Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I do thank the Senator from Wisconsin for accepting some changes because of my objections to his last amendment. As I indicated earlier, I think he did respond to a number of those. But I also think he fairly clearly made the arguments I made a few minutes ago. I made those the last time his amendment came up also; and those were not addressed. They still remain a fundamental flaw.

Mr. SESSIONS. Under this scenario, it is clearly 6 weeks, if everything goes perfectly for the landlord. It is guaranteed 6 weeks under these circumstances.

Mr. SESSIONS. It is significant if you don't get rent for 2 months or 1 month or 6 months, if you need it. The Senator suggests these people are not trying to game the system. They are not sophisticated in all of this. They go to lawyers. They take advertisements like this. Those advertisements will still be there. They tell tenants how to do this. They are shocked when the lawyer says, don't pay any more on your credit card. Don't pay any more at the bank. Don't pay any more of your debts. Take your next paycheck, give it to me, and I will wipe out everything you owe. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these three documents.

Mr. SESSIONS. One of the things Senator Grassley has done in the bill, and the Senator has mentioned, is to provide that you do not have to have an attorney in bankruptcy court for most of the actions that will take place. This is indeed a good step forward. You would not have to have an attorney in this landlord tenant situation. I would suggest that for the average small apartment owner who gets a notice that he is to stay his eviction procedures, and he has a lawyer who is doing the eviction procedures, he is going to ask his lawyer: What is this? What can you do to get this stay lifted? The landlord is going to hire a lawyer and end up spending several hundred dollars to get this matter taken care of, when ultimately, the procedure is such that there will be no legal basis for the filing of the complaint in the overwhelming number of cases. I understand the Senator's concern. I believe this bill, as written, will provide all the protections the States have given to tenants. I believe we have a responsibility to see they have protections, that they can defend their interests in court before being thrown out of their apartments. And, indeed, that is the law in every State in America today. But I do not believe we ought to allow those who file bankruptcy to have substantial benefits over those who don't file bankruptcy, who are managing somehow, in some way, on the same income, to pay their debts. I don't believe they should have a superior advantage. I don't believe landlords who are going to lose in this bankruptcy proceeding, no telling how many months rent, should be required to fund additional rents. If this body wants to pay them to allow people to stay, it is OK; otherwise, it is not. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the work of the Senator from Wisconsin. I know he cares deeply about this issue. He has made some changes in the previous amendment that make the bill more palatable. However, it still runs afoul of common sense and efficient operation of the bankruptcy system. Furthermore, it will allow abuse of the system in a way that is unjustified and unprecedented in terms of any other creditor of a person who goes into bankruptcy. We are asking a landlord for certain periods of time to extend free rent, when the grocer is not required to give free groceries and the gas station is not required to give free gas. Let me make a few points about this matter. It is a subject of great abuse in the United States. That is why we are here. The bankruptcy law was last amended in any significant fashion in 1978. Since that time, we have found that a large bankruptcy bar has developed. This has been very good in many ways, but also this skilled, experienced and specialized bar has learned how to utilize the Federal bankruptcy laws to maximize benefits for their clients, as they believe it is their duty to do. In the process, they have created abuses of innocent creditors and landlords, among others. That is not what we are about. Our responsibility, as a Congress, is not to blame the lawyers, is not to blame the tenants who take advantage of these things. The responsibility of Congress is to pass laws that are not easily abused and that end in just results. One of the most abused sections of the bankruptcy law has been the landlord-tenant situation. First, eviction procedures are set forth in the laws of all 50 States. One cannot simply throw somebody out of their apartment. One has to file an eviction notice, go to the State court, prove the case, and eventually get the tenant out. Many believe that process is far too prolonged and far too costly. That is what the law is. In many instances, it is good because it provides tenants opportunities to get their affairs together. With the current bankruptcy law, tenants have responded to ads in newspapers and fliers passed out in neighborhoods