Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself such time as I might use. Mr. President, I speak now in morning business because at 11 o'clock we will have a continuation of votes in the Senate on the bankruptcy bill. Then we will have a series of votes later on in the afternoon, with a time to be designated by the leadership. Then we will move to final passage. There would not be otherwise an opportunity to express my views about the bankruptcy bill in general and on a number of the items we have debated and on which we have failed to persuade the majority of our colleagues. I want to reference those in my remarks this morning. America at its best is when we are united in common cause and a unified purpose. We came together to overcome the Great Depression. We came together to fight two world wars against tyranny. We came together in the Cold War years to contain and defeat Communism. We came together to fight polio, to explore the heavens, and to create a secure retirement for our seniors. We came together after much struggle to expand the circle of opportunity in America for civil rights, voting rights, disability rights, and women's rights. We came together on 9/11 as a nation determined to fight terrorism and defend our land. As Americans, we know how to come together to achieve great goals, to make stronger our communities, our families, our economy, our schools, and our nation. That is the America I believe in. That is the America I fight for every day. An America where we are joined arm in arm to advance the cause of opportunity, freedom, and fairness for all of our people. But this legislation breaks the bond that unites America, the bond that makes our country strong. It says the concerns of low and middle- income families don't matter. They no longer have a voice in the United States Senate. What matters are the special interests. This bill sacrifices the hopes and dreams of average Americans to the rampant greed of the credit card industry. It turns the United States Senate into a collection agency for the credit card companies, reaching the long arm of the law into the pocketbooks of average Americans who have reached the end of their economic rope. That is wrong. That is not what we should be doing here. We have a responsibility to the people to fight for them and their needs, not to do the bidding of the almighty credit card companies. A lot of people are going to be pained with this bill. Make no mistake. The idea that this bill is focused on spendthrifts is laughable when the other side admits that the most we have in terms of spendthrifts is maybe 10 percent of the total of those who go into bankruptcy, and most of the bankruptcy attorneys say it is anywhere from 5 to 7 percent. We are picking up all these individuals who are going to be forced to pay and be treated more harshly with this bill than they otherwise would be under the regular Bankruptcy Act. Our bankruptcy laws are intended to give families a second chance. As Americans, we believe that if you work hard, live responsibly, but fall on hard times, our bankruptcy laws should be there to help you get back on your feet. If you get sick and face a mountain of medical bills, if you face divorce and no longer have two incomes to support your family, if your job gets sent overseas, then Americans believe you should have an opportunity to rebuild your lives. These are the principal causes for bankruptcy. We know that more children drop out of college every single year, not academically, but because of the cost of student loans. They can't pay them. We have been through this during the course of the debate. If you have a heart attack, if you are diagnosed with cancer, even if you have health insurance, you basically have overwhelming bills and more often than not get thrown into bankruptcy. If you get divorced--as we will have a chance to vote on--200,000 women don't receive alimony and don't receive child support, these are hard-working Americans who are going to get thrown into bankruptcy. And rather than be let out so that they will have a new chance and a new opportunity in life because they have done nothing wrong, they are going to be tied up and paying the credit card companies for the next 5 years. That is the way this bill works. This bill changes everything. It takes dozens and dozens of bankruptcy rules and rewrites every single one of them in favor of the credit card industry. Yesterday, we witnessed the powerful grip of this industry over the Republican Party. The Republicans defeated amendment after amendment after amendment after amendment that tried to give average Americans a fair chance when they face the credit card company lawyers in bankruptcy court. But when it appeared that a special interest loophole for the financial services industry threatened to be closed by the Leahy-Sarbanes-Warner amendment, the Republicans shut down the Senate. It is not as if the credit card industry is suffering. As we can see from this chart, the profits are in the billions of dollars: $6.4 billion 1990; $12.9 billion in 1995; $20.5 billion in 2000; and they expect as a result of this bill that it will be 5 billion more dollars in profits. That is what this bill will mean. Over who? Over the families going into bankruptcy because of a heart attack, a stroke, children who have spina bifida, over women who are not getting paid alimony or child support, over those workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas trying hard to pick up another job and can't keep up with the payments and go into bankruptcy. Those are the people who are suffering. But when it came to an issue involving the financial services industry, our Republican leadership closed the Senate down last night. In the 8 years that this bill has been before the Senate, credit card profits have jumped 163 percent from $11.5 billion a year to more than $30 billion a year. We hear the proponents of this legislation say: Look, we have had this legislation before us for 8 years. We have a problem. We have to deal with the problem. A problem, with these kinds of profits? We have a problem with health care coverage for Americans. We have a problem with the cost of health care. We have a challenge in supporting our schools and our local communities. That is what is on the minds of Americans. Here we are in the Senate, taking 2 weeks of our time in order to look out for the credit card companies and make sure there are going to be greater profits for a single industry. That is the priority of the Republican leadership, rather than dealing with the root causes of so many of those who will be dragged into bankruptcy and made indentured servants to the credit card industry for the next 5 years. It does not make sense. These are the wrong priorities, the wrong values. Middle class families are facing tough times with incomes falling, health costs out of control, college tuition through the roof, and now gasoline prices rising once again. But this bill says that what's going on in your life every day doesn't matter. You may be a member of the Guard or the Reserve called to Iraq and your business failed because you were away serving your country. In fact, 40 percent of those called up say they lost income, and over 19,000 soldiers declared bankruptcy just last year. They sacrificed their lives in Iraq and their financial security here at home, but the credit card companies will honor their service by squeezing every last dime out of our veterans in bankruptcy court. Here is a letter from the Military Officers Association of America: On behalf of the nearly 370,000 members of the Military Officers Association . . . I am writing to request your support for the protection of servicemembers, veterans, and military survivors from the increased bankruptcy penalties. They have it right, ``increased bankruptcy penalties.'' And this was written after Senators accepted the Sessions amendment which is just eye dressing. Our association is sensitive that overseas contingencies disrupt the lives and finances of servicemembers and their families. This is particularly true of the mobilized Guard and Reserve members. Those who are self-employed, or who took significant pay cuts from their civilian occupations, have been placed at increased risk of facing bankruptcy because of their service and sacrifice for our Nation. Survivors of members killed on active duty also may find themselves at increased financial risk. Many have left service rather than be subject to similar recalls in the future, and we are already concerned about the implications of this for long- term retention and readiness. MOAA does not believe this is the time to impose new financial strictures . . . There it is. Nonetheless, we have gone ahead and done that. Democrats tried to correct this problem, to put some balance and fairness in the bill. Senator Durbin offered an amendment to protect those who protect us, but our Republican friends said no. Every single Republican in the United States Senate voted for more credit card profits and against our service men and women. You may be a cancer survivor, but you can't survive the $35,000 in medical bills that your insurance company won't pay, and you lost another $20,000 for all the months you couldn't work and had to use your credit cards to pay the mortgage, cover the car payments, pay the utilities, and buy the groceries. You're doing everything you can to pay down your debt. You have taken out a second mortgage. You have cashed in your retirement savings. Your family is sharing one car. But that doesn't matter. Under this bill, the profits of the credit card companies are more important than your recovery from cancer. Tough words; tough bill. Democrats fought to correct this problem. I offered an amendment to give responsible