Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert Culbertson, a fellow in Senator Lieberman's office, be granted floor privileges for the introduction of the Children and Media Research Advancement Act.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 89 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry, who is the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we have spent a great deal of time debating and trying to improve provisions of this bill that affect consumer bankruptcies. Most of my colleagues may not even be aware that this bill actually contains provisions that make significant changes to portions of the Bankruptcy Code that relate to small businesses. They may not realize it, but it does. Subtitle B of title IV of the bill is entitled ``Small Business Bankruptcy Provisions,'' and I doubt more than a handful of people in this body have any idea what is in the subtitle. The subtitle includes a number of new restrictions and requirements for small businesses that want to reorganize under chapter 11. That is right, these are requirements and restrictions for small businesses that do not apply to large companies. I was shocked when this came to my attention, but there it is in black and white, subtitle B, ``Small Business Bankruptcy Provisions.'' These are not provisions to help small businesses, as one might expect from a bill that is going through the Senate. No, these provisions penalize small businesses. They make it harder for small businesses to reorganize in order to survive. Here is an example. Section 434 would require regular reports on the small business's profitability. They will have to report all kinds of things: profitability, cash receipts and disbursement, requirements to be in compliance with postpetition requirements, timely filing of tax returns, and ``such other matters as are in the best interests of the debtor and creditors.'' This is a mountain of information. Mom-and-pop operations will have to spend a great deal of time pulling these reports together, and the reports probably will not even be useful. Creditors and judges examining a debtor's profitability rely on cash disbursements and receipts, not self-reporting, because they are more informative and less subject to manipulation. It seems to me these reports will not be of much use to anyone, but they will be quite burdensome for a small business to produce on a regular basis. What is the penalty for failure to jump through this bureaucratic hoop? Dismissal. Again, not for large corporations, mind you, which have armies of accountants to handle paperwork like this, but for the small entrepreneurs who could be spending that time keeping their businesses afloat instead of producing these piles of paper for some government file which basically no one will ever use. I do not want to have to go back to Wisconsin and have to explain to a grocery store owner who is already working late into the night, trying to pull her business through a financial crisis, that the Federal Government has decided to keep her even longer to put together a report that nobody even plans to read. I am very concerned, almost ashamed of this Chamber to think I would have to tell her that if she were a big corporation, if she were the big chain of huge grocery stores, then the law would not require this of her. It would not treat her this way. Professor Elizabeth Warren wrote, when the same language was proposed during the 107th Congress: A decision by Congress in 2001 that small businesses should bear greater costs, face shorter deadlines, file more papers and lose any flexibility that a supervising judge might provide is a decision to shut down small businesses simply because they are small. That is what Professor Warren wrote. I can see no justification for imposing burdens on small business in the bankruptcy code that will not be imposed on large corporations. It has always been our responsibility as legislators to protect small businesses. My amendment calls on us to fulfill that responsibility in a very significant way. It would simply strike a number of the provisions in title IV, subtitle B of the bill. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small firms represent 99.7 percent of all employers and pay 44 percent of the total U.S. private payroll. Small businesses have generated from 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs created annually over the last decade. I can't figure out why, for the life of me, we are trying to make life harder for small businesses. What is particularly puzzling is that I have heard a number of my colleagues complain about the burdens that they believe federal regulations impose on small businesses. The head of the Small Business Administration recently testified before the Small Business Committee that ``[s]ome of the heaviest burdens borne by small business in America are the result of unnecessary federal regulation and redtape.'' If my colleagues share that belief--and even if they don't--why would we want to impose further Federal regulations and red tape on small business chapter 11 bankruptcies? The worst thing about this attack on small business is that it is utterly unprovoked. Another provision of this bill would impose harsh deadlines on small businesses seeking to reorganize under chapter 11, but these deadlines are apparently designed to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The bill's drafters perhaps believed, back in 1998, that chapter 11 offers a shelter for failing small businesses, allowing them to delay the inevitable and die a lingering death to the detriment of their creditors. But this is just not the case. The bill would impose an arbitrary 300-day hard deadline for a small business to file its reorganization plan. But a recent study of small business bankruptcy cases by Professor Douglas Baird of the University of Chicago Law School and Professor Edward Morrison of Columbia Law School shows that this deadline is completely counterproductive. According to this study, more than half of small business chapter 11 cases that fail--in other words, those that are dismissed, or converted to chapter 7 liquidations--are terminated within 4 months of filing. Over 70 percent are terminated within 6 months. By 300 days more than 90 percent have already left the system. In other words, the 300-day deadline imposed by this bill will affect a very small percentage of small business plans that are actually bound for failure. It constrains the discretion of bankruptcy judges, without any apparent justification for doing so, since reorganization cases without merit are already being terminated in a timely manner. Instead of protecting the system against abuse by small businesses doomed to eventual failure, this bill will punish primarily small businesses that would otherwise succeed. Professors Baird and Morrison found that of the small businesses that successfully reorganize under chapter 11, nearly 40 percent need more than 300 days to do so. In other words, the facts show that by 300 days, most failing small businesses have already failed but many viable small businesses are still struggling. We should be helping them, not terminating them. Forcing small businesses capable of successfully reorganizing into chapter 7 liquidation proceedings is bad for their creditors, and tragic for the entrepreneurs who will see their livelihoods and their hard work over years or even generations needlessly destroyed. Compare the hard deadline in the bill to what happens in the bankruptcies of large corporations. United Airlines filed for chapter 11 protection in December 2002. That is over 2 years ago. And the court has continually allowed the effort to come up with a reorganization plan that the creditors