and throughout the communities. Those ads say: Up to 7 months free rent. Call us; we will take care of you. We guarantee you 2 to 7 months of delays in payment of your rent and guarantee you will not be evicted under those circumstances. How can that happen? Say a person is behind in his rent and also behind in other payments, and people have filed lawsuits against him, and he or she has gone to the lawyer to ask what to do, and the lawyer files for bankruptcy. Maybe the lease the person had with the landlord has already expired. Maybe it requires him to pay his rent monthly, and it has been 4 or 5 months since the rent has been paid, and the landlord has already commenced eviction actions against the tenant. When that happens, the matter normally goes forward in State court. Under normal State laws for removal of someone who does not pay their rent, when a bankruptcy court is involved, the eviction case is stayed; an automatic stay is issued. The landlord cannot proceed with that eviction until the stay is lifted in the bankruptcy court. Once that happens, the landlord can go back to State court and continue with his lawful eviction actions. This has caused quite a bit of gaming of the system. For example, I will share with Members some statistics from California. The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department estimates that 3,886 residents filed for bankruptcy in 1996 simply to prevent the execution of valid court- ordered evictions. The sheriff has the responsibility of actually evicting the tenant. The Sheriffs Department of Los Angeles said these 3,886 bankruptcy petitions represent over 7 percent of all the eviction cases handled by the department and that losses have been estimated at nearly $6 million per year in that county. Some people routinely flaunt that automatic stay provision--lawyers do--that advertises that persons may live rent free by filing bankruptcy. One bankruptcy flier sent out said for a fee the lawyers will use more moves than Magic Johnson to prolong the eviction process. This is not good. A judge in California has dealt with this matter over and over again, and in an opinion, this is what Judge Zurzolo in the Central District of California had to say about the evictions and how he believes how meritless they are. This is from his written opinion: . . . the bankruptcy courts . . . are flooded with chapter 7 and chapter 13 cases filed solely for the purpose of delaying unlawful detainer evictions. Inevitably and swiftly following this in bankruptcy court, the filing of these cases, is the filing of a motion for relief of stay by the landlord. After the bankruptcy is filed and the eviction notice is stopped, the landlord has to go into bankruptcy court with his lawyer and file for relief from stay and say: Look, I have not been paid rent for many months; the tenant is in violation of the lease; there is no asset of which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction. Bankruptcy judge, allow me to proceed with my eviction. Or the landlord will say: The lease has expired. The tenant has been here a year. In month 14, the lease expired. He did not extend the lease. I want to remove him. This is what the judge continues to say in his opinion: These relief from stay motions are rarely contested and are never lost. Bankruptcy courts in our district hear dozens of these stay motions weekly, none of which involves any justiciable controversies of fact or law. I don't know about the individual who says he represented a lot of cases and said he won some of the motions, but I don't believe they ought to be winning them under the law if the lease has expired, and that is what our amendment says. If the lease has expired, there cannot be an asset of the bankruptcy estate, and if there is no asset for the bankruptcy court to take jurisdiction over, it has no ability to issue any stay orders to protect or stop any litigation that is ongoing. That couldn't be the case. If the lease is behind and the payments have been so far delayed that the lease has been violated and, likewise, the tenant has no property interests, there is no asset before the bankruptcy court over which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction. The bankruptcy court essentially has jurisdiction only over the assets, to make sure when a person cannot pay his debts, all the assets are brought into the pot and the people who should receive the money from the estate get it in proper order. We are talking about monumental abuse. This is a loophole that has been expanded over and over again. We are seeing record numbers of filings. Many people are filing bankruptcy solely for this protection. Senator Feingold's amendment, which he has worked hard to improve, is better than before, but is still unacceptable and still creates an unjust situation. For example, if a debtor owes rent and files for bankruptcy, he can wait until after his rent is due and then file it and have 15 days before his first rent payment is due. Then he could make that payment and not make any more payments and remain on this