Americans who fall on hard times due to illness or injury a fair chance in bankruptcy court. But the Republicans voted against these Americans in favor of the credit card companies. You may be a single mother trying to raise your family, juggle your job and school, and rely on alimony and child support to pay the bills. But more than 200,000 women owed alimony or child support are forced into bankruptcy every year. Democrats are addressing this problem, too. Republicans have a chance to vote for single mothers later this morning. We have a chance to say to women across America, who are taking responsibility every single day for their children, but have a deadbeat dad who won't do his part, that we're on your side. We believe it's more important for you to get back on your feet than for the credit card companies to have greater profits. Maybe your job was one of the 2.8 million manufacturing jobs that have been shipped overseas in the past 4 years. You found a new job, but it pays only half as much. But under this bill, it doesn't matter. In bankruptcy court you will still have to keep paying the exorbitant interest payments to the credit card companies as if you still had your old, better paying job. It doesn't matter that you have worked hard and lived responsibly all your life. It doesn't matter that you were willing to take a lower paying job because you wanted to be a contributing member of society. It doesn't matter that you clip grocery coupons every week to try to preserve the money you set aside to put your children through college. It doesn't matter that you gave up your vacation to pay for repairs to your leaky roof. It doesn't matter that your lost job means you had to move your elderly parents into a cheaper nursing home to try to avoid bankruptcy. It doesn't matter. You can sacrifice and cut corners and put aside hopes and plans and dreams. But all that matters in this bill is for the credit card companies to have more and more profits. We'll have a chance to vote on this question later this morning, too. But I have a feeling that Republicans are going to say no to the needs of Americans whose jobs have been outsourced overseas, just as they have said no to Iraq veterans, to single mothers, to children, and to seniors. We should be working to unite the country to achieve great goals again. Why are we not debating those issues here on the floor of the Senate, instead of trying to get more profits for the credit card industry--perhaps the most profitable industry in America--at the expense of the mothers, children, veterans of Iraq, those who have serious health care bills, and those whose jobs have been shipped overseas. We should be battling for them. We should be battling to improve our schools and make college more affordable. We should be strengthening our economy and training our workers to compete against globalization. We should be fighting to keep our country safe from terrorism. This bill makes these goals more difficult to achieve. It divides America by rewarding the most powerful special interests at the expense of low and middle-income families. A Republican supporter of the bill said yesterday that this bill was ``fair and balanced.'' Where is the fairness? Where is the balance? It does nothing to fix the millionaires' mansion loophole that allows millionaires to go into bankruptcy and still keep their massive estates. You may lose your home, but they get to keep their palaces under this bill. Where was the effort on the other side--talking about a fair and balanced bill--to try to do something about that? All they could do was whip up their own membership in order to defeat that amendment to have one standard for all Americans. That is what I thought we were about as a country one standard--not a dual standard for wealthy millionaires that can hide the tens of millions of dollars in their mansions and palaces in a handful of States. It does nothing to help the thousands upon thousands of employees and retirees of companies like Enron and WorldCom and Polaroid, who are left out, twisting in the wind, after a bankruptcy process that lets the responsible corporate executives go free. They go free. These employees lose their pensions, their health insurance, their retirement, and their investments, as they did at Polaroid. Is there anything in this bill to try to help those individuals, many of whom worked a lifetime for these companies? Absolutely not. They are fair game. After these individuals, the Ebbers, the Skillings, Enron, and the rest, robbed those companies, they are sitting in their mansions now in Houston; but these other individuals will be dragged into bankruptcy court if they get a serious illness or sickness, or if they run into family problems. Fair and balanced? No way, Mr. President. The Republicans and the credit card companies may get their way, and the American people may lose this round; but the fight is never over until we have assured fairness and freedom and opportunity for every one of our citizens. That is our pledge as Democrats today and tomorrow and in the future. That is why I hope our colleagues will vote no. I will mention a few further items. One is from the Children's Defense Fund, who care about children. We tried to point out some of the other groups that will be affected. Here is a letter from the Children's Defense Fund. I will read excerpts of it. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. In part, the letter says: This bill would inflict hardship on more than 1 million economically vulnerable women and families who are affected by the bankruptcy system each year. . . . and after the bankruptcy is over, more and more debts owed to the commercial creditors will survive--and mothers and children owed support are not a match for the collection departments of the commercial credit industry. There it is. The credit card companies and the mothers will be scrambling over the nickels and dimes that might be left. Guess who is going to win out? That is the fairness and balance that has been put in here. That is why the Children's Defense Fund is strongly opposed to this. The National Women's Law Center wrote: This bill would inflict additional hardship on over one million economically vulnerable women and families who are affected by the bankruptcy system each year: those forced into bankruptcy because of job loss, medical emergency, or family breakup--factors which account for nine out of ten filings--and women who are owed child or spousal support by men who file for bankruptcy. It will make it ``harder for women to meet their children's needs after bankruptcy because many more debts would survive.'' Finally, the Alliance for Retired Americans wrote: The fastest growing group of Americans filing for bankruptcy are those over 65. This unfortunate situation has been caused by skyrocketing health costs that can drain a lifetime of savings in a very short period of time. In addition, many older Americans have seen their pensions and retirement savings disappear as well. The result has been that many older Americans cannot enjoy the security in their retirement through no fault of their own. And they end up in bankruptcy. This legislation before the Senate actually increases the burden on older Americans who undergo financially difficult times through health care costs or loss of retirement income. This administration wants to privatize Social Security. This is what they say. That is why they are opposed to it. Those who represent the children are opposed to it. The ones in the military are opposed to it. Those who represent workers are opposed to it. Those who represent women are opposed to it. The one group that is for it is the credit card companies. Take your choice. I know how I will decide. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays at this time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk about the most vulnerable people who go into bankruptcy; they are single women with children. There is $95 million a year in unpaid alimony and child support. When these women marry--or divorced women end up in bankruptcy, they end up in the harsh provisions of this legislation. That is wrong. These are people who are trying. They are working hard. They are playing by the rules, and they wouldn't be in bankruptcy if their husbands had paid. Why we ought to treat them harshly as this bill does is wrong. This amendment which I have introduced with the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, makes sure that we are going to treat them fairly under this provision. I hope the Senate will accept it. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, workers in this country have hit a perfect storm with the decline in manufacturing, the outsourcing of jobs, and the increasing of part-time work. This has fallen disproportionately on African Americans and Latinos. The unemployment rate for Latinos has increased by 40 percent in recent years. It has increased by 31 percent with African Americans. If you are a Latino homeowner, you are 250 percent more likely than White homeowners to go into bankruptcy. African-American homeowners are 690 percent more likely to go into bankruptcy. All this amendment says is that those individuals can still go into bankruptcy, but they will not be caught up in the harsher provisions of this bankruptcy act. It would be enormously unfair, unjust, and discriminatory. That is what this amendment does.