Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Biden.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would just need a couple minutes to offer that as well.

Mr. FEINGOLD. As modified.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to be clear on the amendment No. 51, that was No. 51, as modified. The leader originally said amendment No. 51.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Although I had intended to offer the other amendment, given the situation here, even though it is a very worthy amendment and really should be brought up on the floor, I am going to withdraw it at this time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have agreed on the modification.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Tennessee. I yield a minute to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The Organization for International Investment, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, and the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers oppose the provision because of their concern over its potential impact on the international insurance market. Now I realize there are arguments on the other side. The Names argue that they were defrauded by Lloyds, misled into investing when Lloyds knew that there were going to be many claims based on asbestos litigation. And despite their consistent losses in courts on both sides of the Atlantic, they might be right, and maybe the courts have been wrong not to let them make their claims of fraud in the way that they desired. They may believe they were right to try to avoid the judgments against them. But Mr. President, I don't think we in the Senate are in a better position than the courts to assess those arguments at this point. I am not yet convinced that this is a matter that should be addressed by legislation, certainly not by bankruptcy legislation, and very certainly not without a hearing. At the very least, we need to have a full hearing and air these issues in a public forum, that will lend itself to a thoughtful and deliberate consideration of the issues. The kind of insiders' deal that led to this provision being added for a small group of people should be unacceptable to anyone who cares about maintaining the people's confidence in the integrity of the legislative process. I hope my colleagues will join me in this bipartisan effort to strike this provision for a few simple reasons: It is a special deal for a very small group of people--they represent about one one-millionth of our population, but they somehow had the clout to get it inserted into the bill; it will undermine the ability of American courts to see their judgments enforced abroad; and it has not been fully considered by the Judiciary Committee or the full Senate--there have been no hearings, no debate and until the last few days, no knowledge by most members that this provision was even a part of the bill. We should strike Section 1310 and then we should ensure that it does not sneak back into the bill at a later date. If we adopt this amendment, I will keep an open mind on the issue of the remaining Lloyds names if it comes before the committee in the future, and I won't oppose a request to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to schedule a hearing to examine the issues in full if the Names wish to pursue a legislative remedy through the normal channels. But until then, this special interest provision has no place in the bankruptcy bill or any other bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment would delete section 1310 from the bill. Section 1310 is the epitome of a special interest fix-- its language purports to be general, it identifies no particular person, but it is targeted to affect only a tiny number of people who were involved in cases arising out of transactions with Lloyd's of London, a large multinational insurance company. Those people who invested with Lloyd's are called ``names.'' This provision, which bars the enforcement of certain foreign judgments against some of the ``names'' has nothing whatsoever to do with bankruptcy law. Very few people have heard of it but it has some history: It has been quietly promoted for at least a couple of years now, but it has never been the subject of a full hearing in the Judiciary committee. It found its way into the conference report that served as a vehicle for bankruptcy legislation last year, although it had never been debated or discussed in committee or on the floor. Let me emphasize that point: this special provision was nowhere to be found in the Senate bankruptcy bill in the last Congress. Nor was it in the House bankruptcy bill last year. Yet somehow, late last year, it was quietly slipped into the conference vehicle that was negotiated in secret. That vehicle was the empty shell of a bill unrelated to bankruptcy, into which was inserted the version of the bankruptcy bill favored by the majority leadership, along with the special-interest provision that my amendment seeks to strike. Somebody in Congress arranged that, but nobody in Congress ever voted on it. In the end, last year's conference report was vetoed. As a result Section 1310 has been treated as part of the bill we started with this year, and it has reappeared in the version of the bill before us: the same provision, designed to assist only about 250 investors in Lloyds of London, the Names, who lost money on asbestos- related claims in the 1980s. These individuals had judgments entered against them in British courts, and American courts repeatedly have declined to throw out those judgments. In fact, eight circuit courts have ruled that these investors' disputes with Lloyds should be settled in British courts. Now, to be fair, the Names have attorneys who argue that the British courts won't treat their clients fairly and that their clients have suffered as a result. So they have been seeking special treatment from the Congress, and if the final conference vehicle had not been vetoed last year they would have succeeded. Mr. President, this provision has been opposed by the State Department, under President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The State Department is worried about the impact of a law that gives the back of the hand to respected foreign courts, courts that we will rightly expect to respect and enforce the judgments of American courts. Here is what a State Department spokesman had to say about this issue in a Reuters article, dated March 13: We have reservations about section 1301. There are commercial disputes involving U.S. and British companies every day. It is inevitable that, in some of those disputes, U.S. parties will lose. But this cannot be the basis for the U.S. Congress to overturn decisions of both British and U.S. courts. Such action would be directly at odds with our own international economic policy, which promotes a rules-based system premised on the rule of law to protect U.S. investors abroad. Just this morning Mr. President, I received a letter in support of our amendment, signed by Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am happy to be joined in offering this bipartisan amendment by the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, and the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone. I ask unanimous consent they be listed as original cosponsors.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 51, as modified, to the desk.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his courtesy and assistance.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to support Mr. Durbin's amendment that is a complete substitute for the pending bankruptcy reform bill. This amendment is essentially the bill that passed the Senate in 1998 by a vote of 97-1. This near unanimous vote in favor of a bill shows that it is possible to have bankruptcy reform that the whole Senate can support if it is balanced and fair. Unfortunately, I have said before, S. 420 is not balanced and fair. I have outlined in detail my concerns with this bill. Mr. Durbin's amendment goes a long way to addressing those concerns and I will vote for it if we are permitted to vote on it. One of the most significant improvements that the Durbin amendment accomplishes is that it contains much stronger credit card disclosure requirements. Literally billions of credit card solicitations flood consumers' mailboxes each year. Not millions but billions. Even though the number of bankruptcies is now on the way down, most experts agree that the rise in bankruptcy filings that occurred in the past decade was due in significant part to the irresponsible extending of credit by credit card companies and banks to people who have already shown that they cannot handle additional debt. Just to give a single tangible example of the blizzard of solicitations that credit card issuers are now sending out, one member of my staff has collected solicitations he received by mail since this bill was marked up in the last Congress. In the last 20 months, he has received 95 mail offers for a new credit card. Now I am sure my staffer is a very creditworthy individual, but 95 offers for a new credit card? I am sure that my colleagues have received at least as many solicitations, even if they did not count them all up. And of course, these