property--maybe even when the lease has expired he can stay there--and not pay the next month's rent. This is the problem I have been talking about. He has 2, 3, 4 months now. His lawyer is advising him how to do this. His lawyer is going to advise him, first of all: Pay me. Pay your lawyer and do not pay your other debts until you have to. The debtor will do that. Then the landlord has to get a lawyer to file a certificate of failure to pay rent, and once that has been approved by the court, after a further delay of 15 days, then he has to go back to State court, now months behind schedule, and pick up again his legitimate eviction notice. Bankruptcy court ought not be for that purpose. If the people of the United States want to provide individuals without assets a place to live, then we ought to do so. In fact, we do that. We have low-rent housing for people with low income or rent-free housing for people who cannot afford it. We have benefits for people who do not have housing. But why should an American citizen, a landlord, be required to provide to a tenant, who has violated his lease, an asset rent free that we in the U.S. Congress are not willing to fund? If it is so easy and it costs so little, why don't we pay for it? Why don't we tax American people to pay for other people's rent? We are doing that to a degree right now. I do not believe that is a legitimate approach to the matter. It is not common sense. It is not what American law is about. When you are in a Federal court, in a bankruptcy court, or a State court, if you have a lease, that is a contract, and if you violate that lease, then you lose the benefit of the contract. This is so basic and fundamental that I do not know how we in this Congress can think we can pass a law that makes American citizens responsible for someone to have a place to live when they are not paying for it. We have a number of different provisions in State law that allow tenants rights to hold on and refinance and maybe keep the place in which they live. That is all right. I want to continue that. If people want to change that, go to your State court, change your eviction laws in your State, and take it to your State legislature. Let's not make the bankruptcy law become a policy of social engineering to decide who should get special benefits and who should pay for those benefits. In effect, it is a tax. The landlord who loses this money is a person who is taxed. Indeed, we may have landlords going bankrupt if tenants do not pay rent. Two-thirds of rental residences in America today are four units or less. That means we have an awful large number of our grandparents and brothers-in-law who may have a duplex or garage apartment and are renting them to people, and all of a sudden, somebody does not pay. They cannot get the tenants out. The landlords are not receiving any money. Two, 3 months go by, and finally the landlord files for eviction. Boom, the tenant files for bankruptcy. Then, the landlord has to hire a lawyer to go to bankruptcy court, and that is another 2, 3 extra months delay. The landlord is without rent for 2, 3 months, and they still do not have their property back. This is an abuse of bankruptcy law, and this legislation is designed to fix it. This bill does not change substantive landlord tenant law. Rather, it is a change in that if certain circumstances exist, the landlord does not have to hire a lawyer to go to Federal bankruptcy court to get relief. It says there is an exemption from the automatic stay if the eviction proceeding was started prior to the filing of the bankruptcy. If the landlord had already filed for eviction before the individual files for bankruptcy, the eviction process can continue as it would have normally. In addition, the bill says the automatic stay does not apply if an eviction proceeding was based on the fact that the lease had already been terminated. It was a year's lease, and you are in month 13, 14, 15, 16 and no payments have been received and the landlord wants to lease to another tenant. It is the landlord's property. The tenant has no property rights. His lease has expired, for heaven's sake. I say to Senator Feingold, I respect his concern for these matters. States do provide protections for persons who have difficulty paying their rent. Also, many landlords all over America try to work with their tenants. They do not want to change tenants if they are happy with a tenant. If they can help work out the tenant's payments, for previous months, that is a courtesy extended by small landlords, two-thirds of whom have four units or less. Those courtesies can turn sour in a hurry if, after months of working with a tenant, the tenant becomes further and further behind in rent. Boom, a bankruptcy petition is filed; boom, they are stayed from eviction; months go by and the landlord has to hire a lawyer and great cost is incurred. This is an abuse of the system, and I must oppose this amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. It does not exactly, but it gives them at least a month and a half--if not 2 months, a month and a half.