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I join all of our colleagues on this side of the aisle who have the good opportunity to work on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in commending our friend and chairman, Senator Enzi, for his good work in bringing this legislation out of our committee yesterday and being able to arrange for us to have a chance to consider it on the floor this afternoon. This legislation is enormously important to more than 70,000 students in my State and to millions of students all across the country. To a great extent, we are here because of the chairman's determination and persistence in ensuring that our committee meets its responsibilities on this legislation, as he has on others as well. I will just mention that we also passed out of committee the Child Care Development Block Grant Program, with which my friend and colleague, Senator Dodd, has had so much to do. It will make a large difference in terms of child care for families. Also, there are some important protections, in terms of the FDA, on the whole issue of contact lenses. And then there is a very important piece of legislation dealing with the improvement of patient safety, to reduce the incidents of events that adversely affect patient safety. We are waiting to work out some minor details. That is an enormously important piece of legislation. This has been a very full agenda so far this year. We have been on the floor over the last 6 or 7 days talking about a piece of legislation that has divided this institution. Today, we are strongly together on a matter that will make a great deal of difference to young people and old people alike. Our chairman pointed out the importance of acquiring skills, retaining skills, and lifelong learning in the United States today. Especially in this age of globalization, we want every one of our citizens to have the learning and the skills essential to the continuing strength of our modern economy. Investing in our education system, continuing education, continuing training, and the acquiring of skills is essential in terms of our national security as well. It is not always thought of in those terms, but it clearly is. This legislation, which has been upgraded in the course of this Congress, is essential for equipping millions of Americans with the skills they need to compete in the global economy. It is a lifeline to many of those young people. With the changes we have made in this bill, and with a number of changes that have been made at the State level, we have the assurance that these young people are going to get a first-class education. I ask my colleagues to look at this chart behind me. In my State of Massachusetts, we have some 78,000 students who are involved in vocational education. Years ago, vocational education simply meant an extra class in shop in many schools. That is not the case now. The kinds of skills these young people are getting are enormously sophisticated, complex, and incredibly important, as our whole economy has become that way. There are more than 74,000 students in career and technical education programs who passed what we call the MCAS test, our State assessment exam. We have over 74,000 career and technical education students who passed the test out of 78,376. That is 95 percent. That percentage is extraordinary. The MCAS test is a difficult test. The extraordinary thing about Massachusetts--if I can take 10 more seconds on this--is that the State publishes the MCAS test, and makes public the items on the test each year. So every parent and school teacher, and people around the country, know the quality of the test itself and know the demands that this puts on young people. What these results demonstrate is that these young people are acquiring skills and also developing very, very important academic skills in their career and technical programs. Now, look at this chart, which says, ``What does the Perkins program mean in Massachusetts?'' We have students in Brockton who received onsite clinical training in health care facilities. In New Bedford, a city that has suffered tremendously with the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, the regional school has begun an engineering program. The program partners with 2- and 4-year colleges, Texas Instruments, and Bose. Students will be able to earn $22,000 directly after high school and far more when they go on to earn their college degree. All Massachusetts community colleges have instructional support staff and a major source of funding for adaptive equipment for students with disabilities who are enrolled in technical education programs. Now, this chart shows the positive placement rates of five vocational schools in Massachusetts--all are over 90 percent. We have shown the academic rates and accomplishments of career and technical education students. The bottom line is, when we are looking for accountability and results, we should look at the placement rates for these young students. It is 98 percent at Assabet Valley Regional Vocational School in Marlborough. At Worcester Vocational High, it is 96 percent. At Northeast Metropolitan Vocational in Wakefield, it is 95 percent. At New Bedford Regional Technical, 90 to 95 percent of the graduates go on to the workforce or postsecondary education. This is true also at Upper Cape Cod Tech, at 90 percent. I want to mention a couple of stories. I will mention one other very significant, impressive result of a technical school. At Shawsheen Technical High School, we have 600 eighth-grade students vying for 320 seats in the program. A third of the students are in special education. Yet, the school has a 100 percent pass rate on the Statewide student assessment exam. That is an extraordinary outcome. These are outcomes we can see, and they make a difference for young students who need special education. At Shawsheen Tech, special education students have an outstanding rate of passing the Statewide student assessment exams. Learning academic skills in an applied context is responsible for this success. Ninety-seven percent of the graduates go on to immediate employment in their field or continue their education. Let me mention a couple of other interesting facts about this extraordinary school. Shawsheen has developed an intensive Licensed Practical Nurses program for adults. Students serve in clinical rotations on alternate weekends at one of the great medical centers, the Leahy Clinic, which my family has benefitted from for three generations--it is a first-rate clinic in Massachusetts. These students are able to gain jobs in this very prestigious and important clinic. Fifty percent of the students enrolled in this program are minority students. Sixty percent are Pell recipients. The first 3 classes of 40 students each had a 90 percent retention rate and a 98 percent pass rate for the program completers, and their average starting salary is more than $23 an hour. These are extraordinary outcomes. Let me mention one other example. Kerry is a student at Middlesex Community College in the dental hygiene program. She is the mother of two preschool-age children and struggled at several different colleges because of a learning disability. At Middlesex she receives support and accommodation from disability support services and works closely with a disability support specialist. That specialist's salary is paid for with Perkins funding. There we have a tie of special needs students into these well- organized, structured programs, and the outcome has been a very important success. Kerry's success in school is due to the fact that she receives Perkins funding. The story really is in the outcome. I see my friend from Rhode Island. He knows and values the importance of vocational training because of the excellent programs in the State of Rhode Island. In our region of the country, training programs have made an enormous contribution to the industrial and commercial success of so many of our industries. This program has played a very important role. It has been upgraded and improved from an academic point of view, from a training point of view, from the expectations of results, of working with businesses to give new emphasis to the kinds of specialities which are in short supply, and we have benefitted from broad participation. Chairman Enzi pointed out the very good work of the various communities that have given valuable help and assistance to us and the incredible staff of all the Members on both sides of the aisle. We have approached this legislation with an attitude of how we can make it better, how we can improve on it, and the lessons we have learned in the past that are going to strengthen this program. This is an important program that makes a real difference in the lives of people. I know the President has some reservations about this program and does not support Perkins in his budget. We take important steps in this bill to strengthen the program and address a number of the concerns the President has. With that in mind, we are very hopeful we will continue to have the support of our colleagues in the Senate. I again thank Senator Enzi for his hard work. As we are finding out, he and his staff have welcomed ideas and suggestions. He does not always say yes, but he does not always say no. It has been a real pleasure to work with him. We on our side are in very strong support of this legislation. We believe it is a stronger bill than exists at the current time. We believe it will help in critical areas for young people and old people--continuing education and the adult education programs. This legislation is about acquiring skills--skills, skills, skills, skills--which we all understand is absolutely essential if this country is going to continue to be the leader of the free world economically and from a national security point of view. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my friend, Chairman Enzi, for his bipartisan leadership on this legislation and his effective work in bringing it before the full Senate today. One of our highest priorities in Congress is to expand educational opportunities for every American. Especially in this age of globalization, we want every one of our citizens to have the learning and the skills essential to the continuing strength of our modern economy. We want them to fulfill their hopes and dreams, to raise healthy families, and contribute to their communities. We will be a fairer and stronger America when every citizen takes part and contributes. We know that in today's global economy, every person counts more than ever. We cannot afford to leave out anyone. We must equip our citizens to compete in the global economy--not by lowering their pay and sending their jobs overseas, but by increasing their skills. The legislation before us today will strengthen our commitment to a vital aspect of that mission, by equipping millions of young Americans with the skills they need through career and technical education. There was a time in many schools when vocational education meant simply an extra class in shop. But today in Massachusetts, and many other states, we see the vital role that vocational education--now appropriately called career and technical education--can have in transforming the lives of students and workers, and in strengthening our economy. Career and technical students are high school students who want to link their learning to a career. They are students who want a real world application of their high school education. They are students who earn college credits or earn industry-recognized credentials and pass state licensing exams while still in high school. Career and technical education today is designed to prepare and train students for 21st century jobs. Career and technical education students go on to higher education-- almost two-thirds of all high school graduates of career and technical programs enter college or another form of postsecondary education. In addition, through its educational programs at the postsecondary level, the Perkins Act also serves adults who are seeking critical training to be competitive in the job market. Whether we are talking about new immigrants, struggling adults, or women who are seeking employment outside the home for the first time, these are adults who need specially designed programs. In Massachusetts, career and technical education serves more than 70,000 students. Through Perkins funding, high school programs in partnership with community colleges and local businesses, provide students with the academic and technical skills they need to continue their education or to compete for high-skill, high-wage jobs immediately. The outcomes of these programs are extraordinary. Last year, 95 percent of career and technical education students in Massachusetts passed our state assessment--the MCAS exams. The Perkins program has worked to reduce the gender imbalance in earnings by emphasizing the importance of eliminating discrimination and actively recruiting students for non-traditional employment. The segregation of certain demographic groups into low-wage industries can and should be corrected as soon as possible through education. The program sets aside specific dollars for the collection and dissemination of occupational and employment information. Providing the most complete and up-to-date information is essential if counselors are to help their students make good decisions about course selection and career choice. To be competitive in today's economy, we need a renaissance in math, in science, and in technical skills. Technology and innovation are essential for America's economic strength and competitiveness in the future. The Tech Prep program in this bill addresses these needs by creating programs that integrate technology skills based on employer needs. At Springfield Technical Community College in Massachusetts, students can enroll in the Diagnostic Medical Imaging Program. They take rigorous math and science courses that prepare them to use today's newest technology. It has always been a priority for our committee to see that all students have the opportunity for high quality educational opportunities. Ensuring strong career and technical programs is an essential part of reaching that goal. In the legislation before us today, we were able to address critical issues for the continued growth of this program--the integration of academic and technical education, the use of funds for secondary and post-secondary programs, and the importance of the Tech Prep programs that form the bridge between the high school and college programs. Our bill also builds on existing provisions designed to ensure that students, parents and teachers have the information they need to select the courses that will give them the best options for obtaining a good job or continuing with their education after high school. This bill also addresses the unique professional development needs of Career and Technical Education teachers. Every day, we see rapid pace of change in industry. Cell phones and computers can become obsolete in a year. Teachers need to see the changing aspects of the industries that they teach about in the classroom, so that their students of all ages can receive the best possible training. Local schools and districts must provide opportunities for these teachers to spend time with the industries they are teaching about. They are preparing the next workforce generation, and their knowledge base must be state of the art. In Massachusetts, Perkins grants fund a wide variety of important programs. Students in Brockton have received onsite clinical training in health care facilities. In New Bedford, a city that has suffered tremendously with the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, the regional technical school has begun an engineering program in partnership with 2 and 4-year colleges, Texas Instruments and Bose. Graduates will be able to earn $22,000 a year directly after high school, and far more when they go on to earn their college degree. At Shawsheen Technical High School, six hundred 8th grade students are vying for 320 seats in the program. A third of the students are special education, yet the school has a 100 percent pass rate on the statewide student assessment exams. Learning academic skills in an applied context is responsible for this success. Ninety-seven percent of the graduates go on to immediate employment in their field or continue their education. Responding to the critical shortage in the nursing profession, Shawsheen has developed an intensive Licensed Practical Nurses program for adults. Classes are held for 10 months, four nights a week from 5:30 to 10 p.m. Students serve in clinical rotations on alternate weekends at the Lahey Clinic. The program has become an entry to a good career for many low-income adults; 50 percent of those enrolled are minority students and 60 percent are Pell recipients. The first three classes of 40 students each have had a 90 percent retention rate, a 98 percent pass rate for program completers and a 100 percent placement rate in the Merrimack Valley and the graduates are in jobs with an average starting salary of $23 an hour. In addition, because of Perkins grants, all Massachusetts community colleges have instructional support staff and major funding for adaptive equipment for students with disabilities enrolled in technical education. None of this would be possible without Perkins dollars. Again, I commend Chairman Enzi and his staff for all their good work. Special thanks go to Scott Fleming and Beth Buehlmann with Senator Enzi, Kelly Scott with Senator Gregg, Meredith Davis with Senator Frist, Kristin Bannerman with Senator Alexander, Jenny Hanson with Senator Burr, Bradford Swann and Glee Smith with Senator Isakson, Lindsay Morris with Senator DeWine, Lindsay Lovlien with Senator Ensign, Juliann Andreen with Senator Hatch, Prim Formby with Senator Sessions, Jennifer Swenson with Senator Roberts, Dana Lewis with Senator Reid, Mary Ellen McGuire with Senator Dodd, Laura Prebeck with Senator Harkin, Dvora Lovinger with Senator Mikulski, Sherry Kaiman with Senator Jeffords, Michael Yudin with Senator Bingaman, Jamie Fasteau with Senator Murray, Catherine Brown with Senator Clinton, Kristen Romero and Amy Gaynor from Legislative Counsel, and Carmel Martin and Liz Maher of my staff. And I want particularly to express my appreciation to Jane Oates who had principle responsibility for this bill for my staff. I am grateful for her important contributions and insights on this legislation. I thank our Chairman, Senator Enzi, for moving this bill so quickly through our Committee and am pleased we are able to move it to final passage today. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will be glad to yield back my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment 68.