can accept to continue rather than force the airline to liquidate. We still don't know what will happen in that case, but clearly it is worth trying to save that company, with all its employees and devoted customers. Why don't we want to allow the courts to exercise the same flexibility for small businesses? Are they just not as important as the big corporations like United? Is that the message the Senate is trying to send with this bill? I can hardly believe that my colleagues want to send that message. But this could have a big impact on the ability of small businesses across the country to survive, so I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this amendment. These new burdens on small businesses are simply wrong. Congress simply should not be in the business of forcing viable small businesses into liquidation. And why are large corporations seeking to reorganize not similarly burdened? Do the bill's drafters think that large businesses are more important than small businesses, so we should give them extra time to reorganize? There is an additional irony here when you compare the requirements we put on large and small businesses in bankruptcy that my colleagues should consider. Large companies are often subject to a variety of reporting requirements by the federal securities laws that are not applicable to small businesses. But the SEC often exempts companies in chapter 11 from those requirements. At the same time that large companies are often excused from onerous reporting because of their bankruptcy, this bill puts additional reporting requirements on small businesses. Where is the fairness in that? If there is a crisis with small business bankruptcies, I am not aware of it. Professor Warren, one of the country's leading bankruptcy experts, was one of the authors of a 1999 Small Business Administration study. That study found that one-third of bankrupt businesses had less than $100,000 in debts and almost four out of five had less than half a million dollars in debts. What is more, almost half--45 percent--of the small businesses had one or no employees when they filed for bankruptcy. These numbers don't give me any reason to think that small business bankruptcies are such a serious problem that we need to enact special provisions targeting them. Bankruptcy experts tell me that these small business provisions are just crazy. But they have been in the bill forever, and most of the focus is on the consumer provisions when we debate this bill. Someone needs to stand up and say, ``Wait a second. Why are we discriminating against small businesses in the bankruptcy laws?'' I can't think of a single bill in my entire time in the Congress--over 12 years--where a single law on the books treats small businesses worse than big corporations. That is the opposite of what we usually do in this body. We always protect small businesses. Why is this bill any different? When I offered this amendment in the Judiciary Committee, I heard two arguments against it. The first was that the provisions were recommended by the National Bankruptcy Commission. This is a very odd argument, coming from the same people who completely ignored the commission's work on consumer bankruptcy issues and drafted a bill largely in response to the credit industry's recommendations. But more importantly, I have been told that the commission provisions were created by certain commissioners who wanted to reform chapter 11 for all companies, large and small. The big companies came in and said: ``No, don't do that to us. Those deadlines are too restrictive.'' Here is what happened. The recommendation was amended to apply only to small businesses. There was no showing that there are more abuses in small business bankruptcies than in chapter 11 filings for large companies. Small businesses apparently just didn't have the right lobbyists watching the process. So they got stung by these wrongheaded provisions that live on year after year in this bill without anyone coming forward to explain why they are necessary or useful. The second argument that came up in the committee was that small businesses support this bill. That is true, at least for some small businesses. But they don't necessarily support the particular provisions that I am talking about. They may not even know about these provisions. Small businesses, like large businesses, support the bill because it makes it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy. But I doubt very much that they want the law changed to make it harder for struggling small businesses to reorganize under chapter 11. This is an important example of how this bill fails to reflect lessons we have learned in the years since it was first proposed. Given the recent history of large-scale corporate bankruptcies and scandals, the way this bill cracks down on small businesses is not only misguided, it is shocking. We should be focusing our energies on the real problem, not penalizing small businesses. I urge adoption of this amendment, and I hope that small businesses all across this country will be watching this debate. Those people who think the Senate is devoted to the interests of small businesses may be in for a rude awakening if this amendment is not agreed to. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Idaho. Mr. President, we are about to vote on an amendment that will tell this Nation's small businesses whether we stand with them. This bill includes a number of new restrictions and requirements for small businesses that want to reorganize under chapter 11. These requirements and restrictions for small businesses don't apply to large companies. I was shocked when this came to my attention, but there it is in black and white: Subtitle B, Small Business Bankruptcy Provisions. And these are not provisions to help small businesses as one might expect from a bill that is going through the United States Senate. No, these provisions penalize small businesses. They make it harder to reorganize in order to survive. These new provisions are entirely unnecessary. There is no crisis in small business bankruptcies. And a new study shows. that most failed attempts at chapter 11 reorganization are concluded within 300 days, which is the hard deadline in the bill. But 40 percent of reorganizations that succeed take longer than 300 days. That means that this bill is going to make some small businesses fail that don't have to. That is an absurd result. Remember the United Air Lines Chapter 11 reorganization is over two years old and it is still going on. Why shouldn't small businesses get that kind of leeway if there is a chance they can pull through? These provisions haven't received nearly the attention in this body that the portions of the bill that deal with consumer bankruptcies have received. We need to take these provisions out. Doing so won't have any effect on the core provisions of this bill. But it will prevent a real injustice from being done to small businesses. Forcing a small business to liquidate rather than reorganize is bad for creditors, bad for consumers, and bad for small businesses. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to commemorate International Women's Day, celebrated on March 8. International Women's Day gives us all an opportunity to reflect on women's accomplishments around the world and to reaffirm our commitment to continuing the vitally important work of securing and advancing women's rights, particularly their health, education, and security. Today, we can all marvel at the outstanding contributions that women make every day to their communities, their countries, and the entire world. We can reflect on the work of Wangari Maathai, the Kenyan Nobel Peace Prize winner, whose brave and insistent voice on behalf of human rights and environmental protection found an audience not just on the global stage, and not just among elites in government, but among the women of her country, who have made the Green Belt Movement a success. We can celebrate the bravery of Afghan women, who have participated in elections even as the memory of the Taliban's brutal repression of their rights remains so fresh. Women accounted for 41 percent of the October 2004 vote in Afghanistan, and women hold 102 seats of Afghanistan's Constitutional Loya Jirga. We can reflect on the wonderful welcome that Dora Bakoyiannis, the mayor of Athens, extended to the world during this year's Olympic ceremonies. But in too many parts of the world, the basic human rights of women are violated with impunity. Human rights groups continue to report rampant violence, abuse, and rape of tens of thousands of women and children by militants in Eastern Congo who are rarely, if ever, brought to justice. The murders of more than 370 women in the Chihuahua state of Mexico since 1993 remain unsolved. Thirty more women have been killed there since 2004 and the lack of progress in these cases of brutal violence and sexual assault against women from the cities of Juarez and Chihuahua is deeply disturbing. The internally displaced women of Darfur, Sudan, too often are confronted with a horrible choice--collect firewood and risk being raped by jinjaweit militia, or watch their children go hungry. I have authored or cosponsored legislative initiatives to address each of these crises, but I know that solutions will require hard work over the long term. I also support the U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW. Ratification of the treaty would send an important message to the international community about our commitment to the rights of women and girls. The global, rapid progression of HIV/AIDS infection, especially in women, is undeniable. More than 40 million adults and children are infected with HIV/AIDS and over 20 million are women. UNAIDS reports that women and girls in sub-Saharan Africa make up 57 percent of HIV- positive persons in this region. Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in which women are infected with the virus at a higher rate than men. In sub-Saharan Africa, between the ages of 15 to 24, there are on average 36 women testing positive for HIV for every 10 males. As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have had the opportunity to travel to numerous countries in Africa and see firsthand the devastating toll that HIV/ AIDS and other infectious diseases are taking on the people of this continent. We must find concrete ways to address the special vulnerabilities of women and girls in our HIV/AID prevention and treatment programs. Nearly 100 million children worldwide are not receiving an education, nearly two-thirds of them female. In countries such as Uganda and Nigeria, some teachers are expected to instruct anywhere from 175 to 215 students, singlehandedly. The education of girls regularly takes a back seat to that of their male siblings and to the needs of the family in many parts of the world. In order to combat global diseases, halt violence against women, and enhance women's rights, ensuring girls are educated must be a global community priority. In short, while there are shining examples of progress in women's rights, we have much more to do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the efforts I have described and others to improve the lives of women.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I note the recent passing of Professor Ron Shaffer, a man who dedicated his career to helping communities discuss and plan their economic development. Ron joined the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1972, the same year he received a doctorate in agricultural economics, and he soon became a pillar of that great institution. For three decades, until his retirement from UW in 2001, Ron was one of the State's--if not the country's--leading experts on community economics and he wrote extensively on the subject. But, throughout his many years in academia, Ron always remained focused on the real world applications of his teaching. Economic development was not an abstract concept for him--it was a way to help people live better, happier, more productive lives. Particularly in the decade he spent as director of the University of Wisconsin Center for Community Economic Development, Ron devoted himself to bolstering the many and varied rural communities that are the backbone of Wisconsin. Ron won many honors and accolades throughout his career. His work attracted international attention, and he was called upon by governments from Australia to Norway to advise on local economic development policies. In a particularly fitting move, the year he retired from UW, the National Rural Development Partnership established the Ron Shaffer Award, to be given annually for outstanding collaboration in rural America. But I suspect that none of the honors he won mattered as much to Ron as the love and companionship of his family and friends. They loved his decency, his compassion, and his willingness to lead a patient ear. They admired him for the courage with which he handled his diagnosis of ALS, or Lou Gehrig's Disease. It was typical of Ron that he used his illness as an opportunity to advocate for others afflicted with this terrible disease--after all, he spent his life helping others. He will be sorely missed as a husband, a father, a friend, and a deeply good and giving man.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have filed a number of amendments to this bill, most of which I believe are germane and therefore can be offered and debated and voted on even if cloture is invoked tomorrow. I wanted to make sure that my amendments have been called up prior to cloture so that I am assured of getting a vote on any amendment that is germane. It is not my intention to debate these amendments tonight. That is what this request is designed to do, merely to allow my germane amendments to be voted on prior to a vote on final passage of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside and that each of my amendments Nos. 87 through 101 be called up in turn, that the reading of each amendment be dispensed with, and each amendment in turn be laid aside so that another amendment can become the pending business, and that the last amendment in the list then be laid aside so that the amendment that is now pending is again the pending business.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Fifteen total. This is not a number that I would actually offer. I will be able to pare that list down, but I wanted to preserve my right to have any germane amendment voted on postcloture.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have found the Senator very reasonable in working on these amendments. Certainly some will not be offered, others are not major amendments, others will require votes, but it will be a list significantly smaller than 15.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, because of a family matter I was unable to take part in Thursday's votes. I regret that I was unable to vote on S.J. Res. 4, a resolution to prevent the Department of Agriculture from going forward with its plan to open the Canadian border to beef and cattle imports. I signed the discharge petition to force a vote on the measure and would have voted to delay the reopening. I am pleased that the Senate approved the resolution. I also regret that I was unable to vote in favor of several worthy amendments that would have improved a bankruptcy bill that is in dire need of improvement. While my votes would not have affected the outcome of any of those votes, it is unfortunate that the amendments were not adopted.