direct mail offers don't include the constant invitations for credit cards that people see every day on TV and on the Internet. This is an industry whose sales pitches are out of control. The credit card companies are making bad decisions every day. People receive new cards with thousands of dollars of new credit when they have maxed out on 2, 5, or even 10 other cards. And now the credit card companies have come before Congress asking for our help. And boy, are we about to give it to them. This bill is a bailout for the credit card industry. It is going to make it easier for credit card companies to collect more on the bad decisions they have made, the credit they have extended to people who are demonstrably poor credit risks. And make no mistake, giving the credit card companies more power will work to the detriment of women trying to collect alimony and child support from ex-husbands who have filed for bankruptcy. Last December, the Wisconsin State Journal, a very middle-of-the-road paper in my home State, summarized well my concern about the extent to which this bill gives the credit card industry what it wants. The Journal wrote: When the credit card industry came to Congress to ask for help in collecting debts from deadbeats, Congress should have said: It's not government's job to bail you out. Why don't you tighten up your own lending practices? Instead, Congress let the industry turn a bankruptcy reform bill into a debt collection assistance plan. The editorial continues: The House and Senate had before them 172 recommendations from the National Bankruptcy Reform Commission, which was led by Madison attorney Brady Williamson. The commission had stressed that bankruptcy law must remain balanced: It must work for creditors and debtors. But the congressmen also had before them lobbyists for the credit card industry and similar lenders. Quickly, bankruptcy reform legislation became a campaign fund-raising bonanza for the politicians, with the lending industry ``investing'' $20 million in contributions. Just as quickly, bankruptcy reform turned into the credit card industry's bill. My colleagues are well aware of my concern about the influence of campaign money on politics and policy. As I have said a number of times, the bankruptcy bill is a poster child for the need for campaign finance reform. You only have to look at what the credit card industry gets in this bill, and just as importantly, the disclosure that consumers do not get, to understand that. A full discussion of this amendment, or the larger bankruptcy issue, is impossible without a Calling of the Bankroll. Money and influence are at the very core of this debate. I would like to call my colleagues' attention to an article from the February 26th issue of Business Week magazine. It's called ``Tougher Bankruptcy Laws--Compliments of MBNA?'' The article points out the extraordinary largesse of this one credit card company, which is, of course, a significant leader of the coalition supporting this bill. The contributions of MBNA were also noted in an article in the New York Times entitled, ``Hard Lobbying on Debtor Bill Pays Dividend.'' Most of the $1.2 million in soft money that MBNA gave to the parties in the last cycle was given in the second half of 2000, when a ``shadow conference'' determined what the final bankruptcy bill would look like, and the bill was brought back to the House and the Senate in an extraordinary procedural maneuver. In particular, MBNA gave $100,000 in soft money to the National Republican Senatorial Committee on October 12, 2000, the very same day that the House gave final approval to the bill. MBNA has a habit of making well-timed contributions. On the very day that the House passed a bankruptcy conference report in 1998 and sent it to the Senate, MBNA gave a $200,000 soft money contribution to the NRSC. To give my colleagues and the public an idea of just how generous MBNA has been, the corporation's Chairman & CEO, Alfred J. Lerner, and his wife, Norma, each made contributions of a quarter of a million dollars to the Republican National Committee in the last cycle. And the generosity didn't stop there. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal from March 6th, MBNA President Charles M. Cawley is also an active political donor and fundraiser who gave $100,000 to the Bush-Cheney Inaugural Committee. Of course, MBNA is not the only wealthy interest fighting against this bill, on the contrary, they have plenty of company. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the nine members of the National Consumer Bankruptcy Coalition contributed more than $5 million in soft money, PAC money and individual contributions during the 2000 election cycle. The Coalition's members include Visa USA, Mastercard International and several financial industry trade groups, including the American Bankers Association and the American Financial Services Association. This is the fourth time I have Called the Bankroll on the bankruptcy issue from this floor. You might wonder how I manage to come up with new information, bankroll after bankroll after bankroll. Well, the answer is simple: the industry keeps giving more and more money. Huge sums, like quarter million dollar contributions, and six figure donations that just happen to be delivered on key days when legislation is up for a vote. This industry is not subtle. They want this legislation to become law, and they aren't shy about using the campaign finance system to get their way. That is the context in which we consider this amendment. And that is all the more reason why sensible protections like that proposed in this amendment need to be adopted. I urge my colleagues to support the Durbin amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the articles from Business Week and The New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to modify amendment No. 51 with the modification I now send to the desk.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we Americans take pride in our freedom and independence. Central to our sense of who we are is our firm belief that we are free to walk the paths of our own choosing, free to move about as we please, free from the intrusion of the government in that movement. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Draft of Instructions to the Virginia Delegates in the Continental Congress, ``The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.'' From the start, immigrants came to these shores to escape the state's intrusion into their lives. When in the early 1600's, the English government began arresting Separatists for their religious practices, about a hundred of them became the Pilgrims and sailed to Plymouth. When in 1620 the Parliament enacted a law requiring all to worship according to the laws of the Church of England, the Puritans came to Massachusetts, the Quakers came to New Jersey and then Pennsylvania, and Catholics came to Maryland. When, in 1636, Roger Williams sought freedom from the intrusions of the Massachusetts colony into religious practices, he founded Rhode Island. And two decades later, Jews fleeing the persecutions of numerous states settled there in Newport. Even separated by the Atlantic Ocean, however, the American colonists continued to chafe at the intrusion of the British government into their lives. Among the colonists' foremost grievances was the manner in which the British government harassed and searched Americans without reason or probable cause. The British government did so under color of general warrants known as ``writs of assistance,'' which gave British customs officers blanket authority to search where they pleased for goods imported in violation of British tax laws. This harassment by the state's officers helped to spark the American Revolution. In 1761, the Massachusetts patriot James Otis attacked the writs and their use to hound American colonists as, he said, ``the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty, and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book,'' because, in Otis' words, they placed ``the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.'' Otis' argument did much to sow the seeds of America's Declaration of Independence. ``Then and there,'' said John Adams, ``then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born.'' The Supreme Court later wrote: ``Vivid in the memory of the newly independent Americans were those general warrants known as writs of assistance under which officers of the Crown had so bedeviled the colonists.'' And in another case, the Court wrote: ``It is familiar history that indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted under the authority of `general warrants' were the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment.'' That Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Early on, Chief Justice Marshall assumed that the Fourth Amendment was intended to protect against arbitrary arrests. And that position has become settled law. More recently, the Supreme Court has said: Unreasonable searches or seizures conducted without any warrant at all are condemned by the plain language of the first clause of the Amendment.'' The Court went on to state that ``the warrantless arrest of a person is a species of seizure required by the