Mr. SESSIONS. In addition, it still allows the abuse of forcing the landlord to go to two different courts to pursue a legitimate----

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on the order, I think it would be appropriate for Senator Feingold to proceed at this time. Further, I think we will proceed without unanimous consent after that. Senator Grassley will be back, and we can decide what to do then. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: No. 271 and No. 274. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the two nominees who have been confirmed, Ronald Gould for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Barbara Lynn, U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Texas, have indeed received august, important lifetime appointments. Federal judgeships are great offices. The persons who receive them are committed to a lifetime of dedication to law. They must conduct themselves with the highest degree of professionalism and integrity. We believe both of those nominees will meet that standard. I am pleased this could be concluded tonight. With regard to Mr. Gould, I want to share these thoughts. He is a most capable man who has overcome personal adversity to reach the position to which he has been confirmed this evening. He has achieved a reputation as an excellent lawyer and as a person who is respected throughout his area of the country, for both his legal skills, and for his commitment to voluntarism within his community, as evidenced by his continuing service with the Boy Scouts of America. I am proud for him tonight. However, I have supported his nomination with some concern, not because of anything he has done, but because of my concern about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Over the past 20 years, the Ninth Circuit has established a reputation as an extremely activist circuit. It is a large and important circuit, covering over 20 percent of the American population, and I believe that it is a circuit that we have a responsibility in this body to do something about. A couple of years ago, 28 cases from this Circuit were reviewed by the Supreme Court; 27 were reversed. Over the last several years, the Ninth Circuit has had by far the highest reversal rate of any circuit in the country. They have been an extremely liberal, activist circuit that has consistently gone too far in protecting the rights of criminals, and is far too quick to find that legislative acts or referendums have violated the Constitution. That is a fact without dispute by many legal scholars in this country. Indeed, the New York Times recently wrote that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court considers the Ninth Circuit to be a rogue circuit. My sole concern about Mr. Gould's nomination is that I don't believe his appointment and confirmation, by itself, will cause any significant movement of that circuit back to the mainstream of American law. We want to confirm the nominees the President gives the Senate when they are men and women of demonstrated integrity and ability, and when their records and backgrounds indicate that they have the ability to adhere to the law, to follow Supreme Court rulings, to follow the Constitution, to follow laws passed by the people through their elected representatives, and to recognize that it is not their function as judges to make law. I have concluded that Mr. Gould's confirmation should go forward today because I think he has demonstrated that he recognizes his proper role as a federal judge, and I have not held up his nomination, as any Senator would have a right to do. However, there are other nominees pending for this circuit who I believe have a record of activism that, in my view, does not warrant their confirmation, particularly to a circuit that is already known to be an activist circuit. I wanted to share those remarks because I wanted to state for the record that this Senate has been very cooperative with the President's desire to get his nominations confirmed, as evidenced by the fact that there have been over 325 Federal judges nominated to this body and confirmed. Only one judge has been rejected, and very few have been held up for any length of time. Those that have been held up are the judges with whom many Senators have some serious concerns. Most judges, however, are moving along in a prompt and efficient manner. Comments and complaints to the contrary notwithstanding, this Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent with the President on any nomination to the Federal courts, and we have a duty and a responsibility to make sure that each and every circuit judge in this country understands what the supreme law of the land is, and that circuit judges should respect the prerogatives of the people through their elected representatives to pass laws which the judges are required to enforce, whether the judges personally like them or not. We need to make sure our circuits, and every Federal judge we see, are consistent with that view and follow that script. Mr. Gould is a capable attorney, an Eagle Scout, and a man of great personal integrity, it appears. He will soon assume a position on the U.S. Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit. It is a great honor, and I congratulate him for it.