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to eliminate from the Federal tax code percentage depletion allowances for hardrock minerals mined on Federal public lands. I thank Senator Cantwell for joining me as a cosponsor on this legislation. President Clinton proposed the elimination of the percentage depletion allowance on public lands in his fiscal year 2001 budget. President Clinton's fiscal year 2001 budget estimated that, under this legislation, income to the Federal treasury from the elimination of percentage depletion allowances for hardrock mining on public lands would total $487 million over 5 years and $1.20 billion over 10 years. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would save $410 million over 5 years and $823 million over 10 years. Percentage depletion allowances are contained in the tax code for extracted fuel, minerals, metal and other mined commodities. These allowances have a combined value, according to estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, of $4.8 billion. These percentage depletion allowances were initiated by the Corporation Excise Act of 1909. That's right, these allowances were initiated nearly one hundred years ago. Provisions for a depletion allowance based on the value of the mine were made under a 1912 Treasury Department regulation, but difficulty in applying this accounting principle to mineral production led to the initial codification of the mineral depletion allowance in the Tariff Act of 1913. The Revenue Act of 1926 established percentage depletion much in its present form for oil and gas. The percentage depletion allowance was then extended to metal mines, coal, and other hardrock minerals by the Revenue Act of 1932, and has been adjusted several times since. Percentage depletion allowances were historically placed in the tax code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing incentives to increase investment, exploration and output. Percentage depletion also makes it possible, however, to recover many times the amount of the original investment. There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a firm to recover the costs of its capital investment: cost depletion and percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the actual capital investment--the costs of discovering, purchasing, and developing a mineral reserve--over the period during which the reserve produces income. Under the cost depletion method, the total deductions cannot exceed the original capital investment. Under percentage depletion, however, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income,'' namely, sales revenue from the sale of the mineral. Under this method, total deductions typically exceed the capital that the company invested. The rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 of the U.S. Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals and minerals, at rates ranging from 10 to 22 percent. In addition to repealing the percentage depletion allowances for minerals mined on public lands, my bill would also create a new fund, called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. One-fourth of the revenue raised by the bill, or approximately $120 million, would be deposited into an interest-bearing fund in the Treasury to be used to clean up abandoned hardrock mines in States that are subject to the 1872 Mining Law. The Mineral Policy Center estimates that there are 557,650 abandoned hardrock mine sites nationwide and the cost of clearing them up will range from $32.7 billion to $71.5 billion. There are currently no comprehensive Federal or State programs to address the need to clean up old mine sites. Reclaiming these sites requires the enactment of a program with explicit authority to clean up abandoned mine sites and the resources to do it. My legislation is a first step toward providing the needed authority and resources. In today's budget climate, we are faced with the question of who should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of natural resources: all taxpayers, or the users and producers of the resource? For more than a century, the mining industry has been paying next to nothing for the privilege of extracting minerals from public lands and then abandoning its mines. Now those mines are adding to the Nation's environmental and financial burdens. We face serious budget choices this fiscal year, and one of those choices is whether to continue the special tax breaks provided to the mining industry. The measure I am introducing is straightforward. It eliminates the percentage depletion allowance for hardrock minerals mined on public lands while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion. Though at one time there may have been an appropriate role for a government-driven incentive for enhanced mineral production, there is now sufficient reason to adopt a more reasonable depletion allowance that is consistent with depreciation rates given to other businesses. This corporate subsidy is simply not justified. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to eliminate from the Federal tax code percentage depletion allowances for hardrock minerals mined on Federal public lands. I thank Senator Cantwell for joining me as a cosponsor on this legislation. President Clinton proposed the elimination of the percentage depletion allowance on public lands in his fiscal year 2001 budget. President Clinton's fiscal year 2001 budget estimated that, under this legislation, income to the Federal treasury from the elimination of percentage depletion allowances for hardrock mining on public lands would total $487 million over 5 years and $1.20 billion over 10 years. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would save $410 million over 5 years and $823 million over 10 years. Percentage depletion allowances are contained in the tax code for extracted fuel, minerals, metal and other mined commodities. These allowances have a combined value, according to estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, of $4.8 billion. These percentage depletion allowances were initiated by the Corporation Excise Act of 1909. That's right, these allowances were initiated nearly one hundred years ago. Provisions for a depletion allowance based on the value of the mine were made under a 1912 Treasury Department regulation, but difficulty in applying this accounting principle to mineral production led to the initial codification of the mineral depletion allowance in the Tariff Act of 1913. The Revenue Act of 1926 established percentage depletion much in its present form for oil and gas. The percentage depletion allowance was then extended to metal mines, coal, and other hardrock minerals by the Revenue Act of 1932, and has been adjusted several times since. Percentage depletion allowances were historically placed in the tax code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing incentives to increase investment, exploration and output. Percentage depletion also makes it possible, however, to recover many times the amount of the original investment. There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a firm to recover the costs of its capital investment: cost depletion and percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the actual capital investment--the costs of discovering, purchasing, and developing a mineral reserve--over the period during which the reserve produces income. Under the cost depletion method, the total deductions cannot exceed the original capital investment. Under percentage depletion, however, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income,'' namely, sales revenue from the sale of the mineral. Under this method, total deductions typically exceed the capital that the company invested. The rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 of the U.S. Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals and minerals, at rates ranging from 10 to 22 percent. In addition to repealing the percentage depletion allowances for minerals mined on public lands, my bill would also create a new fund, called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. One-fourth of the revenue raised by the bill, or approximately $120 million, would be deposited into an interest-bearing fund in the Treasury to be used to clean up abandoned hardrock mines in States that are subject to the 1872 Mining Law. The Mineral Policy Center estimates that there are 557,650 abandoned hardrock mine sites nationwide and the cost of clearing them up will range from $32.7 billion to $71.5 billion. There are currently no comprehensive Federal or State programs to address the need to clean up old mine sites. Reclaiming these sites requires the enactment of a program with explicit authority to clean up abandoned mine sites and the resources to do it. My legislation is a first step toward providing the needed authority and resources. In today's budget climate, we are faced with the question of who should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of natural resources: all taxpayers, or the users and producers of the resource? For more than a century, the mining industry has been paying next to nothing for the privilege of extracting minerals from public lands and then abandoning its mines. Now those mines are adding to the Nation's environmental and financial burdens. We face serious budget choices this fiscal year, and one of those choices is whether to continue the special tax breaks provided to the mining industry. The measure I am introducing is straightforward. It eliminates the percentage depletion allowance for hardrock minerals mined on public lands while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion. Though at one time there may have been an appropriate role for a government-driven incentive for enhanced mineral production, there is now sufficient reason to adopt a more reasonable depletion allowance that is consistent with depreciation rates given to other businesses. This corporate subsidy is simply not justified. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to speak further on my amendment which I offered yesterday. I urge my colleagues to support my senior homeowner protection amendment, amendment No. 17. As I explained yesterday, my amendment would protect senior homeowners who need to file for bankruptcy relief. It would help to ensure that these older Americans do not have to lose their hard-earned homes in order to seek the protection of the bankruptcy system. The homestead exemption in the bankruptcy laws is supposed to protect homeowners from having to give up their homes in order to seek bankruptcy relief. But in too many States, the homestead exemption is woefully inadequate. The value of this exemption varies widely from State to State. Federal law currently creates an alternative homestead exemption of just under $20,000, but each State gets to decide whether it will allow its debtors to rely on this already low Federal alternative, and most do not. In many States, the amount of equity a homeowner can protect in bankruptcy has lagged far behind the dramatic rise in home values in recent years. For example, in the State of Ohio the homestead exemption is only $5,000, and in the State of North Carolina the homestead exemption is a mere $10,000. Even for States that have no State exemption but allow debtors to use the $20,000 Federal exemption, like New Jersey, the number is just too low in this age of rising housing costs. My amendment would create a uniform Federal floor for homestead exemptions of $75,000, applicable only to bankruptcy debtors over the age of 62. States could no longer impose lower exemptions on their seniors. If a State's exemption is higher than $75,000, however, that exemption would still apply. My amendment creates a floor, not a ceiling. Older Americans desperately need this protection. Americans over the age of 65 are the fastest-growing age group filing for bankruptcy protection. Job loss, medical expenses and other crises are wreaking havoc on the finances of our seniors. In the 1990s, the number of Americans 65 and older filing for bankruptcy tripled. They need our help. Older Americans also are far more likely to have paid off their mortgages over decades of hard work, making the homestead exemption particularly important for them. In fact, more than 70 percent of homeowners age 65 and older own their homes free and clear. For these seniors, their home equity often represents nearly their entire life savings, and their home is often their only significant asset. That means seniors are hit hardest by the very low homestead exemptions in some states. It has become apparent that when there is no substantive argument against a worthy amendment, we will hear arguments cautioning against the unraveling of delicate compromises and agreements. It has become a convenient and frequent refrain on the floor of the Senate, that amendments cannot be tolerated. That is very troubling, particularly because in the Judiciary Committee we were implored to hold our amendments for the floor and promised that supporters of the bill would work with us to try to resolve our concerns. There is a bait and switch going on here. Bills that come before this body are not sacrosanct. If there is a substantive argument to be made against my amendment, I am eager to hear it and debate it. But it is just not right to say that an amendment will be defeated because the bill must remain ``clean'' to pass. It is especially wrong to make that argument when it is just not true. Some amendments might be termed poison pills, but that term does not apply to this amendment. To be frank, my amendment simply has no bearing whatsoever on the other provision of the bill that addresses the homestead exemption-- that is, the provision whose delicate balance we have been so strongly cautioned not to disrupt. Section 322 of the bill addresses abuses resulting from the fact that some States have unlimited homestead exemptions. An agreement on that provision--often called the Kohl amendment after my senior colleague from Wisconsin, who led the fight against these abuses--was reached in the 2002 conference. Senators from the States that had unlimited homestead exemptions, such as Florida and Texas, objected strenuously to a Federal ceiling preempting their States' unlimited exemptions. They agreed to the provision only when it was modified to its current version, in which the Federal cap applies only to people engaging in fraud and people who purchase property shortly before filing for bankruptcy. My amendment has no bearing whatsoever on that compromise deal. The Senators who initially objected to Senator Kohl's attempt to limit wealthy debtors' abuse of the homestead exemption are from States where the homestead exemption is already unlimited. In those States, my uniform Federal floor would have absolutely no effect. The unlimited exemption would still apply. On the other side of the negotiations were people like Senator Kohl who were attempting to prevent wealthy debtors from abusing the homestead exemption by buying multi-million dollar mansions in States with unlimited homestead exemptions. I have not heard them object to giving seniors a uniform homestead exemption that is less than the Federal ceiling provided in Section 322. Once again, my amendment has absolutely no effect on the deal that was cut. I would also point out that supporters of the bill are perfectly willing