Amendment to be reasonable. It is thus fundamental to American history and rooted in American law that the officers of the state may not arrest or detain its citizens arbitrarily or without cause. Our law and Constitution protect our freedom to walk those paths of our own choosing, free from the intrusion of the government as we walk. And it is that very individual freedom that gives our great Nation its strength. As John Quincy Adams wrote: ``Individual liberty is individual power, and as the power of a community is a mass compounded of individual powers, the nation which enjoys the most freedom must necessarily be in proportion to its numbers the most powerful nation.'' The point of my comments today is this is not the case for all Americans. But, some Americans still cannot walk where they choose. Some Americans cannot travel free from the harassment of the government. Some Americans still do not receive the full benefit of their civil rights. Too many Americans are subject to being detained by officers of the state without reasonable suspicion, without good reason, for no other reason than the color of their skin. As I noted at the outset of my remarks, many came to these shores as immigrants to escape the intrusive state. We must not forget that many also came to these shores in chains, because of the color of their skin. They and their decendents endured our Nation's long struggle against slavery and discrimination. Sadly, even now, skin color alone still makes too many Americans more likely to be a suspect, more likely to be stopped, more likely to be searched, more likely to be arrested, and more likely to be imprisoned. The numbers alone are devastating: A 1999 ACLU report found that along Interstate 95 in Maryland, while African-Americans were only 17 percent of the drivers and traffic violators, African-Americans accounted for an alarming 73 percent of the drivers searched. Last November, a front-page New York Times story reported that New Jersey state documents acknowledged that at least 8 of every 10 automobile searches carried out by state troopers on the New Jersey Turnpike over most of the last decade were conducted on vehicles driven by African-Americans and Hispanics. Racial profiling is not limited to I-95. The Justice Department has recently been investigating 14 police departments for civil rights violations, including Charleston, West Virginia; Riverside, California; Orange County, Florida; Prince George's County, Maryland; Eastpointe, Michigan; New Orleans; Buffalo; Washington; and New York City. In Los Angeles, the Justice Department recently forced the police department to accept an independent monitor's supervision after a 4-year investigation of police abuse in the city's largely minority Rampart section. The practice of racial profiling has not respected status or standing, wealth or privilege. Last September, the Director of Personnel at the White House, Bob Nash, and his wife were stopped for no other apparent reason than that they are African-American. As Mr. Nash said at the time: Until that moment, we had an intellectual understanding of the bogus crime, ``Driving While Black.'' But, in a few terrifying moments, we felt it more deeply and more personally than any words could ever convey. Said Nash, the experience left them embarrassed, humiliated and afraid for our lives. The Houston Chronicle reported that last year the Border Patrol pulled over and questioned United States District Judge Filemon Vela traveling to court--not once but twice--as part of an immigration crackdown in South Texas, called Operation Rio Grande. Last November, the well-known singer Lenny Kravitz was handcuffed and detained by Miami Beach police. Mr. Kravitz, whose 1989 song ``Mr. Cab Driver'' speaks out against racial profiling, appears to have fallen victim to it himself. Said Kravitz: I was very concerned and upset. Being black, I've dealt with all kinds of things because of my color, but nothing like this. Last month, 60 Minutes aired the story of Harvard law student Bryonn Bain, who appears to have been the victim of ``walking while black.'' He was stopped by police while simply walking down the street. In an article in the May 2, 2000, Village Voice, Bain said: After hundreds of hours and thousands of pages of legal theory in law school, I have finally had my first real lesson in the Law. Said Bain: The lesson for the day was that there is a special Bill of Rights for nonwhite people in the United States--one that applies with particular severity to Black men. It has never had to be ratified by Congress because--in the hearts of those with the power to enforce it--the Black Bill of Rights is held to be self-evident. Plainly, the practice of racial profiling is profoundly at variance with the fundamental tradition of American law and justice. In 1790, President George Washington wrote the congregation of Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, in words that are etched in the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington: The government of the United States . . . gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. But what other than ``bigotry'' and ``persecution'' can we call this practice of ``racial profiling,'' which targets drivers, airline passengers, or pedestrians, not because of any action they take, not because of any probable cause, but solely because of the color of their skin. Too many law enforcement entities have made a crime out of DWB-- ``Driving While Black.'' Among the many corrosive effects of this insidious practice is the way it undermines the willingness of good people to work with the police. As one victim of racial profiling in Glencoe, Illinois, said: Who is there left to protect us? The police just violated us. As the U.S. Civil Rights Commission found last year: Communities of color do not want to choose between safety and civil rights. They should not have to. We as a Nation cannot and should not tolerate this injustice. As the philosopher Herbert Spencer wrote: No one can be perfectly free till all are free. And as Woodrow Wilson said: Liberty does not consist . . . in mere general declarations of the rights of man. It consists in the translation of those declarations into definite action. Many leaders have spoken out against this intolerable abuse. Many have worked to translate the traditions of American law and justice into legislation to address this evil. First and foremost is our colleague in the other body, Representative John Conyers. Representative John Conyers has been at the forefront of legislative efforts on this subject. We have worked together on legislation focused on a study of traffic stop data. Shortly, Congressman Conyers and I will introduce, along with many of our colleagues, an improved version of that bill. Last Congress and this Congress, I have been proud to cosponsor a bill introduced by my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, that focuses on ``flying while Black''--the practice of targeting people of color to be stopped and searched in airports. Senator Durbin has provided valuable leadership on this issue. Let me take a moment to notice the very intense and sincere efforts of a new colleague of ours, Senator Jon Corzine, of New Jersey, who has made addressing this racial profiling issue one of his top priorities. I very much look forward to working with the new Senator from New Jersey on this issue. Leaders of both parties have expressed support for doing something about racial profiling. During the second Presidential debate, on October 11 of last year, then-Governor Bush said that he would support or sign as President a federal law banning racial profiling by police and other authorities at all levels of government. Governor Bush said: I can't imagine what it would be like to be singled out because of race and stopped and harassed. That's just flat wrong, and that's not what America's all about. And so we ought to do everything we can to end racial profiling. Governor Bush went on: I do think we need to find out where racial profiling occurs and do something about it. And say to the local folks, get it done, and if you can't, there'll be a federal consequence. He further said: [R]acial profiling isn't just an issue at the local police forces. It's an issue throughout our society. And as we become a diverse society, we're going to have to deal with it more and more. I believe, sure as I'm sitting here, that most Americans really care. They're tolerant people. They're good, tolerant people. It's the very few that create most of the crisis. And we just happen to have to find them and deal with them. On February 9 of this year, at remarks marking Black History Month, President Bush said that he would ``look at all opportunities'' to end racial profiling. While visiting a predominantly African-American elementary school here in Washington, D.C., President Bush said: I'll look at all opportunities, starting with the gathering of information where the federal government can help jurisdictions gather information, compile information, to get the facts on the table to make sure people are treated fairly in the justice system. And in his State of the Union Address two weeks ago, the President addressed the issue again. There, he said: As government