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the most disturbing thing about this supposed bankruptcy reform is the utter lack of fairness and balance in the legislation. It gets tough on working families facing financial hardship due to a health crisis, job loss caused by a plant closing or offshoring of a job, or a military callup to active duty. The laws of bankruptcy are being changed to wrest every last dollar out of these unfortunate families in order to further enrich the credit card companies. However, the authors of this legislation look the other way when it comes to closing millionaires' loopholes and ending corporate abuse. The legislation fails to address the real crisis in corporate bankruptcy where reorganization plans often benefit the very insiders whose greed and mismanagement brought down the company at the expense of the workers, the retirees, and the creditors, and it fails to address the shocking abuse of millionaires hiding their assets in so- called asset protection trusts, placing them completely beyond the reach of creditors. This bill also fails to deal effectively with the unlimited homestead exemptions in a few States which allow the rich to hold on to their multimillion-dollar mansions while middle-class families in other States lose their modest homes. We truly cannot allow this bill to pass without closing the millionaires' homestead loophole once and for all. It has become a national embarrassment. Millionaire deadbeats buy a huge mansion in Florida and Texas to shield their wealth from creditors. The harsh rules of bankruptcy being established by this bill will trap hard-working middle-class families, but the unlimited homestead exemption will allow rich debtors to escape. Existing bankruptcy laws allow those in bankruptcy to protect from their creditors certain assets, the nature of which is largely determined by State law. Most States make some allowance for homes or homesteads people live in, but the allowance is a modest one, too modest, in many States, for elderly people with large equity in the homes they have lived in for most of their lives. However, five States--the most notorious of which are Texas and Florida--have unlimited homestead exemptions. This means debtors in those States can stash away millions, even tens of millions of dollars in the States and leave their creditors with nothing. S. 256 leaves this gaping loophole wide open. It will allow the real abusers of the bankruptcy system to file for bankruptcy and to still keep their fortunes and properties intact while leaving their creditors with nothing. S. 256 has created some minor exceptions to the homestead exemption, none of which would be applicable in many of the most egregious cases. The bill fails to deal with the problem head on of multimillionaires who abuse bankruptcy by stashing away wealth while they declare bankruptcy. My amendment caps the amount allowed for the homestead exemption at $300,000. This is an adequate allowance for most people. The average home in the United States is $240,000, a great deal higher in many of the regions of the country and lower in some parts of the country. This $300,000 is an adequate allowance for most people and would end the exploitation of the homestead exemption to hide assets from creditors. It would add some measure of fairness and balance to a bill that sorely needs some fairness and balance. Some of the most egregious abuses we have currently and that this legislation fails to deal with are the kinds of abuses that we have in the case of Ken Lay, the former chairman of Enron, who owns a $7 million penthouse condominium. Mr. Lay made over $200 million from Enron stock and $19 million in bonuses. Other executives received bonuses as high as $5 million. Over 5,000 employees lost their jobs, and 20,000 lost an estimated $1 billion in retirement savings. Now, Ken Lay has been able to put some $7 million in a penthouse condominium in Houston's exclusive River Oaks neighborhood with 12 rooms covering 12,800 square feet. We are going to find there have been hard-working men and women who have had health insurance--half of all of the bankruptcies are the result of dramatic health bills. Seventy-five percent of those individuals had health insurance. And, as we have pointed out during the course of this debate, if your family is touched by cancer, you, by definition, are going to have $35,000 to $40,000, at a minimum, out-of- pocket expenses. And that, in many situations, is enough to drive a family into bankruptcy. If you have another serious health need, it will do the same. If you have important needs for children, such as spina bifida, autism, or other kinds of significant and important children's diseases, it will run into tens of thousands of dollars. What we have seen in our study of these bankruptcies is half of the bankruptcies are caused by these medical disasters. Yet, we are unprepared to give any kind of consideration to these hard-working people who have taken out health insurance to try to provide for their families and, through no fault of their own, have been caught up in these dramatic health care bills. They are struggling and try to avoid bankruptcy and meet their responsibilities. But once they get caught in this net that is included in the bill, they will be punished--and I say ``punished''--by the provisions in this bill which are unduly harsh and I believe unduly unfair. But not Ken Lay. Not Ken Lay. Here it is: He will be out there in his $7 million penthouse condominium in Houston's River Oaks neighborhood, with 12 rooms and covering 12,800 square feet. Or Andrew Fastow, the former chief financial officer of Enron, who recently built a large house in River Oaks valued in the millions, his home will not be taken. He will be able to go home every night to that home and be able to live there while we are seeing the homes taken from working families whose only problem was that their family was hit by cancer or another serious illness. We are seeing their homes taken, when we see individuals who have basically violated the trust of their company and of the workers get a free ride in the form of millions of dollars. You call that fair? You call that fair? All this amendment says is, we will have a uniform standard. We have a uniform standard in this amendment. We are going to have a uniform standard with regard to the equity in the house. We are not going to let these individuals go off and be able to shield all of their income. We find Jeffrey Skilling, Enron's former president and chief executive officer, lives in a 15-room house in River Oaks valued at over $4 million. WorldCom's chief financial officer, Scott Sullivan, who was charged with falsifying the books by more than $3.8 billion, recently built a 4-acre, $15 million estate in Boca Raton, FL, with an 18-seat movie theater, art gallery, and lagoon. You are telling me we are going to protect those individuals in their homes when we have single mothers who cannot get the child support or alimony, through no fault of their own, and they are thrown into bankruptcy and in danger of losing their homes? And the cruelty is the innocent individual, more often the wife, who is not getting the alimony or child support, has a very good chance of losing her home-- but not these individuals, not Dennis Kozlowski, the former CEO of Tyco International, who is said to have used $19 million from a no-interest loan from his company to pay part of the cost of a $30 million compound in Boca Raton, FL, called, ironically, Sanctuary. So $30 million he has been able to put away there. There are hundreds of thousands of workers who have lost their jobs, lost their savings, lost their health care, lost their pensions--but he is going to be protected by this legislation. Where is the fairness in this legislation when it comes to this issue in terms of homes? We have a law firm in hock for $100 million. Former Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn moved to a mansion in Ponte Vedra Beach, FL, and immediately sought protection from the creditors. And the list goes on and on and on. What is the current situation with regard to the homes and homesteads? Well, if you get caught up with a claim against you, and you live in any of these States--in New Jersey, in Pennsylvania, or Maryland--there is no homestead exemption. Your home, if you have the blessings to have a home, is thrown right in there, sold right off, put right on the market, and out you go. In the State of Michigan, it is $3,500 in value. In Kentucky, it is $5,000 of value; Georgia, $5,000; South Carolina, $5,000; Ohio, $5,000; Alabama, $5,000; Virginia, $5,000, plus $500 per dependent; Tennessee, $5,000 in value, and $7,500 with your home if you are a married couple; Indiana, $7,500; Illinois, $7,500; Missouri, $8,000. But there is no limitation for the Ken Lays, the Jeffrey Skillings, the Dennis Kozlowskis putting aside tens of millions of dollars that is going to be protected. These families will have that amount of equity that will be protected. You can go into some other States: New York, $10,000; North Carolina, $10,000; and Wyoming, $10,000. And some States go on up to $75,000--Connecticut. In Montana it is $100,000. In my State of Massachusetts, it is $300,000. But there is no limit at all, no dollar limit--some acreage amount--in Texas. In Texas, it is 10 acres in an urban area. It can be in downtown Dallas or downtown Houston. Or it can be 200 acres in a rural area. You are protected. If you have a home on 10 acres, wherever it is in an urban area--or 200 acres in a rural area--you are not touched by this legislation. And that is true in varying degrees for the six States. So we have to ask ourselves, why treat these six States separately and differently from all of the other States, and particularly where, in the other States, when people fall into bankruptcy, one of the first assets they are going to lose is their home. So at the appropriate time we will have an opportunity to vote on my amendment. As I say, this amendment closes that homestead loophole but permits, notwithstanding any other provision, the maximum amount of homestead exemption that may be provided under State law shall be $300,000. If you get a judgment against you for $400,000, they sell your home, but at least that $300,000 is enough that you may be able to get something, particularly if you are an elderly person living on an income of $1,200 or $1,500 a month, you might be able to survive. But the idea outside of that is that you are effectively taking away the homes and putting them at risk for 44 States and permitting 6 States to effectively circumvent this legislation in a very important way. It is wrong. I hope our colleagues and friends can support our measure. Amendment No. 70 Mr. President, I would ask that amendment be temporarily set aside, and I call up amendment No. 70.