to override State decisions with regard to homestead exemptions in certain circumstances. This bill already requires that a Federal maximum exemption apply to prevent abuse by wealthy debtors seeking to hide their assets in a mansion and get rid of their debts through bankruptcy. Why can't we insist on a Federal floor to protect senior citizens? It makes no sense to suggest that this amendment violates State prerogatives on the homestead exemption since the bill already does just that. So I am having a hard time figuring out who would object to my amendment, and what delicate compromise is going to be undone if my amendment passes. Is anyone going to stand on the floor of the Senate and defend the right of States to harm the elderly by forcing them to sell their homes in order to seek bankruptcy protection? Are we really going to take the States rights argument that far? So my amendment has nothing to do with compromises already made in this bill. It would not unravel the bill, or upset the compromise on the homestead exemption. Now the credit card companies probably don't like this amendment because it will protect some seniors from having to sell their homes to pay their debts. Once again, the Senate has a choice to make. Will we stand with our senior citizens or with the credit card companies and big banks? I also want to explain a bit more why I have limited the amendment to debtors age 62 and over. The argument was made yesterday by the Senator from Alabama that a single mother or a young family also would benefit from a larger exemption. But seniors are the people who need the exemption most. Most people in their 20s and 30s do not have $75,000 of equity in their homes, if they own homes at all. Certainly those who are filing for bankruptcy do not. Seniors, on the other hand, have worked their whole lives to payoff their mortgages and guarantee themselves a comfortable place to live in their retirement. They survive on their modest social security benefits precisely because they have no mortgage or rental payments. Are we now going to force them to forfeit their homes because they face such high medical expenses that they have to seek bankruptcy protection? In addition seniors are typically living on fixed incomes and simply don't have the ability to rebuild wealth that younger people have. Nor can they afford to make payments on a new mortgage. If forced to sell their homes, many older Americans will not be able to afford to rent a habitable, safe place to live. Some can barely afford to the pay the property taxes on their current paid-off homes because of rising real estate assessments. We need to protect our senior citizens in their retirement years. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first, I want to correct the record. The Senator from Utah is incorrect that I never supported a version of the bankruptcy bill. I did, in 2002 when there was a vote on the Senate floor. Our late colleague from Minnesota and I used to have a little contest about who was the only one to vote ``no'' on a bill the most. This was a case where Senator Wellstone voted ``no'' and I actually voted ``aye'' for a version--a reasonable, balanced version--of a bankruptcy bill when it appeared on one occasion during the past 7 years. Unfortunately, that bill was not accepted and was basically rejected out of hand by those in the House who insisted on an unbalanced, unfair bill. That is exactly what we have before us today. I reject the argument that this amendment in any way, shape, or form endangers this bill. How can that be the case? The Senator from Utah has said this bill affects States rights with regard to the homestead exemption. This bill does affect the rights of Florida and Texas to have an unlimited homestead exemption, as it should. The Federal Government has an interest here in making sure wealthy people cannot abuse the system. I support that goal of stopping fraud. The Federal Government also has an interest in making sure our senior citizens have absolute minimum protection for their homes when they are forced into bankruptcy, particularly because of unanticipated health care costs. I am not creating some new precedent in this bill. This bill already changes state rules on the homestead exemption, and my amendment has absolutely no impact on the delicate balance achieved with regard to the high end of the homestead exemption. This amendment is not intended to harm the bill, and, in fact, it does not harm the bill. It is simply trying to bring an element of fairness and balance to the bankruptcy laws with regard to senior citizens who might lose their homes. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the desk.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the impact of this bankruptcy bill on our senior citizens. Older Americans, far more than the rest of us, often face crushing debt burdens because of the high cost of prescription drugs and other medical expenses, and they need the safety net of bankruptcy relief to deal with their resulting financial troubles. In fact, Americans over 65 are now the fastest growing age group filing for bankruptcy protection. Older Americans, far more than the rest of us, are often homeowners who have paid off their mortgages over decades of hard work. Their home equity often represents nearly their entire life savings, and their home is often their only significant asset. It is critical we ensure these older Americans are not forced to give up their hard-earned homes--the homes where they have raised their children and planned to spend their retirement--in order to seek the benefit of our bankruptcy system. These are not just pieces of real estate to these people; these are their havens, their sanctuaries, their life's work. Yet the bankruptcy law in its current form does not adequately protect older Americans from a horrible dilemma. For older homeowners, the homestead exemption in the bankruptcy laws is what should protect them from having to make the horrible decision to give up their homes in order to seek bankruptcy relief. This exemption legally protects the homestead--a personal residence--or some portion of its value from the claims of most creditors. It should mean that senior citizens faced with bankruptcy because they cannot pay off their massive medical expenses are allowed to keep their homes. In too many cases, this homestead exemption is woefully inadequate. The value of this exemption varies widely from State to State. While Federal law currently creates an alternative homestead exemption of just under $20,000, that low amount is just that, an alternative. Each State gets to decide whether it will allow its debtors to rely on this Federal alternative, and many do not. As a result, some States allow a much higher exemption, but many have a much lower exemption. In States such as Florida and Texas, there is a homestead exemption with an unlimited dollar value, meaning that any money invested in a home cannot be obtained by creditors. I should note, of course, that this creates other problems, which I will address in a few minutes. But other States allow a very limited value homestead exemption. In many States, the amount of equity a homeowner can protect in bankruptcy has lagged far behind the dramatic rise in home values in recent years. For example, in the State of Ohio, the homestead exemption is only $5,000, and in the Presiding Officer's State of North Carolina, the homestead exemption is $10,000. In this day and age, those paltry exemptions will do no good. We obviously have a problem, and it is hitting our older friends and family members the hardest. Think about it: In these low homestead exemption States, even indigent elderly homeowners who own a home free and clear