promotes compassion, it also must promote justice. Too many of our citizens have cause to doubt our nation's justice when the law points a finger of suspicion at groups instead of individuals. All our citizens are created equal and must be treated equally. Earlier today, I asked John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, to develop specific recommendations to end racial profiling. It's wrong, and we will end it in America. I certainly welcome our new President's comments. Attorney General Ashcroft has also stated that racial profiling will be a priority in his Department of Justice. At his confirmation hearing on January 17, Senator Ashcroft said: I think racial profiling is wrong. I think it's unconstitutional. I think it violates the 14th Amendment. I think most of the men and women in our law enforcement are good people trying to enforce the law. I think we all share that view. But we owe it to provide them with guidance to ensure that racial profiling does not happen. I look forward to working together with you to try to find a way to do that. Senator Ashcroft summed up: I will make racial profiling a priority of mine. In a follow-up written question to that hearing, I asked Senator Ashcroft whether his opposition to racial profiling included racial profiling of airline passengers or people walking down the street. Senator Ashcroft replied: I have stated my strong opposition to racial profiling across the spectrum. There should be no loopholes or safe harbors for racial profiling. Official discrimination of this sort is wrong and unconstitutional no matter what the context. And two weeks ago, at an extensive statement and press conference on the subject, Attorney General Ashcroft said: I have long believed that to treat people solely on the basis of their race was a violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He declared: ``It's wrong,'' and said: I believe Congress can, and will, respond constructively. Attorney General Ashcroft also sent a letter to the Chairmen and Ranking Democratic Members of the Judiciary Committees on this subject, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, Wisconsin's former Governor Tommy Thompson, now Secretary of Health and Human Services, created a Task Force on Racial Profiling when he was Governor. That Task Force just completed its report, and concluded, among other things, that more data is needed, and recommended data collection. Congressman Conyers and our legislation calls for data collection, among other things. I am pleased that the President and Members of his Cabinet recognize the gravity of this issue for all Americans. Particularly in the wake of the racially divisive election and nomination of Attorney General Ashcroft, the Administration needs to make special efforts to heal the wounds that separate us as a Nation. And with the support of the Administration, we should be able to enact racial profiling legislation this year. But we should do more. Once again, I call on President Bush to resubmit the nomination of Judge Ronnie White to serve as a U.S. District Court judge. I also call on the President publicly to support the nomination of Judge Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. These distinguished jurists deserve to sit on the Federal bench. And the effective administration of justice in America demands that the Federal courts, even the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, reflect the diversity of this Nation. Let us do more to advance the cause of justice for all, and then we can truly live out the ancient wisdom, inscribed on the Liberty Bell, and ``[p]roclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.'' I yield the remainder of my time. Exhibit 1 Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DC, February 28, 2001. Hon. Patrick Leahy, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Leahy: As you know, I received a directive from the President late yesterday asking me to work with Congress to develop effective methods to determine the extent to which law enforcement officers in the United States engage in the practice of racial profiling. As you further know, racial profiling is the use of race as a factor in conducting stops, searches, and other investigative procedures. While we all recognize that the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers perform their demanding jobs in an outstanding manner, any practice of racial profiling, even by a small minority, is unacceptable. You may recall that during the hearing I held on the subject last year as a Senator, I stated that racial profiling, even if practiced only by a few, is extremely problematic for two reasons. First, it undermines the public trust in the impartiality of law enforcement officers which is essential to effective law enforcement. Second, and more importantly, I personally believe such a practice violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. I share the President's commitment to ending any unequal treatment of Americans, particularly by law enforcement. To this end, I urge you in your capacity as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee to consider quickly legislation authorizing the Department of Justice to conduct a study of traffic stops data that currently is being collected voluntarily by law enforcement agencies across the country. Such a study will assist us in determining the extent of the problem of racial profiling. The Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act introduced last Congress by Congressman Conyers in the House, and proposed by Senator Feingold in the Senate, is an excellent starting place for such an enterprise. I would hope that any legislation you consider makes clear that such information is provided voluntarily, in order to quell any potential federalism concerns. Such legislation ought to permit consideration of broad categories of data, such as the reasons and circumstances of any stop, the identifying characteristics of the driver and passengers as perceived and discernable by the officer making the stop, the characteristics of the officer making the stop, the racial or ethnic composition of the area in which the stop was made, and any other data that will ensure as full a picture as possible of these contacts, such as arrest and conviction outcomes linked to traffic stops. In order to encourage participation, the legislation hopefully will make clear that the legislation will not change the burdens or standards of proof in any lawsuits. The legislation, therefore, would lend to a better study, by emphasizing the importance and seriousness of the issue while, at the same time, encouraging cooperation. I am eager to begin work on this important task, and hope that Congress will consider such legislation quickly. If Congress is unable to authorize such a study in 6 months, I will instruct the Department to begin promptly its own study of available data. I look forward to working with you on this important issue to ensure that all Americans are guaranteed equal justice under law. Sincerely, John Ashcroft, Attorney General.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I'd like to commemorate International Women's Day. This day is an occasion to honor the many and diverse achievements and contributions of women worldwide, and the progress that they have made toward equal rights. It is also an important time to reflect upon the hardships and injustices that millions of women still face, and to reaffirm our commitment to take actions to overcome them and to further women's progress. For nearly a century, women in communities across the globe have been uniting on March 8th to celebrate their achievements and to bring attention to their fight for equality, justice and peace. In that time women have made great strides toward equal participation in all spheres of life, and at all levels of decision-making. Here in the United States, more women are earning college degrees, entering the workforce and starting their own businesses than ever before. Economic opportunities for women are expanding and home ownership is up. Women are playing a greater role in shaping local, state and federal policies that affect their families and them, as they are more active in the political process at all levels. The recent 2000 elections resulted once again in a record number of women serving in the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives and as Governors of States. We continue to see more women in top positions of federal agencies and in President's Cabinets. For the first time in American History, we have a woman, Condoleezza Rice, serving as our National Security Advisor to the President. Despite these impressive strides, much work still needs to be done. Women are still vastly under-represented at all levels of government. Although the gender wage-gap has narrowed since 1963, when Congress mandated equal pay for equal work, unfair wage disparities continue to be a problem. Wage discrimination is costing families thousands of dollars each year. These financial losses, coupled with a lack of affordable quality child care, forces many women to still have to make difficult choices about their children and their career. Just this week, women lost an important battle when the