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to protect single mothers and their children, who are forced into bankruptcy because they did not receive the child and spousal support they were entitled to, from the harsh provisions of this bankruptcy bill. Single mothers are 50 percent more likely than married people to go bankrupt and three times more likely than childless people to go bankrupt. That statistic tells a great deal about the reality of why people are in bankruptcy. The proponents of this bill argue that people file for bankruptcy because they are spendthrifts looking to escape their financial obligations. But this stereotype is terribly wrong. The bankruptcy courts are filled with the cases of hard-working people who were pushed over the financial brink because of a family health crisis, a lost job, or a failure to receive child support. These are the people this bill would turn the screws on, looking to squeeze out a few more dollars for the credit card companies. The amendment focuses on this last group, on single parents trying to raise their children without the financial support they were supposed to receive from the absent parent. It would exempt from the onerous means test a single parent who failed to receive child support or spousal support that she was entitled to receive pursuant to a valid court order totaling more than 35 percent of her household income within a 12-month period. No wonder such a person ended up in bankruptcy. She was never paid more than a third of the income she expected over an entire year to help raise her children, to provide for their basic needs and well-being. Under those circumstances, she had no choice but to fall back on borrowing to support her family. She was not irresponsible. What she did was unavoidable. Few people realize the magnitude of this problem. In 2004, $95 billion in child support--$95 billion--was uncollected. Failure to receive that child support put millions of single-parent families in a deep financial hole through no fault of their own, and it is the children who suffer the most in these situations. Why on earth would we want to make things even more difficult for these families? Most single moms have to struggle to make ends meet. They are working in low-wage jobs without good benefits. Over three quarters, 78 percent, of them are concentrated in four typically low-wage occupational categories. When the economy is tough, they are often the first ones let go. The poverty rate for single moms is nearly 40 percent as compared to 19 percent for single fathers. It is no wonder that single mothers are now more likely to go bankrupt than any other demographic group--more than the elderly, more than divorced men or married couples, more than minorities or people living in poor neighborhoods. Yet this legislation would deny traditional bankruptcy relief to many single-parent families who never received the child support they were owed. Instead, they would have to keep paying those credit card bills for another 5 years. Is that fair? I can't believe that a majority of my Senate colleagues think it is. I am asking them to extend a little compassion to these single mothers struggling to raise their children. The following women's and children's organizations continue to oppose this bill: The National Women's Law Center, the National Partnership for Women and Families, National Organization for Women, Parents for Children, YWCA, Business and Professional Women, the Children's Defense Fund, Voices for America's Children. They do so because of the particularly harsh provisions of this bankruptcy bill and the heavy weight it puts upon women generally and most particularly on innocent women who are being denied child support and alimony and because they, through no fault of their own, run into this kind of a financial crisis. This legislation will impose harsh provisions upon them, and they will be treated not just in bankruptcy but they will be treated with the harsh provisions that will effectively put them in indentured servitude for the next 5 years. The National Women's Law Center, in writing to urge opposition to S. 256, says it is harsh on economically vulnerable women and their families. They point out that the bill would inflict additional hardship on over 1 million economically vulnerable women and families who are affected by the bankruptcy system each year--1 million women, the majority of whose only problem is that their husbands have failed to provide alimony and child support. And we are going to wrap them in with the spendthrifts who run amok with their credit. These are innocent individuals. We are saying that the harsher provisions of this bankruptcy law--that is going to indenture these women for 5 years; they can get judgments against them for 5 years--will exist for these families, women forced into bankruptcy because of family breakups, factors which account for 9 out of the 10 filings of women who are owed child and spousal support by men who file for bankruptcy. It is going to be more difficult for the women to even get the alimony from their husbands who may be in bankruptcy but needing to owe alimony to their wives, because the husbands are going to be subjected to the provisions in this legislation and that is going to make the wife compete with the credit card companies. So that is going to be another burden which these individuals are going to have to face. I hope we can find some support for this amendment because we are talking about perhaps among the most innocent group of people who will be caught in this. We have talked about single moms. We have talked about the National Guard and Reserve. We have talked about those who have been hit by the medical bankruptcy. All, through really no fault of their own or very little fault of their own, are going to be facing a very harsh future. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, next I will address amendment No. 69, which I believe is pending.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the extraordinary phenomenons we are facing at this time is the outsourcing of American jobs, the movement of American manufacturing jobs out of this country--by and large to the Far East but to other countries--and the growth of what we call ``temps''--companies that provide temporary workers. Those temporary workers have few, if any, benefits. So, obviously, when they run into challenging health crises and more limited incomes, they are facing the dangers of bankruptcy. That is why I am offering this amendment--to ensure that workers who have lost their jobs or who have an illness or injury that prevents them from working are not unfairly thrown into the harsh means test created by this bill. This means test puts additional burdens on the debtors already trying to get their lives and finances back together after a difficult period. The means test applies to those debtors whose average income for the 6-month period prior to filing bankruptcy is above the median income. Some debtors forced to file for bankruptcy because they lost their jobs are already exempt because they had no income in the last 6 months, but those who lose their jobs within 6 months before the filing for bankruptcy can be fairly included in the means test based on income they are no longer earning. My amendment would correct this problem. It provides that income from any job in which the debtor is no longer employed and income from any activity in which he can no longer engage due to a medical disability will be excluded from this calculation. Mr. President, if we look at what has been happening in the economy, particularly to those individuals who are unemployed, many of them have been looking for employment for some period of time. If we look at the numbers of unemployed workers in January 2001, it was 6 million. In February 2005, it is 8 million. We are in a period where those who are unemployed are unemployed for a longer period than at any time in recent history. This chart shows what happens in recoveries. The recoveries before 1991--the increase in terms of the employment and recoveries beginning in 1991 are here, and our current recovery shows that it is very light in terms of the total number of jobs that are created. This is one of the important charts, Mr. President. This has 8 million Americans competing for 3.4 million jobs. That is the economic condition for workers in this country: 8 million people are looking for 3.4 million jobs. Obviously, there are going to be many millions of Americans who are not going to be able to get those jobs. When they can't get the jobs, they don't have the unemployment compensation, and they are unable to provide for their families, what happens? They end up in bankruptcy. We are trying to say that for those individuals--by and large individuals who have lost their jobs because of outsourcing--the best projection is that we are going to lose 3.4 million jobs; 3.4 million jobs are at risk of being shipped overseas. 