[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13142-13144]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2001--MOTION 
                         TO PROCEED--Continued

  Mr. LEAHY. I understand that the time of the swearing in and the 
comments may have affected the time as to our 12 o'clock vote. Can the 
Chair advise me how much time is remaining under controlled time prior 
to the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 21\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I think colleagues are 
expecting a vote at 12. I yield the next 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Vermont if he wants it.
  Mr. LEAHY. I probably won't even use all of that. I thank the Senator 
from Minnesota for his customary courtesy.
  I suggest that we make a few comments, and I will certainly support 
whatever moves to yield back whatever time we may have so that we can 
vote at 12. The Senator from Minnesota is absolutely right, Senators 
are expecting this noon vote.
  After today's vote on the motion to proceed, I am going to send an 
amendment to the desk for myself, the distinguished Senator from Utah, 
Mr. Hatch, and the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and ask for its 
immediate consideration. So that Senators will know, this amendment 
will be the text of S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001, as it 
passed the Senate on March 15 by a vote of 83-15. I was one of the 83, 
as were Senators Hatch and Grassley. I voted for the Senate form 
because it marked a bipartisan effort on the Senate Judiciary Committee 
and Members on the floor. We worked in the committee and then in the 
Chamber to produce a more fair and balanced bill because of our 
bipartisan amendment process.
  During our consideration of the Bankruptcy Reform Act, Democratic and 
Republican Senators authored and passed 38 amendments between the 
Judiciary Committee and the Senate floor. That improved the bill. I 
will certainly be able to vote for it on the floor. I will be able to 
vote for that in conference.
  We adopted the Leahy-Hatch amendment to protect the personal privacy 
of consumers whose information is held by firms in bankruptcy. Our 
amendment permits bankruptcy courts to honor the privacy policies of 
business debtors and creates a consumer privacy ombudsman to protect 
personal privacy in bankruptcy proceedings--the first ever in Federal 
law.
  Unfortunately, we had to do this. The reason the Leahy-Hatch 
amendment is needed is that the customer lists and databases of failed 
firms can now be put up for sale in bankruptcy without any privacy 
considerations. Just so people who don't spend much time on the 
Internet will understand what I am talking about, many times you go 
into a Web site and they will have a very clear privacy policy where 
they say: We will never share your name, disclose your address or your 
information. They may well mean it. For example, you may have a case 
where you want your children to be able to go on, but under the clear 
privacy--they may be children's books or anything else. They are 
willing to have your children go there, and you rely on the privacy 
line that says, ``Under no circumstances will we reveal these names.''
  But then if the Web site goes into bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court 
is faced with this kind of a situation. They look at the failed 
company, and they say they have a few outdated computers, they have a 
couple scuffed-up desks, a building. They do have one thing that may be 
worth something, one asset, and that is the list of all the people who 
have gone there--the names of your children and everybody else who may 
be on there. The bankruptcy court is put in this kind of a Hobson's 
choice. They are sworn to have to seek the best return on whatever 
assets remain for the creditors. Yet the people who created the assets, 
those who visit the Web site, are promised nobody is ever going to 
disclose their names. So this will at least ameliorate, or go a long 
way toward solving, the problems there.
  We adopted the Schumer amendment to prevent the discharge of debts 
from violence against reproductive health service clinics.
  During our hearing on bankruptcy reform legislation, Maria Vullo, a 
top-rated attorney, testified about the need to amend the bankruptcy 
code to stop wasteful litigation and end abusive bankruptcy filings 
used to avoid the legal consequences of violence, vandalism, and 
harassment to deny access to legal health services.
  If somebody is going to break the law and use violence against health 
clinics, and somebody then brings a suit against them to recover for 
damages because of their violence, they should not be able to say: I am 
going to get away with this and go into bankruptcy court. They should 
not be shielded by bankruptcy.
  We adopted the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, 
Mr. Kohl, to cap homestead exemptions at $125,000, to limit wealthy 
debtors from abusing State laws to hide million-dollar mansions from 
their creditors. If somebody knows they are going to declare 
bankruptcy, they can take whatever cash on hand and in certain States 
buy a multimillion-dollar