U.S. Senate voted to overturn the Occupational Health and Safety Administration's final ergonomics standard. This standard would have helped protect the 1.8 million Americans workers who suffer workplace injuries caused by repetitive motions. These injuries are particularly prevalent among women because many of the jobs held predominately by women require repetitive motions or repetitive heavy lifting. So we must recognize that there is still much work to be done in the area of equal rights for women. Today we must also consider the achievements and challenges of women abroad. As Ranking Member of the African Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I have had the opportunity to learn more about the status of women on that continent. Last month, as I traveled to the West African countries of Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Senegal, I was reminded of the tremendously important role that women play in the political, economic, and social fabric of that region and so many others. I met Nigerian women who have been prodding officials to face the HIV/AIDS crisis head-on; women working to build peace in Sierra Leone, and women devoted to improving girls' education in Senegal. I am pleased to celebrate their achievements and contributions today. However, millions of women in Africa and throughout the world face a great uphill battle before they will achieve full equality. Women are still more likely than men to be poor, malnourished and illiterate, and have less access to health care, financial credit, property ownership, job training and employment. In some places women are still denied the very basic right to vote, to let their voices be heard. Many girls and women around the world face tragic human rights abuses daily, as victims of domestic violence, and exploitive practices such as illegal trafficking for slavery or prostitution. In some countries, deplorable ``honor killings'' are still prevalent, where women are murdered by their male relatives for actions--perceived or real--that are thought to bring dishonor on their families. In regions of conflict, rape and assaults on women are used as weapons of war, and perpetrators are rarely prosecuted. For years, mass rape and sexual crimes have been considered normal occurrences of war, and only recently have these heinous crimes started to get the international attention that they deserve. An important victory for girls and women occurred last month when the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague, convicted three men for rape, torture and enslavement during the war in Bosnia. The international court set an important precedent by defining rape as a crime against humanity. There are many important ways that we can further protect women's human rights and improve the status of women and their families both domestically and internationally. One of the ways that the United States Senate can work towards that end is by acting upon the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW. Two decades have passed since the U.S. signed this important treaty, and yet it remains pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I once again call upon the committee to hold hearings on CEDAW so that the Senate can offer its advice and consent on this treaty. The U.S. can also support efforts to ensure that it is devoting significant resources to battling HIV/AIDS which is killing millions of women and their families, in Africa and other regions of the world. Congress can pass legislation such as the Paycheck Fairness Act to provide more effective remedies to victims of salary discrimination on the basis of gender. These are only a few of many initiatives that will impact women's lives. So, in closing as we mark International Women's Day, today and in the future, it is important for us to remember both the accomplishments of women and the many injustices that remain, and for the United States and the international community to reaffirm their commitment to promoting gender equity and human rights across the globe.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business, notwithstanding the previous agreement. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for his courtesy.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to draw my colleagues attention to the continuing crisis in West Africa, where a deeply disturbing trend has emerged in strong-man politics. In the model emerging in that region, violent regimes hold entire civilian populations hostage in order to win concessions, and even the guise of legitimacy, from the international community. At the heart of this trend, is Liberian President Charles Taylor. While the Liberian Embassy here and the man himself are currently trying to persuade the world of their good intentions, no one who has followed Africa in recent years should be deceived. Taylor has absolutely no credibility. All reliable reports continue to indicate that he is manipulating the situation in West Africa for personal gain, at the expense of his own Liberian people, the people of Sierra Leone, and now the people of Guinea. Some of the responsibility for the terrible abuses committed in the region must fall upon his shoulders. I believe that Liberian President Charles Taylor is a war criminal. Having secured the presidency essentially by convincing the exhausted Liberian people that there would be no peace unless he was elected, he proceeded to provide support for the Revolutionary United Front, Sierra Leone's rebel force perhaps best known for hacking off the limbs of civilian men, women, and children to demonstrate their might, although their large-scale recruitment of child soldiers--a page borrowed from Taylor's book--is also notorious. By funneling diamonds that the rebels mined in Sierra Leone out through Liberia, and providing weapons in exchange, Taylor has profited from terrible bloodshed. And after the capture of RUF leader Foday Sankoh last year, many RUF statements suggested that Taylor was directly in control of the force. The U.N. has found ``overwhelming evidence that Liberia has been actively supporting the RUF at all levels.'' An international sanctions regime has been proposed, but regrettably postponed, at the United Nations. Sanctions are the correct course. And while many fear the impact on the long-suffering Liberian people, the unfortunate truth is that they are living in a state of total economic collapse even without the sanctions, largely because their head of state has no interest in the well being of his citizens. Mr. President, I raise these issues today because I was in Sierra Leone just a few days ago. Previously, I had traveled in Nigeria, the regional giant in transition. Although I am more convinced than ever before, in the wake of my trip, that Nigeria's leadership must take bold steps to confront that country's difficult resource distribution issues and to hold those guilty of grand corruption accountable for their actions, I came away from my visit to Nigeria more optimistic than I had been when I arrived. From Port Harcourt to Kano, in Lagos and in Abuja, I met with dedicated, talented individuals in civil society and in government, who are absolutely committed to making the most of their historic opportunity to chart the course of a democratic Nigeria. I also visited Senegal, which is truly an inspirational place. In a neighborhood plagued by horrific violence, where even the most basic human security is in jeopardy, Senegal is moving in the opposite direction. Last year they experienced a historic and peaceful democratic transition. Senegal continues to be a global leader in AIDS prevention. Both of these countries--one still consolidating its transition, another forging ahead in its quest for development and concern for the condition of its citizens--affected by the crisis in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea. The entire region is. Refugees flee from one country to the next, desperately seeking safety. States fear they will be the next target of the syndicate of thugs led by Charles Taylor and personified by the RUF, and for Guinea, this fear has become a reality. Many, most notably Nigeria but also including Senegal, are undertaking serious military initiatives to bolster the peacekeeping forces in Sierra Leone. Some will ask, why does it matter? Why must we care about the difficult and messy situation of a far-away place. We must care because the destabilization of an entire region will make it all but impossible to pursue a number of U.S. interests, from trade and investment to fighting international crime and drug trade. We must care because, if we do not resist, the model presented by the likes of Charles Taylor will surely be emulated elsewhere in the world. We must care because atrocities like those committed in Sierra Leone are an affront to humanity as a whole. We are something less than what we aspire to be as Americans if we simply turn our heads away as children lose their limbs, families lose their homes, and so many West Africans lose their lives. What is happening in West Africa is no less shocking and no less despicable than it would be if these atrocities were committed in Europe. The innocent men, women, and children who have borne the brunt of this crisis did