540,000 jobs in 2004; 830,000 in 2005; 1.7 million in 2010; and 3.4 million in 2015. Basically, when the manufacturing jobs go overseas, individuals lose their income, or if they are able to get some income, it is as a part- time worker with no health coverage. Their income goes down dramatically. What happens to those individuals? They end up in bankruptcy through no fault of their own. These are Americans who want to work. From 2001, we have seen 2.8 million manufacturing jobs lost; 2.8 million jobs were lost. These are the jobs with good benefits, good wages, the jobs that are the backbone of America. When you take 2.8 million of these jobs out of the market and you have 8 million people chasing 3.4 million jobs, we know there are going to be millions of American workers who are going to find increasing pressure in providing for their families. That is what is happening today. What we are saying is, if these workers are going to be forced into bankruptcy because they have lost their jobs, they are not going to have to fall into the cruelest part of the bankruptcy. That is all we are saying. We have done this. I have been here when we had our trade adjustment assistance. We said some industries were adversely affected because of imports. We provided some consideration for those workers. We are finding out now that we are losing hundreds of thousands and millions of jobs that are being moved overseas. The result is that many of these individuals are unable to have the kind of income they need, and they are forced into bankruptcy. When they are forced into bankruptcy, we are saying that they don't go into chapter 13; they go in and meet their responsibilities and get a fresh start. They don't go into a chapter 13, which will force them to continue to pay for 5 years. If you look at this chart, you will see that 49 of the 50 States have lost manufacturing jobs. So this reaches the whole dimension of this legislation because this legislation is national. This particular challenge is national. There is obviously a great deal more focus on this in the industrial heartland, in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and many of those States, and even in Massachusetts we have lost 83,000 manufacturing jobs. There are plenty of other jobs, such as in North Carolina where they lost 163,000 jobs. So we have to ask ourselves, what happens to these individuals? We know what happens to them. We know that if they can get a job, they are going to be paid a good deal less. If they cannot, they will run out of unemployment compensation. We are not providing extended unemployment compensation, and we know that the final catch is that in this economy, the health insurance is up, college tuition is up, housing is up, and gas is up. It is forcing these individuals into bankruptcy. All we are saying for those individuals who have lost their jobs-- jobs that have gone overseas, lost manufacturing jobs--and are unable to get those jobs and are forced into bankruptcy, that they will not have the harshest provisions of bankruptcy directed upon them. We ought to show some consideration to them. These are not spendthrifts, Mr. President. These are hard-working Americans who, 5 years ago, would not be facing this particular challenge, and now they are. We ought to at least give them some consideration. Mr. President, I think I have until 2:45.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we in the Senate were elected to serve the people. It is our solemn duty to fight for the American people every single day, for the values they share and the priorities they care about most. Above all else, the American people expect us to stand for fairness, freedom, and opportunity. Those values are the cornerstone of the American dream. We believe that if you live right and work hard, you should be able to care for your family. You should be able to afford a comfortable home in a safe neighborhood. You should be able to put your children through school and in college. You should have time to spend with your family, practice your faith, and contribute to your community. We also believe that when life throws you an unexpected setback, you can count on your neighbors to pitch in. If you lose your job or you fall seriously ill, we all want to help out. You should be given a second chance to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, work hard, and reclaim the American dream for you and your family. That is the American way. That is the American spirit. That is what our bankruptcy courts should be about: giving average Americans who have lived responsibly a second chance. This bill before us turns the American dream into the American nightmare. This bankruptcy bill turns its back on our most basic values as Americans. It is not a bill of the people, by the people, or for the people. It is a bill of the credit card companies, written by the credit card companies, and for the credit card companies, and it has no place in America. This bill is about greed. It is about the most profitable corporations in America--the credit card companies--using the Senate to enhance their profits, even more by shaking down hard-pressed Americans in bankruptcy court. It stacks the deck in favor of the credit card companies and against American families who do everything right but find themselves in bankruptcy because they lose a job, fall ill with cancer, or get divorced. I am reminded of the words of Leviticus in the 25th chapter. It reads: If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or sojourner, that he may live with you. Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother may live with you. You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit. But this bill ignores those words. It allows the credit card companies that charge outrageous interest rates, exorbitant fees, and force you into bankruptcy to still win back almost every dime in bankruptcy court against Americans who have fallen on hard times. This pillaging of the middle class must come to an end. Today we will pass a bankruptcy bill that rewards the credit card companies at the expense of average Americans. Last month, we passed a class action bill that makes it harder for average Americans to hold big corporations accountable, and we have a President who wants to give your Social Security away to Wall Street. Credit card companies, big corporations, Wall Street--when is this President and this Republican Congress finally going to give the American people just 1 minute to debate their issues? When are we going to make their health care more affordable so they do not have to worry every night if one of their children gets sick? When are we going to make college more affordable so parents can proudly send their children to college to build their own futures? When are we going to fight for clean water and clean air so we can raise our families in health? When are we going to compete for good jobs, not by lowering the pay but by raising our skills in the global economy? When are we going to fight for a secure retirement for Americans who have lived responsibly and worked hard all of their lives? When is the Senate finally going to stand up and fight for the American people? Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do we have an minute on each side?

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent for a minute on each side.

Mr. KENNEDY. First of all, I want to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Senator Kohl, who has worked on this issue for many, many years. This amendment closes one of the gaping loopholes in this bill, but it is a loophole millions of dollars wide and millions of dollars deep. Right now, because a few States have no limit on homestead, the Ken Lays, the Jeff Schillings, and the Dennis Kozlowskis in this world can hide millions of dollars or tens of millions of dollars of their assets from their creditors even after they go into bankruptcy. There isn't much fairness or balance in the bill so far, but this amendment will put a very small measure of balance in the bill by limiting the homestead exemption nationwide to $300,000. I ask my colleagues to vote for balance and fairness, and agree to this amendment.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, those Americans who have been watching this debate on bankruptcy reform for the last 8 days must wonder what in the world is happening in the Senate this evening where we have had these prolonged quorum calls. We have had a series of votes over the course of the day. We had tentatively planned to have another series of votes on amendments at 5 o'clock this evening. But then because of the concern of our Republican colleagues on one particular amendment, an amendment that would have addressed the provisions in the underlying legislation that repeals the conflict-of- interest provision for major banks, suddenly the quorum call goes in and there is no further action on the issue of bankruptcy. This is absolutely amazing. Many of us have pointed out how this is special interest legislation. It was written by the credit card companies for the credit card companies. They are the principal beneficiary. The argument for this legislation, according to the proponents, was: Look, we have a number of spendthrifts in the United States. People ought to act responsibly. This legislation will deal with it. That was their argument. And that is an argument that those of us who have differed with this legislation would gladly accept. The percentage of spendthrifts, so to speak, is anywhere from 5 to 7 percent of the total number of people who go into bankruptcy. Those of us who have been battling this legislation for the past several days all agree, we would join up with our colleagues in a bipartisan way to address that issue. But that isn't what this bill is about. This bill is about encumbering working families, primarily, who fall on difficult times, as we have pointed out during the debate. We have offered a series of amendments. A number of my colleagues have offered amendments. Every one of them has been defeated by our Republican colleagues. Now in the final hours of consideration of this legislation, because one particular amendment is going to touch the banking industry and they are unsure of the votes, they effectively call off all the votes for this evening. That is what is going on here in the Senate. If you want to put your finger on special interests, look what is happening in the Senate at this moment. We have the Sarbanes-Leahy- Warner amendment, the authors of which were prepared to vote on. But no, the Republicans say, no, we are not