[[Page 13143]]

mansion knowing they might be protected. Senator Kohl has been a 
champion of closing this loophole for the rich.
  At our hearing in the committee, Brady Williamson, the former chair 
of the National Bankruptcy Reform Commission, testified that ending 
homestead abuse was a key and consensus recommendation from the 
Bankruptcy Reform Commission. They all joined on that.
  Last month, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling that 
underscores the need for a national homestead cap to prevent bankruptcy 
abuses. The highest court in Florida ruled a debtor can still keep the 
full value of his home even if the homestead is acquired with the 
specific intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. That should not 
be the rule.
  We adopted several amendments by Senator Feingold to strengthen 
chapter 12 to help family farmers with the difficulties they face. I 
hope we can finally make chapter 12 a permanent part of the bankruptcy 
code. Family farmers and ranchers deserve these protections to help 
prevent foreclosures and forced auctions.
  I know Senator Grassley and Senator Carnahan, the distinguished 
Presiding Officer, and other Senators on a bipartisan basis strongly 
support permanent bankruptcy protection for family farmers, and I am 
proud to join Senator Grassley and Senator Carnahan in that support.
  The complex and competing interests involved in achieving fair and 
balanced reforms of our bankruptcy system demand we work in a 
bipartisan manner throughout the legislative process.
  I look forward to working with Senators and Representatives on both 
sides of the aisle to further improve this legislation in conference.
  Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from Iowa is here. I 
ask unanimous consent that at noon, all time, held by whomever, be 
deemed to have been yielded back, and we will be prepared then to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I stand here today not in opposition to 
moving forward with the Bankruptcy Reform Act, but to send a clear 
message that I continue to have strong reservations about whether this 
bill is both balanced and responsible. I have long said that debtors 
that have the genuine capacity to repay some of their debt should be 
required to do so, but abuses by creditors need to be stopped.
  I grew up with a father who never accepted any credit--never had a 
credit card in his life. He taught me the importance of always working 
hard and paying your debts. I believe every American should work hard 
to spend responsibly and to repay their debts, but I also know that 
some families are hit by unexpected hardships.
  This bill should not have the effect of targeting our most vulnerable 
consumers--women who are left with little resources as their husbands 
who were the primary breadwinners leave the family; or families with no 
health insurance who are struck with financial hardship when one family 
member becomes critically ill; or another family who suddenly finds 
that the primary breadwinner is laid off with little employment 
opportunities available in the region.
  These are not the families who need to be further stuck by hardship 
of bankruptcy reform that is inflexible or overly harsh on debtors.
  I voted for the S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001, because I 
believed and still do believe that there were some important 
protections added to the Senate bill, but I will absolutely not vote in 
favor of the final bankruptcy reform bill if it does not include at 
least these minimal protections for our most vulnerable consumers.
  During the floor debate on S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001, 
I worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to add 
additional protections for women and children. I worked hard to ensure 
that once bankruptcy is complete, we do more to ensure that single 
mothers can collect the child support they depend upon. Senator Hatch 
and I passed an amendment to ensure that the holder of the claim, 
meaning the parent with custody of the child, most often the mother, is 
informed by the bankruptcy trustee of his or her right to have the 
State child support agency collect the nondischargeable child support 
from the ex-spouse. I believe this change will help inform women of 
their rights to have the State help them in their claims to collect 
child support.
  In addition, I was concerned about competing non-dischargeable debt 
so I worked hard with Senator Boxer to ensure that more credit card 
debt can be erased so that women who use their credit cards for food, 
clothing and medical expenses in the 90 days before bankruptcy do not 
have to litigate each and every one of these expenses for the first 
$750.
  These are the most minimal of changes that I believe need to be in 
the final bill. I still do not believe that they go far enough. I 
believe that the final bill should protect child support full stop. I 
do not believe that child support should have to compete with any 
credit card debt. But it should certainly not retreat from these 
changes. The cap on protected expenses should not be lowered to the 
House version of $250.
  I also believe that the bill needs to include Senator Schumer's 
amendment to ensure that any debts resulting from any act of violence, 
intimidation, or threat would be nondischargeable. It was a victory for 
the Senate to include this important amendment to ensure that those who 
are responsible for violence against women's health clinics are held 
responsible for their actions. I do not believe we should retreat on 
this point.
  Let me be clear. This bill should go further to protect consumers, 
but it should certainly not retreat from the consumer protections in 
the bill.
  I will vote for cloture on this bill, but I believe that as we move 
to conference we need to continue to work to ensure that we continue to 
gain more balance between creditors and debtors.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 17, H.R. 333, the bankruptcy reform 
     bill:
         Harry Reid, John Breaux, James M. Jeffords, Ben Nelson of 
           Nebraska, Daniel K. Inouye, Max Baucus, Blanche L. 
           Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Zell Miller, Joseph I. Lieberman, 
           Byron L. Dorgan, Daniel K. Akaka, Kent Conrad, Chuck 
           Grassley, Robert Torricelli, and Joe Biden.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 333, an act to amend title 11 of the United 
States Code, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? The 
yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  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 Washington (Ms. Cantwell) 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Washington (Ms. Cantwell) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 88, nays 10, as follows:

[[Page 13144]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 230 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--10

     Boxer
     Brownback
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Wellstone

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Fitzgerald
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cantwell
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). If there are no Senators 
wishing to vote or change their vote, on this vote the yeas are 88, the 
nays are 10, and one Senator responded ``present.'' Three-fifths of the 
Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the 
motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________