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. For the information of all Senators, at 11 a.m. on Thursday, the Senate will begin a period of morning business until 12 noon. Following morning business, it is expected that the Senate will begin work on measures regarding the appropriations process. Final agreements are being made, and it is hoped final action on the appropriations measures can begin as soon as possible. I thank my colleagues for their patience and cooperation during these final days prior to adjournment.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open until 9 p.m. in order for the majority leader to introduce a Senate bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. On behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 11 a.m. on Thursday, November 18. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Voinovich or his designee, 11 to 11:30; Senator Durbin or his designee, 11:30 to 12 noon.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2650 proposed by Senator Reed and myself, and I send a modification to the desk and ask that the amendment be agreed to as modified and the motion to reconsider be agreed to and laid upon the table.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Kohl on this amendment. We have spent over 2 years now working to reform the abuses in bankruptcy law. Senator Kohl has served on the Judiciary Committee. As we have gone through it, we have tried to eliminate a lot of the abuses.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. Mr. President, we have been trying to eliminate abuses that are in the bankruptcy system. There are many of them. We have some things in this bill that are good and true and honest and fair. It says right now that a person making $70,000 a year who owes $100,000, under Federal bankruptcy law, can go into chapter 7, wipe out all their debts, and still be living with a $100,000-a-year income and not have to pay the people from whom they receive benefits and to whom they owe money. We are saying if you have a certain level of income, then you ought to pay a part of your debt, and you would be required by the judge to develop a repayment plan for 30 percent, 50 percent, or 100 percent of the money, if you can pay it back. It is not just automatically wiping out all your debt. Some have said this is abuse on the poor. But it would not affect anybody whose income did not fall below the median American income, which today for a family of four is $49,000. So this is for high-income people, and only if you make above that can you be required to pay back some of your debts. We think that is an abuse, and we think it ought to be ended. Another abuse--one that may be the greatest abuse in the whole bankruptcy system--Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor, said is ``the single biggest scandal in the consumer bankruptcy system.'' It is the unlimited homestead exemption. She said it is a scandal, and I agree. It is an absolute scandal. First of all, bankruptcy law is handled in Federal court. It is all done in a Federal bankruptcy court. All the laws and all the rules are Federal laws. In one area, the Federal law says, for the purpose of bankruptcy homestead exemptions, that will be left to what the State law is. But that is a Federal law. What we found is that the Bankruptcy Commission, after 3 years of study, which included judges and other experts, recommended that we take this exemption to $100,000 and it be uniform across the country. There is no reason, or history, or logical justification for a State having an unlimited bankruptcy exemption--a fact recognized, as the Senator said, by the Austin American Statesman newspaper, which said this is clearly a matter of Federal law. The scholars do not dispute it. All other aspects of bankruptcy law are determined by the Federal law. I wanted to say that first. Second, we are having serious problems and abuses--a Federal bankruptcy judge in Miami, FL, one of the States that has such an unlimited exemption, like Texas, has been very critical of this. The current system ``is grossly unfair,'' said A. Jay Cristol, the chief Federal bankruptcy judge in Miami. ``This law was written to give everyone a fresh start after bankruptcy, not to allow people to keep luxury homes.'' How has this abuse been playing out? Here is an article in the New York Times listing some of the examples of what we are talking about: The First American Bank and Trust Company in Lake Worth, FL, closed in 1989. This is in the New York Times of last year: . . . its chief executive, Roy Talmo, filed for personal bankruptcy in 1993. Despite owing $6.8 million, Mr. Talmo was able to exempt a bounty of assets. Exempt--that means those assets could not be used to pay people to whom he lawfully owed debts. It goes on: During much of the bankruptcy proceeding, Mr. Talmo drove around Miami in a 1960 Rolls Royce and tended the grounds of his $800,000 tree farm. . . . Never one to slum it, Mr. Talmo had a 7,000-square-foot mansion with five fireplaces, 16th-century European doors and a Spanish-style courtyard, all on a 30-acre lot. Yet, in Mr. Talmo's estimation, this was chintzy. He also owned an adjacent 112 acres, and he tried to add those acres to his homestead. The court refused. Another example: Talmadge Wayne Tinsley, a Dallas, TX, developer, filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1996 after he incurred $60 million in debt, largely bank loans. Under Texas law, Mr. Tinsley