worth only $30,000 or $40,000 cannot file for chapter 7 bankruptcy without losing their home. And they may not be able to file a chapter 13 case because they cannot afford to pay creditors the value of their home equity that is not exempt, as required by that chapter. Many elderly homeowners live solely on Social Security benefits, often no more than $800 to $1,000 per month. This is enough to subsist in their paid-off homes, while still paying taxes, utilities and other basic living expenses. But if they lose their homes, they will not be able to rent a decent place to live. Effectively, this means these older homeowners have no bankruptcy relief available to them at all. We have to address this gross inequity before we pass this bill. My amendment would create a uniform federal floor for homestead exemptions of $75,000, applicable only to bankruptcy debtors over the age of 62, protecting the lower- and middle-class senior citizens who need it most. I will give an example that illustrates why it is so important that we fix this problem and fix it now. Let me tell my colleagues about Mary Bobbit. Mary Bobbit is a 70-year-old widow who lives in North Carolina, where the homestead exemption is only $10,000. According to a local news story, she recently lost her husband to cancer, a battle that left her with more than $175,000 in unpaid medical bills. Her only remaining asset is the home that her family built themselves 26 years ago, a home that she paid off just last year. And now she is faced with a horrible dilemma, because if she files for bankruptcy in North Carolina, she will lose the home that she and her husband worked so hard to build and pay for. As Mary Bobbit's story shows, this is not a hypothetical problem. Despite the fact that older Americans tend to own their own homes and have greater financial experience compared to the rest of us, they are the fastest growing age group in bankruptcy. In the 1990s, the number of Americans 65 and older filing for bankruptcy tripled. Why is that? Well, older Americans simply do not have the same resources for their retirement years that they used to. They live on fixed incomes that are not keeping up with rising costs. Fewer and fewer Americans have pensions, and many Americans who are just hitting retirement age lost much of their retirement savings when the stock market bubble burst a few years ago. But one of the biggest reasons that older Americans go into bankruptcy is the inability to pay medical expenses. Between prescription drug costs and the costs of hospitalization, medical expenses can add up quickly for someone on a fixed income. Medicare simply is not providing the help that many of them need. In fact, medical expenses are the cause of more than half of all bankruptcies filed by debtors over the age of 50. Another big factor in the rising bankruptcy rate of older Americans is job loss. People who are nearing retirement age and lose their jobs due to mergers and down-sizing can find it very difficult to find a new job. If you are in your late 50s and lose a job, just try to find someone to hire you at the same wages you were making before. It is not easy, and the results can be devastating. Job loss is also a problem for the increasing percentage of older Americans who are finding that they have to return to work after retirement in order to make ends meet, giving up the American dream of security and leisure in retirement. In fact, nearly half of seniors say they plan to continue working during retirement because they cannot survive financially otherwise. Senior citizens are reporting that if they lose even a low-paying, part-time job at places like McDonald's or Wal-Mart, they may no longer be able to afford their basic living expenses. Yet another disturbing trend is that the credit card debt of Americans over age 65 increased dramatically in the 1990s, in part thanks to the fact that they can now charge many prescription drug and other medical expenses. I am very disturbed by the idea that seniors would end up having to pay credit card interest rates of even 20 percent in order to pay for the medical treatment they need. Older Americans are increasingly the victims of unscrupulous predatory lenders. According to the AARP, elderly Americans are three times more likely to be targeted. In fact, according to a Harvard study, nearly one in five older Americans in bankruptcy filed their petition at least in part to avoid constant, harassing, 24-hour-a-day collection calls or other actions. All of this rather sad picture makes one thing very clear. We are not talking about people who were reckless with their spending and think they can use or manipulate the bankruptcy laws to get out of it. We are talking about responsible people who have worked toward retirement their whole lives, yet whether because of devastating medical costs, job loss, or some other tragedy, find themselves in a financial emergency and are unable to pay their debts. These people turn to the bankruptcy system only as a last resort. They should not also be forced to give up their homes for doing so. We cannot allow this to continue. We have to fix this problem. I believe my amendment offers a solution to help them. Federal law should protect the elderly in States where the homestead exemption is very low. The optional Federal bankruptcy exemptions allow a homeowner to protect only a little under $20,000, and even then States can simply ignore that Federal alternative and require their debtors to use the State exemptions, which are often much lower. My amendment would create a uniform Federal floor for homestead exemptions of $75,000, applicable only to bankruptcy debtors over the age of 62. States could no longer impose lower exemptions on their seniors. This would permit senior homeowners to file for bankruptcy without losing what is usually the only significant asset they have: their homes. And if my amendment were adopted, the U.S. Congress would not be the first to acknowledge that this is a problem for the elderly. Both California and Maine have recognized that elderly debtors deserve increased homestead protection. California recently raised the exemption for the elderly to $150,000, and Maine has an exemption for debtors over 60 of $70,000. It is about time we caught up with these forward-thinking State legislators and gave our seniors the protection they need. I do want to briefly address the very serious problem that I alluded to earlier, which is that some wealthy Americans have exploited the unlimited homestead exemption available in certain States. This certainly is not a new issue; we have had years of debate over the unlimited homestead exemptions in some states that permit wealthy people to file bankruptcy and retain their mansions. One frequently cited example of abuse is Bowie Kuhn, the former baseball commissioner whose law firm went into bankruptcy. After creditors seized his home in the Hamptons and were about to attach his mansion in New Jersey, Mr. Kuhn acquired a multi-million dollar home in Florida and protected it from his creditors. Florida, of course, is one of the States with an unlimited homestead exemption. Section 322 of the bankruptcy bill attempts to address this problem, but does so only for a relatively small number of people. It treats the poor and middle class harshly while still letting some wealthy debtors, who are clearly abusing the system, shelter millions of dollars. I agree with my senior colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, and the distinguished Senator from Alabama that this loophole must be addressed. Unfortunately, I do not think the homestead exemption limitation in this bill does the job as well as it could, but I am afraid we will have to turn to that issue on another day. My amendment addresses the flip side of the homestead issue. It has no effect whatsoever on the homestead provision agreed to by Senator Kohl in the 2002 conference, which remains in this new bill. Rather than being concerned with the relatively small number of high-profile wealthy abusers of the system, my amendment is aimed at the thousands upon thousands of elderly homeowners who are being squeezed by medical bills and rising home prices into an untenable position. Let's be honest. Despite all the investment opportunities available to many in this country, for a very large number of seniors, the only retirement plan they have is this: pay off your house, and live on Social Security. People in that situation can survive, but not if they get hit with a financial emergency, usually a severe medical problem, and live in a State that has a low homestead exemption. We need to help them, and we need to do it now. The bankruptcy system should provide a safety net for families truly in need of relief. This senior homeowner protection amendment is a reasonable solution to a growing problem. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for this amendment from the AARP be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me thank the Senator from Alabama, not only for his willingness to engage on the merits of this amendment, but for his willingness to engage on a number of difficult subjects, whether it be the homestead exemption or landlord-tenant issues. When the Senate takes up legislation, we typically start with a good discussion in committee, make some progress toward agreement, and then come to the floor. And when we go to the conference committee between the Houses, we also sometimes manage to come up with an agreement. It is regrettable, through no fault of the Senator from Alabama, that in this case we are starting this process on the floor. I think had these amendments been taken seriously in committee, we could have found some common ground and not had to take up the time of the whole body, but this is where we are. I do believe this amendment is a reasonable extension of something in which the Senator from Alabama is already involved. His principal concern about this amendment is apparently that we would be overriding State law in the area of homestead exemptions. But the Senator, as he has indicated, has been a party to an agreement that would do exactly that when it comes to the high end of homestead exemptions. It is not as if I picked a new area where I am suggesting that State laws are inadequate. What I am arguing is that if we are going to be dealing with some of these outrageous abuses of the bankruptcy system perpetrated by the very wealthy, let's also take the opportunity to make sure that the average senior citizen in this country, who desperately wants to protect their home and has to go into bankruptcy, has some minimum protection. To me, this is not an extreme proposal. We only pass these bankruptcy bills once in a great while. As I understand it, the last one was passed in 1978. There clearly is a trend across the country in places like Maine and California, where legislators are recognizing that there is a special, severe problem for many of our seniors. I agree with the Senator from Alabama, it would be terrific if we could extend this protection to everybody. Perhaps that is something we should consider. But there is a particular problem when it comes to seniors, who have no way of making money anymore, and who are beset with unexpected medical bills, whether it be prescription medicine or some other bills. They are stuck. They don't have any other way to save their home. This problem just cries out for a minimum Federal standard of the kind this amendment proposes. I hope my colleagues consider this amendment. It is offered in good faith. It is not something that should in any way upend the overall bill because we have already engaged in a discussion about the changes that need to be made at the high end of the homestead exemption, and the bill already includes such a provision. So I ask my colleagues to give an independent and fresh look at this, given how important it is to senior constituents in every State of the Union. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to commemorate the 44th anniversary of the Peace Corps. For decades now, Peace Corps volunteers have generously and honorably served our country by working to build an understanding between the U.S. and foreign nations, and to create better lives for people around the world. Peace Corps volunteers reflect many of the very best impulses of the American people, and I am pleased to honor these volunteers of all backgrounds and ages. I am especially proud to commend the 252 sworn-in volunteers from Wisconsin. Since the Peace Corps' inception in 1961, the people of the State of Wisconsin have served as an important foundation for this program. The University of Wisconsin-Madison provided a training camp for new volunteers during the 1960s and over 2,600 of its alumni have participated in this program. UW Madison is second in the Nation in the number of current serving volunteers, 142. Wisconsin has an historic legacy in the Peace Corps, and I commend those who have done Wisconsin proud. In 1960, President Kennedy challenged Americans to serve their country by living and working in developing countries. His vision continues to inspire generations. Today, over 178,000 Americans have answered his call by joining the Peace Corps. When I have the opportunity to travel abroad, I am amazed by the lasting impact that this organization and these eager men and women have had around the world. Serving in 138 countries, Peace Corps volunteers contribute to developing countries, as varied as Ecuador, Mauritania, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, and Tonga, through a range of talents and skills, from serving as teachers to agriculture workers to HIV/AIDS educators. I am particularly impressed that over 3,100 volunteers specifically work to combat global HIV/AIDS. I have traveled to Africa to see up close the devastation this international pandemic has caused, and I continue to be active on this important and urgent issue. I commend all the men and women volunteers who selflessly work to better communities around the world. On March 1, 2005, as the Peace Corps celebrates its 44th anniversary, its work is particularly relevant to the challenges before our country and our world today. It is so important for Americans to become involved in world affairs, especially through programs such as the Peace Corps. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and his successor Condoleezza Rice both acknowledge that Americans must make a serious investment in reaching across borders and turning around growing anti- American sentiments abroad. I am constantly impressed by Peace Corps volunteers who devote themselves to personally bridging the gap between people of our country and those beyond our borders, proving by their work our country's commitment to positive changes and mutual understanding. These volunteers amplify the effects of their service when they share their Peace Corps stories and experiences with people back home--with family and friends, in corresponding with classrooms, or in recruiting new volunteers to carry the Peace Corps mission forward. I congratulate Peace Corps and its volunteers for 44 years of effective and admirable service, and I urge all of my colleagues to continue to work to support this unique and inspiring organization.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chris Iavarone, a legal intern with my Judiciary Committee staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the bankruptcy bill.