nothing wrong, and we must avoid what might be called ignorant fatalism, wherein we throw up our hands and write off the people of Sierra Leone and Liberia and Guinea with some groundless assertion that this is just the way things are in Africa. Africa is not the problem. A series of deliberate acts carried out by forces with a plan that is, at its core, criminal--that is the problem. And these are forces that we can name, and we should. And Mr. President, the leadership of these forces should be held accountable for their actions. That leads me to the next question--what can we do? We can help the British, who are working to train the Sierra Leonean Army and whose very presence has done a great deal to stabilize Sierra Leone. Their commitment is admirable; their costs are great. When they need assistance, we should make every effort to provide it. We can reinforce the democracies in the region, like the countries of Senegal, Ghana, and Mali, to help them pursue their positive, alternative vision for West Africa's future. We can continue our efforts to bolster the peacekeeping forces in Sierra Leone through Operation Focus Relief, the U.S. program to train and equip seven West African battalions for service in Sierra Leone. And we can urge the UN force in Sierra Leone to develop their capacity to move into the rebel controlled areas, and then to use that capacity assertively. We can work to avoid the pitfalls of the past. We must not forget that the welfare of the people of Sierra Leone is the responsibility of that beleaguered government. I met with President Kabbah, and with the Attorney General and Foreign Minister. I know that they want to do the right thing. But the point is not about which individuals are holding office. The point is that we must work to enhance the capacity and the integrity of Sierra Leone's government, and it must work on that project feverishly as well. The people of Sierra Leone need basic services, they need to have their security assured, they need opportunities. Ending the war is not enough. In the same vein, we must not tolerate human rights abuses no matter who is responsible. When militia forces that support the government of Sierra Leone abuse civilians, they should be held accountable for their actions. And we must work to ensure that our involvement in the region is responsible, and collaborate with regional actors to ensure that we monitor the human rights performance of the troops we train and equip. West Africa must break the cycle of violence and impunity, and all forces have a role to play in that effort. And that leads me to a crucial point, one that is particularly important for this new Administration and for this Congress. We must support the accountability mechanisms being established in the region. There has been consistent, bipartisan support for accountability in the region. The Administration should find the money needed to support the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and it should find it now. And this Congress should commit to contributing to that court in this year and the next. The Special Court will try only those most responsible for terrible abuses--the very worst actors. Others who have been swept up in the violence will be referred to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, another entity which deserves international support. The Court and the Commission are two elements of the same strategy to ensure accountability without leaving the rank-and-file no incentive to disarm and demobilize. They are vital to Sierra Leone's future, and they will serve as a crucial signal of a changing tide, and an end to impunity, throughout the region. Finally, we must join together to isolate Charles Taylor and his cronies and to tell it like it is. There was a time when some believed that he could be part of the solution in West Africa. At this point, we should all know better. And we must speak the truth about the role played by the government of Burkina Faso, the government of Gambia, and the others involved in the arms trade in the region. Mr. President, these issues do matter. I have looked into the faces of amputees, refugees, widows and widowers and orphans. I have seen the tragic consequences of the near total disruption of a society--the malnourishment, the disillusionment, the desperation. Some people are getting rich as a result of this misery. I have heard the people of neighboring countries speak of their fears for the region's future. I implore this body and this Administration to take the steps I have described. It is in our interest and it is right. And if we fail to do so, I fear that the terrible crisis will only get worse. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today we are debating an extremely complicated and extremely important piece of legislation, the bankruptcy reform bill. With the exception of a small number of amendments adopted by the Judiciary Committee last week, S. 420, the bill before us, is the same bill that President Clinton vetoed last year. The passing of a few months, and the change of Presidents has not made this bill any better, or more fair, or more balanced, or more worthy of this Congress than was the one we passed last year. It is still a bad bill and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Supporters of the bill have put enormous pressure on the Congress to act quickly and pass the bill again because President Bush has indicated he will sign it. The majority wanted to bring the bill directly to the floor without going through committee, notwithstanding the fact that we have a very different Senate after the last election. We had to fight for every moment of committee consideration. We did succeed in convincing the majority that the Judiciary Committee should consider the bill in committee. We had a quick hearing, and a markup, and I think the bill was improved in the process. Then, the same day that we voted the bill out of committee, the majority leader sought consent to bring the bill up on the floor. I am sorry this rush to judgment is happening. I believe this bill is bad policy, and I believe we will come to regret passing it. I respectfully suggest that having a new President who is inclined to sign the bill ought to put more pressure on the Senate to do its job in a thoughtful and balanced way, not less. In the past two Congresses, it has been my impression that the Republican majority has made decisions on the substance of this bill in order to stake out a negotiating position vis-a-vis the White House. Twice it has ignored the work done by the Senate on the floor and come up with a conference vehicle that was designed to provoke a veto. In 1998, for example, we passed a bill through the Senate by a vote of 97-1. That is the way bankruptcy reform should be done and has been done in the past. But the majority ignored that bill and brought what was essentially the House bill back from conference, and it failed to become law. Again last year, on issue after issue, including two crucial points--Senator Kohl's homestead amendment and Senator Schumer's clinic violence amendment, where the Senate had spoken by clear bipartisan majorities--the bill that came back from the shadow conference was tilted more to the House bill, and the bill was vetoed. This time there is no administration to push back in negotiations. This time, the bill will not be a product of compromise with the administration. This time the majority will bear responsibility for what it produces and passes. This time for sure we should listen to the experts who have been telling us to slow down and be careful. Amending the bankruptcy code used to be a nonpartisan exercise, where the Congress listened to experts--practitioners and law professors and judges and trustees, and made careful considered judgments about how the law should work. Now it seems as if we ignore the experts and instead do what the credit industry wants us to do. We use parliamentary tactics to avoid reasoned consideration. Those tactics harm the bill, and discredit the Senate. Let me now turn to the substance of this legislation. I believe S. 420 will do terrible damage to the bankruptcy system in this country, and even more importantly, to many hard-working American families who will bear the brunt of the unfair so-called ``reforms'' that are included in this bill. This is a harsh and unfair measure pushed by the most powerful and wealthy lobbying forces in this country, and it will harm the most vulnerable of our citizens. First, let me talk about what is not in this bill, which is directly related to the fact that powerful special interests have shaped it. As I have said a number of times, this bill is not a balanced piece of legislation. The interests that are the strongest supporters of this bill, the credit card companies and the big banks, succeeded in limiting the provisions that will have any effect on the way they do business. These interests gave us and our political parties millions of dollars of campaign contributions and they like the results they achieved in this bill. If we are going to pass a credit card industry bailout bill, the least we can do is to help save the industry from itself by taking some steps to make sure that consumers are made more aware of the