could keep only one acre of his 3.1-acre estate. Texas recently had laws up to change that 1-acre limitation if you live in a city to which you can exempt from 8 to 10 acres. At any rate, he wanted to exempt more than that. He wanted the whole 3.1-acre estate. His $3.5 million, magnolia-lined estate included a five- bedroom, six-and-a-half-bath mansion with two studies, a pool and a guest house. All that fit snugly onto one acre. Yet, when the court asked Mr. Tinsley to mark off two acres to be sold to pay off his debts, his facetious offer was for the trustee to come by and peel off two feet around his entire property. He signed off for that debt. At any rate, he was able to sell his house for $3.5 million, and he used the proceeds of this sale, after declaring bankruptcy, to write a $659,000 check to the IRS, whose debt still continues to be owed after bankruptcy, and another for $1.8 million to pay off his mortgage. That left him $700,000 after all his expenses, and he could spend that on whatever he wanted to, without paying legitimate people to whom he owed money. That is not a fair deal, I submit. There are other examples of this. There is Dr. Carlos Garcia-Rivera, who filed for bankruptcy protection. He lives in Florida. The State law gives him an unlimited deduction, and he was able to keep a $500,000 residence, which is pictured in the newspaper article, free and clear. The problem is this. A lot of people can see bankruptcy coming. They can see the problems coming down the road. They live in a State such as Alabama or New Jersey, where the laws don't give them these values. In fact, two-thirds of all the States limit your homestead value to $40,000 in equity. So what do they do? They can see the bankruptcy coming. They can move to a State such as Texas or Florida, buy a beautiful home on the beach, take every asset they have, quit paying any of the people to whom they owe money, collect all their money, put it in that house, and then file bankruptcy and say: You can't take my home. It is my homestead, and I don't have to give you anything. That is a problem. That is a national problem, and it is a growing problem. We have increased bankruptcies. Lawyers are more sophisticated. People are more willing to move today than they used to be. That is why Senator Kohl and I feel so strongly about this. I want to mention a couple more important things. The New York Times, in an editorial in August of 1999, argued against protecting rich bankrupts and criticized this very provision in law. There were other complaints made in previous remarks suggesting this change would require States to change their constitution or their existing State law. That is not the case. The homestead exemption in Texas or Florida would be valid for every other State law purpose the State chose to apply it for. It simply would not be valid in the Federal bankruptcy court if that law called for an exemption to exceed $100,000, the amount the Bankruptcy Commission, after 3 years' study, concluded was the appropriate amount. It certainly strikes me as a fair and legitimate amount. This is not the sale price of the house but the equity in the house. If an individual owned a mansion with $500,000 of equity in that mansion, they would not be able to live in that mansion and stop paying their creditors, the people they duly and lawfully owed money to, but would be able to keep $100,000 of it. They could keep $100,000 in equity. They would end up better than a person who files bankruptcy in Alabama or most other States who have less than $100,000. We think that is fair, just, and appropriate and ought to be confronted. I know some believe it is somehow an advantage for a State to not have this cap, to have unlimited exemptions, but I argue it hurts local creditors in those States, too, because they are not being paid back their debts. A man living in a mansion in downtown Dallas who is not paying his Dallas creditors and all the people he owes in Dallas, TX, he gets to live in the mansion, is not an advantage for Texas. For years, the Texas legislators, Members of Congress, have believed passionately they should defend this as being a part of their constitution. I think that is a misunderstanding of the role of Federal bankruptcy law. The goal of a good bankruptcy law is to make sure a person who owes debts pays all he can, liquidates all his assets, is able to keep a reasonable home, and work in the future without having any debts, but that he not be able to abuse the system and defeat creditors who he could legitimately pay. I enjoyed working with Senator Kohl. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, one thing we have raised is the situation of the farm person. First of all, Senator Grassley has been a champion of the new bankruptcy laws. And we have made those permanent in this bill to give added protections to farmers, unlike the kind of protections that are given a manager of a restaurant, a gas station, or a small factory that goes bankrupt. They have a number of good protections. But what I want to say to you is that a person who owes a lot of debt, who has received legal benefits and owes money, and then goes into bankruptcy, will be able to keep up to $100,000 in equity. The house can be a $500,000 house. The farm can be $1 million farm-- whatever. But the equity simply has to be no more than $100,000. I think that is as generous as we can possibly be. I don't see how we could be more generous than that. Why should a businessman, or any person, be able to have unlimited assets? Let me make no mistake about it, the Hutchison amendment that is filed today would allow an individual in Texas or Florida to maintain a $50 million mansion and not pay the people they owe just debts to--$50 million in equity that they own and paid into that house, and not pay people they owe. That is the kind of disparity I do not believe we can accept and is what the Bankruptcy Commission has rejected. That is what professors have called a national scandal. I have been pleased to work on this because I believe we owe it to the working Americans who go through bankruptcy, who will never ever have the possibility of claiming these kinds of great equities and do not live in mansions--I don't see why we need to be providing special protections for the rich in these circumstances. It is time to end this process. It is time for Congress to act. I yield back my time and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Kohl and I asked earlier this year for a GAO report on these cases. According to the Washington Post, ``Homestead exemptions aid well-off feud'': Findings suggest the unlimited homestead exemption is not the popular shield it has often been cracked up to be but a convenient protection for a few affluent people. Judge Edith Jones on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals from Texas said recently as a member of the Bankruptcy Commission: I agree with cap supporters that debtors have used liberal homestead laws, like that of my home State Texas, to shelter large amounts of wealth from their creditors. She went on to add: In principle, I do not oppose a $100,000 cap on homestead exemptions, particularly if it were indexed to account for inflation. This will be indexed, and I think Judge Jones is correct. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, great words of tribute and reverent appreciation are put on paper every year in anticipation of the arrival of November 11th. With a solemn heart I struggle to meet the challenge of delivering those words in a way that is both humble and befitting of America's heros. I offer these words in honor and in memory of every American who has answered the call to arms; for every American who has freely stepped forward under our Star Spangled Banner; and for every American who died in the name of freedom. These men and women are among America's greatest heros. Our great nation has flourished and enjoys unprecedented prosperity to this day because of our veterans' willingness to give themselves in service to the nation. For many this willingness meant sacrificing their lives so others might live free. There are those among us who question whether or not our younger generations will prove, when the nation beckons, to be just as committed to the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as those we honor every November 11 proved to be. I wonder how many Americans had those same doubts before the outbreak of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or Desert Storm? I wonder how many who did go had dreamed that they would ever be called into the horror that is found on the battlefield? Surely there were doubters. Surely there was apprehension and fear. But, they answered freedom's call. Our national story and the story of the American people is one of amazing courage in difficult times, and a proud tradition of triumph in the face of our enemies here and abroad. America has always been ready to act. The footprints left and the blood spilled by our soldiers, airmen, marines, sailors, and coast guardsmen around the world remain as a testament to the indomitable American spirit, our collective faith in the power of freedom, and to the promise of a great future. Over and over again, history has proven those who doubted America's resolve to be dead wrong. I am confident that our nation's future remains bright if we continue to exhibit the same steadfastness as our forefather's--never forsaking the gift of freedom that so many have given us. Inspiration can be found in many ways. Just the other day I was looking over Medal of Honor citations of some of Alabama's greatest heros. Taken together they represent a relatively small group of Alabamians but provide one of the greatest inspirations of hope for America I can find. Reading those citations made me think about how many people might have doubted their commitment back then? How many people came in contact with those heros never realizing they would one day prove themselves worthy to wear the Medal of Honor? I choose to be excited by those thoughts because America might well be called upon again to defend the world against tyranny and evil, and I have no doubt that our men and women in uniform would again stand with the same steadfast resolve exhibited by those we honor today. I take great solace in knowing that the patriotism and heroism of Americans has been a constant for hundreds of years and will continue to be in the future. America's veterans have made ours a great country. Hardly a person in America is not associated in some way with a veteran. I hope you will thank them today for having answered the call to serve, and for setting the footprints for our future. They have indeed shown us the way into the 21st century.