limitation in terms of the retirement
savings under the 401(k) programs. There are virtually no limitations.
But there are limitations in terms of the IRAs.
The IRAs are the programs that are most used by working families.
They can only contribute $2,000 a year to an IRA. There was no history
and no comments in the long testimony we took before the Judiciary
Committee that this was being abused, that people were putting money
into their IRAs in order to be able to circumvent bankruptcy. They
cannot do it in the first place because they can only contribute $2,000
a year. But there are many hundreds of thousands of workers in this
country who are putting aside the $2,000 a year and hope to build up a
sufficient nest egg that will augment their Social Security so they
will be able to live with some dignity. Now we are putting that money
at risk.
In many instances, the people who are going into bankruptcy are going
into bankruptcy because their health insurance has failed or they do
not have health insurance. They go to the hospital for 4 days and they
run up these enormous bills.
What the current proposal before the Senate is saying is, OK, that is
going to be too bad. We are going to suck up the 25 years of payments
into retirement programs for working families.
We say, we do not do it for the 401(k) programs, which are the
retirement programs for the more wealthy and affluent. We should not do
it for the IRAs. Starting now, at $1 million, it will just continue to
come down. And we are putting these savings at risk. It does not belong
in this bill. I hope my amendment will eliminate it. I think it is the
proper way to proceed.
Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Kennedy. I know we worked hard on this
bill to gain his support. Basically, the language that is in the bill
now has been modified to deal with a number of the concerns he raised.
The Department of Justice, under the Clinton administration, said:
A debtor should not be able to shield abundant resources
from creditors, including Federal, State, and local
governments, in the form of retirement savings.
What is ``abundant resources''? We say, over $1 million. I do not
think that is too much to allow somebody to keep when they are not
paying their debts.
From the Securities and Exchange Commission:
We have seen insider traders, who do their trading through
IRAs, and fraud participants stash their profits in IRAs. The
State law exemptions have not defeated our Federal statutory
claims to date, but a new Federal exemption--
Which we could be doing here--
could do so. I am concerned about the grave potential for
abuse that the exemption for all retirement assets from
bankruptcy estate poses.
We have asked--and the Senator from Massachusetts and others voted
for an amendment I sponsored--to limit homesteads to $100,000 as the
amount you could put in your homestead and not pay your debtors. Yet
there is an objection for some reason to saying you can't maintain more
than $1 million in your IRA and not pay your debts.
This is a reasonable cap. It will not hurt people. It will allow them
to have an income of $60,000 or more per year to live on without even
touching their principal under this IRA plan. It will, as the
Securities Commission says, avoid the dangers of fraud and just the
unfairness of not paying your local businesses, not paying your local
hospital, not paying your local neighbors what you owe and living high
on the hog with multimillions of dollars, perhaps, stuffed in an IRA
plan.
That is why we are in disagreement on this bill.
Vote on Amendment No. 27, As Modified
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I move to table both the Kennedy and
Feinstein amendments. I ask unanimous consent to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). It is not in order to move to
table both amendments at this time. The Senator may move to table the
Feinstein amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I move to table the Feinstein amendment
and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is there time remaining on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not time remaining.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the Feinstein
amendment No. 27, as modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FITZGERALD (when his name was called). Present.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe)
is necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Johnson
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--42
Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Fitzgerald
NOT VOTING--2
Inhofe
Inouye
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Chair recognizes the Senator
from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Vote On Amendment No. 39
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment
and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
[[Page S2180]]
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FITZGERALD (when his name was called). Present.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 37, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]
YEAS--61
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--37
Akaka
Baucus
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Clinton
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Wellstone
Wyden
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Fitzgerald
NOT VOTING--1
Inouye
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 41.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________