consequences of taking on ever increasing amounts of debt. We have the chance in this bill to require credit card companies to be more open with consumers about the consequences of running a balance on a card, but so far we have not done it. We need more prevalent and more detailed disclosures on credit card statements and solicitations. There are limited disclosure requirements in this bill, but they don't go nearly far enough in my opinion. I am afraid the main reason they do not is the power of the credit card companies. I will speak about this topic again because I am sure there will be amendments offered to improve the disclosure provisions in the bill. And at that time, I will also call the bankroll on this bill, because the political contributions made by the industry supporters of this bill are truly extraordinary. There is another thing missing in this bill. Remember, this bill is supposedly designed to end abuses of the bankruptcy system by people who really can afford to pay off more of their debts. But the biggest abuses, and all the experts agree on this, come when wealthy people in certain states file for bankruptcy by taking advantage of very large or even unlimited homestead exemptions that are available in their States. Some people with large debts even move to a State like Florida or Texas where there is an unlimited homestead exemption, specifically for the purpose of filing for bankruptcy. The National Bankruptcy Review Commission and virtually all leading academics believe that homestead exemptions are being abused and a national standard is needed. And by a vote of 76-22, the Senate adopted in the last Congress an amendment from my colleague the senior Senator from Wisconsin to close the loophole. That amendment would have put a $100,000 cap on the amount of money that a debtor can shield from creditors through the homestead exemption. That amendment was stripped out of the bill during last year's secret conference and replaced by a weak substitute. The bill limits the homestead exemption to $100,000, but only for property purchased within two years of filing for bankruptcy. That means that wealthy debtors can plan for bankruptcy by moving to an unlimited homestead exemption state, buying a palatial estate, and then just put off their creditors for two years before filing bankruptcy. If they do that, they can continue to shield millions of dollars in assets and throw off their debts with a bankruptcy discharge. The bill will have no effect on this abuse of the bankruptcy system. This bill does not close the homestead exemption loophole that people like Burt Reynolds and Bowie Kuhn have famously used in the past. Once again, supporters of this bill chose to ignore reforms that would give this bill some balance. Somehow the interests of wealthy debtors who use the homestead exemption to abuse the bankruptcy system are more important than the interests of hardworking Americans who through no fault of their own--whether from a medical catastrophe, or the loss of a job, or a divorce, are forced to seek the financial fresh start that bankruptcy has made possible since the beginning of our Republic. I will, of course, support Senator Kohl when he offers his original and stronger amendment on the homestead exemption. Any bankruptcy bill that does not deal with homestead exemption abuse is simply not worthy of being called bankruptcy reform. It is interesting and very revealing to contrast the treatment by this bill of wealthy homeowners who abuse the bankruptcy system with how the bill that was introduced treats poor tenants who need the protection of the bankruptcy system to keep from being thrown out on the street while they try to get their affairs in order. As I mentioned, the provision dealing with the homestead exemption is virtually meaningless. At the same time, the bill President Clinton vetoed includes a draconian provision that denies the bankruptcy stay to tenants trying to hold off eviction proceedings, even if they are able to pay their rent while the bankruptcy is pending. I think this provision is purely punitive. It will have no impact at all on getting debtors to pay past due rent. It will result in the eviction of people who are not abusing the bankruptcy system, but who are trying to use it for exactly the purpose for which it was intended--to get a fresh start and become once again productive members of our society. When the bankruptcy bill was before the Senate in the last Congress, I tried very hard to pass an amendment that would have made the bill less harsh on tenants while at the same time denying the protection of the automatic stay to repeat filers who are abusing the system. I modified the amendment to take account of some reasonable hypothetical situations that the Senator from Alabama came up with. But the realtors strongly opposed my amendment. And the Senate rejected it by a nearly party line vote. That was unfortunate. It confirmed my view that this bill is not balanced. It is not rational. It's about punishing people, not just stopping the abuses that we all agree should be stopped. So I offered my amendment again in Committee this year, and with the help of Senator Feinstein, we actually succeeded in committee in eliminating the unfair and harsh provision of the bill section of the bill and replacing it with a provision that is fair to both landlords and tenants. Mr. President, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will oppose any attempt to eliminate the Feingold-Feinstein amendment that the Judiciary Committee adopted. Now let me turn to what proponents view as the central feature of this bill, the means test. After much work, I believe this feature of the bill is still flawed and unfair. The means test is the mechanism that the bill's proponents believe will force people who can really manage to pay some portion of their debts into Chapter 13 repayment plans instead of Chapter 7 discharges. The means test requires every debtor to file detailed information on their expenses and income which is then analyzed according to a formula. Those who pass the means test can file a Chapter 7 case; those who fail would have to file under Chapter 13. The bill includes an important ``safe harbor'' for debtors who are below the median income. The means test does not apply to them. That is a good thing, since studies show that only 2 or 3 percent of debtors would be required to move from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 under the means test. But even with that ``safe harbor,'' the bill has significant problems. First, the bill specifies that for purposes of determining the safe harbor, the median income for each individual state should be used, rather than the higher of the state or national median income. This will unfairly disadvantage people who live in high cost areas of low median income states. Furthermore, in the Senate bill in the last Congress, we included a safe harbor from creditor motions that applied to people with income less than either the national or the median income. The people who drafted the final bill that President Clinton vetoed and that has been reintroduced ignored that standard. I doubt they really believe it will mean that more abusers of the system will be caught by the means test. But they did it anyway, giving further evidence of the arbitrary nature of this bill. In addition, the means test still employs standards of reasonable living expenses developed by the Internal Revenue code for a wholly different purpose. These standards are too inflexible to be fair in determining what families can live on as they go through a bankruptcy. They are arbitrary. And they are also ambiguous with respect to things like car payments because they were not designed to be used in this context. We have pointed this out repeatedly over the past few years, but the sponsors of the legislation have insisted on using these inflexible IRS standards. The safe harbor from the means test also inexplicably counts a separated spouse's income as income available to a mother with children who has filed for bankruptcy, even if the spouse is not paying any child support. This can't be fair. Mothers filing for bankruptcy because their spouses have left them are treated for purposes of the safe harbor as if the spouse's income is still available to them. That is what this bill does. It makes no sense. It's arbitrary and punitive. And while I have heard that there may be some interest in fixing this problem, I understand that the credit industry objected when they tried to do that in the House. So we will see just how strong the industry is here in the Senate when an effort is made to correct this terrible injustice in the bill. Perhaps the thing that is most curious about the means test is that while we now have a safe harbor for lower income people, they still have to fill out all the same paperwork, doing all of means test calculations using the IRS expense standards. Why is that? If the intent is to exempt lower income debtors from the means test, why have them go through the means test anyway? The burden of the means test for these people is not the result--a tiny percentage would ever be sent to Chapter 13 because of it. No, it's the burdensome paperwork that is the problem. In our