going to let the Senate vote on that, because they are not sure of the votes. They are not sure of the votes. They are not sure that they have the votes to defeat that particular provision that would override a provision that is in the banking bill that repeals some conflict of interest for banking interests. Isn't that something? Doesn't that really show what this legislation is all about? Sure it does. Why not call the roll? Why not call the roll? We have been listening about let's move the banking legislation along; let's move it along. Why do you have to take time when you are talking about what the impact of this legislation is going to be on the members of the National Guard and Reserves, who go overseas--the 20,000 that would be bankrupt this year and subject to the harsh provisions of this legislation. And then we had a phony amendment that was accepted here that will do virtually nothing to protect them. What about the homestead exemption, which says that those who exist in five States are going to be able to squirrel tens of millions of dollars away so that if they go into bankruptcy they would be able to protect their million dollar homes? Why not have fairness across the country? Oh, no, we cannot do that because we have a delicate compromise. What is that delicate compromise they are talking about? I thought this legislation was going after spendthrifts. We agree to go after them, but when we know half of the people going into bankruptcy are going there because of health care bills that are run up, with 75 percent of those individuals covered with health insurance, but because they have a heart attack in their family or because they have a stroke in their family, or because they have a child who has spina bifida in their family, they are subject to the harsh provisions of this legislation that will virtually make them an indentured servant of the credit card companies for the next 5 years. That is what is in this bill. We have pointed that out. No, we will vote that down. We will vote down any consideration for the National Guard and any consideration for the Reserve if they happen to be individuals who may be running a family business, one or two working in a particular employment or a mom-and-pop store, and they go overseas and they are going to serve for many months, and the store bellies up, then they are subject to the harsh provisions of this. No, we are not going to give consideration to those veterans. What about those individuals? It could happen to any family--except Members of the Senate, who have very good health care. It would not happen to us. But we cannot get health care for the rest of Americans. No, that is just too bad, that they have a heart attack in their family, or a stroke, or that they have a sick child, they are going into bankruptcy, and they are going through the harsh provisions of bankruptcy that are going to make them pay for the next 5 years to 10 years $15 or $20 a week, and continue to bleed them. That is what is in this bill. The American people are beginning to understand it. We talked about all the single women who go into bankruptcy because their ex-husbands do not pay them money for child support. Do you think we could have some understanding or some sensitivity to their particular problem? Absolutely not. No way. Let's take those spendthrifts and put it right to them. That is what this bill does. No, we cannot deal with that. What's your next amendment? Let's go on, it is getting late. Let's have time. Time, they say. What has happened here for the last 3 hours? The clock has run and they cannot figure out whether they have the votes to protect the banking industry. That is what is going on. The Republicans are trying to find out whether they have the votes to protect the banking industry, and they get all worked up when we call this special interest legislation. You have not seen special interest legislation until you see this bill. We used to, around here, look at a piece of legislation and say, who benefits and who suffers with this? Well, it is very easy to find out here who benefits. It is the credit card companies. They are the ones who are going to be put in the catbird's seat. Their estimate in the passing of this bill--listen to me--this legislation makes the bankruptcy courts of the United States the collection agencies for the credit card industry of America. Who do you think pays for the bankruptcy courts? You do, Mr. America. Ordinary Americans pay for those bankruptcy judges and the bankruptcy courts, and they are going to be out there as a collecting agency for the credit card companies. That is what this is about. It has been difficult to get anyone on the Republican side to understand that. Well, we voted on this some years ago. We have a changed condition from some years ago. Sure, we have the problems of bankruptcy. What about Enron and WorldCom? What about Polaroid in my own State? When they went belly up, the people not only lost their health insurance and pensions, they also lost their investments in what was called an ESOP--their requirement to invest in the companies. They all lost out on it. We are sure of one thing: Ken Lay and all of the people at Enron have big houses all sheltered away in places like River Oaks in Houston, TX. They have all those protected, tens of millions of dollars. What happened to the other people? So we do have a problem, but this bill doesn't address it. It does nothing about WorldCom or Enron or about Polaroid and what happened to those workers. Zero. Zip. Nothing. And then, when we found out that there is another loophole where, when wealthier people know they are going into bankruptcy, they can get a clever lawyer and put their money in trust and be free from the reaches of the bankruptcy court, that was addressed. No, we are not going to change this legislation. We are concerned about these spendthrifts--whoever they are. I have been on the floor for most of the time in this debate, and I still have not heard who they are. All I heard is that we passed this several years ago, and we have to pass it again. Well, there have been many changes since the last time we addressed this bankruptcy bill, and the major companies and corporations have basically done in the workers with their pensions, with their health insurance, with their life insurance; they have done them in, but this bill doesn't do anything about that. And then we have the issue of the use of these trusts to protect the assets of these wealthy debtors who are going into bankruptcy. But this bill doesn't do anything about that. We have the inequities where people in at least 20 or 25 States across the country, their investment in their homes will be protected up to $5,000 or $7,000, but not in Texas or Florida, where you can have tens of millions. Fair? Equitable? No, we are not going to do anything about that. No, we have not done anything about any of these issues. What we are basically saying is that those people who have worked hard, have health insurance, and had a serious health challenge or need in their family--just enough to tip them over--is that we are not going to show them any mercy. Absolutely, no, put the wood to them. Veterans, put the wood to them. Single moms who are not getting their payments of child support and alimony, put the wood to them. If you happen to fall below the median line, so you are outside--you would think that if you could show that your total certified income was below the median income of your State, you are supposed to be free from repaying. That is what you heard on the floor of the Senate. Yet when amendments are offered to make sure that all the other punitive provisions that are added to that--you have to go out there and enlist in some course on credit. Find a course on credit counseling. These are people who average $12,000 to $15,000 a year in terms of income--you are going to require them to take a credit course? They have to demonstrate that they graduate from that course; otherwise they will be subject to the $5 or $10 a week in terms of payment. This bill is all about $5 billion dollars in additional profits to the credit card companies. That is what this bill is all about. Where do you think it comes from? People who have gone into bankruptcy. Who are those people? They are the people that have the heart attacks. They are the men and women whose jobs have been outsourced. They are the mothers, single moms who are not getting paid alimony and child support. Those are the people who are being hurt, and those are the people who are hard-working Americans and who are going to have their final drops of blood drawn out of them with payments. That is this bill. We have been saying this is a special interest bill; tonight reaffirms it. The Republicans will not vote to restore a provision in this bill that was existing law that dealt with conflicts of interest for banks. They do not want to risk a vote in the Senate tonight. Why don't they explain it? Where is their shame? Why don't they explain it to the American people? Where are they? Where are all these proponents of this wonderful bill to explain why it is so difficult for them to decide tonight? This is just seamy, just a terrible way to legislate. We have seen these votes, as I mentioned, over time. We have seen who the vulnerable people are. We have seen who the beneficiaries are. We have pointed out what has been happening in America, across the landscape, over the last 4 or 5 years with the loss of jobs, the loss of extending unemployment compensation to people who paid into the unemployment compensation fund for a long time. The jobs are not out there. We have 8 million people who are unemployed, and there are 3.4 million jobs out there. There are going to be people who cannot work, cannot find work.