hearing, Bankruptcy Judge Randall Newsome made this point very powerfully. He said: If S. 220 must contain the means test as presently drafted, then debtors whose incomes are below the applicable median should be entirely insulated not only from its application, but from its paperwork requirements as well. Here is an example of the problem of making people go through the means test even though they are exempt from it. This bill would deny the protection of bankruptcy to a single mother with income well below the state median income if she doesn't present copies of income tax returns for the last three years, even if those returns are in the possession of her ex-husband. I can see no justification for this result whatsoever. So for those supporters of the bill who trumpet the safe harbor, I ask you: Why doesn't the bill apply the same safe harbor to creditor motions as the Senate bill did, and why doesn't it exempt people who fall within the safe harbor from the paperwork requirements? I have yet to hear reasonable answers to those questions, which leads me to believe that there are no reasonable answers. This bill is arbitrary, and it is punitive. This bill also includes a number of ``presumptions of nondischargeability'' provisions, which basically say, ``these debts can't be discharged in bankruptcy because we think they look like people are running up bills in contemplation of bankruptcy.'' In other words, they are abusing the system. They are accumulating debt with no intention of paying it off. The problem is that these presumptions are unfair. So instead of being a deterrent to abuse of the system, they are simply a gift to the credit industry, and a harsh punishment to hard working people trying to do the best they can to meet their obligations to their families. One such provision creates a presumption of nondischargeability if a debtor takes $750 of cash advances within 70 days of bankruptcy. And $750 in a little more than two months is not much. I think all of us can imagine a single mother with children who loses her job or has unexpected medical bills for her kids and has to use cash advances to buy food for her family or pay her rent. But if that woman files for bankruptcy, the debt to the credit card company is presumed to be fraudulent. That means that the debt from those cash advances will not be discharged by bankruptcy. It will still hang over her head as she tries to get back on her feet and support her family after the bankruptcy proceeding is over. That is not balanced reform. Once again, this bill gives special treatment to credit card companies at the expense of the most vulnerable members of our society. It is arbitrary and punitive. This example shows how empty the proponent's arguments are when they claim that the bill gives first priority to alimony and child support. Over 100 law professors wrote the Senate last year to contest that claim. Let me quote from their letter: Granting ``first priority'' to alimony and support claims is not the magic solution the consumer credit industry claims because ``priority'' is relevant only for distributions made to creditors in the bankruptcy case itself. Such distributions are made in only a negligible percentage of cases. More than 95 percent of bankruptcy cases make no distributions to any creditors because there are no assets to distribute. Granting women and children a first priority for bankruptcy distributions permits them to stand first in line to collect nothing. The law professors continued: Women's hard-fought battle is over reaching the ex- husband's income after bankruptcy. Under current law, child support and alimony share a protected post-bankruptcy position with only two other recurrent collectors of debt-- taxes and student loans. The credit industry asks that credit card debt and other consumer credit share that position, thereby elbowing aside the women trying to collect on their own behalf. . . . . As a matter of public policy, this country should not elevate credit card debt to the preferred position of taxes and child support. What the law professors point out so convincingly is that the key issue is not how the limited assets of a debtor are distributed in bankruptcy but what debts survive bankruptcy and will compete for the debtors income when the bankruptcy is over. In a variety of ways, this bill will encourage reaffirmation agreements, and increase nondischargeability claims, which will lead to more debtors having more debt that continues after bankruptcy. That is what hurts women and children, not the priority of child support claims in the bankruptcy itself. The priority of claims in the bankruptcy itself is almost meaningless since in the vast majority of bankruptcy cases there are no assets to distribute. People are broke and they don't have anything to sell to satisfy their creditors. That is why they file for bankruptcy. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. One of the interesting things about this bill is the almost Orwellian names of some its provisions. There are a number of them. For example, there is a title of this bill with the name: ``Enhanced Consumer Protection.'' But many of the provisions in this title actually offer little if any protection at all. The weak credit card disclosure provisions are one example. Yes, those may be ``enhanced'' consumer protections, enhanced from nothing, but they aren't considered sufficient by any organization whose primary concern is consumer protection. There is another section within the so-called ``Enhanced Consumer Protection title called ``Protection of Retirement Savings in Bankruptcy.'' Sounds pretty good. But what the provision does is put a cap on the amount of retirement savings that are put out of reach of creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding. You see, before this bill, there was no limit at all on the amount of retirement savings that can be protected. So this bill is not an enhanced consumer protection at all. It is a step backward for consumers and hardworking Americans who have tried to put aside some money for their golden years. Incidentally, this provision was nowhere to be found in either the bankruptcy bill that passed the Senate last year or the bill that passed the House in 1999. This is one of those provisions that appeared out of nowhere. In fact, before a firestorm of criticism forced him to reconsider, the Senator who proposed this provision wanted to let consumers waive the existing protection of retirement savings in boilerplate consumer credit agreements. So the $1 million cap is an improvement over what the sponsors of this bill tried to do, but it is hardly a ``protection.'' I understand that Senator Kennedy may offer an amendment to eliminate this cap, and I will support it. Here is another Orwellian title. Section 306 is called ``Giving Secured Creditors Fair Treatment Under Chapter 13.'' It ought to be called ``Giving Certain Secured Creditors Preferred Treatment Under Chapter 13,'' because it favors those who make car loans over other secured creditors and over unsecured creditors. Here is how it works: There is a concept in bankruptcy law currently called ``cramdown'' or ``stripdown.'' It recognizes the fact that the collateral for some kinds of loans can lose value over time, so that it may be worth significantly less than the debt owed. Remember that in a bankruptcy proceeding, secured creditors get paid first. But the cramdown concept says to those creditors, you only get paid first up to the amount of the value of the collateral for the loan. After that, if you are still owed money, you get in line with other unsecured creditors. To give a more tangible example, if someone owes $10,000 on a car loan, but the car which is collateral for that loan is worth only $5,000, then only $5,000 of that loan is considered secured in a bankruptcy. That makes perfect sense, since the maker of that loan has the right to repossess the car, but if it does that it can only get $5,000 when it sells the car. What the bill does is to eliminate the cramdown for any car that is purchased within 5 years of bankruptcy. That means that even though the vehicle that secures the loan has lost much of its value, the entire amount of the debt must be repaid in a Chapter 13 plan. This gives special treatment to the lender, but more importantly, it will make it much more difficult for a Chapter 13 plan to work. And that will hurt people who want to pay off their debts in an organized fashion under Chapter 13. In answer to my written question, Bankruptcy Judge Randall Newsome supplied a detailed example that shows how the elimination of the cramdown option will hurt both debtors and creditors. In his example, a debtor with a seven year old car who files under Chapter 13 under current law will be able to pay off his car loan up to the value of the car with interest and make a meaningful payment of his unsecured debts over the 3 year duration of his Chapter 13 plan. But with the elimination of the cramdown in the bill, he would, he would have no choice but to file in Chapter 7 and allow the car lender to repossess his vehicle. And his unsecured creditors would get nothing. I ask that Judge Newsome's letter to me providing the details of this example be printed in the Record.