Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Is the Senator asking unanimous consent that he speak next? Otherwise, the Senator from Michigan is due.

Mr. SESSIONS. Under the unanimous consent agreement, I am to speak at this time; is that correct?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Grassley for his leadership in the effort against drugs. I am a strong believer that this legislation that focuses on methamphetamine is focusing on critical issues that are important to America. We do have a spreading of methamphetamine around the country, and I am inclined to believe that increased penalties, and certainly a lot of other things involved in that legislation, is good. It has also been made a part of this legislation--efforts to change the current law with regard to crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Complaints have been made that crack cocaine penalties are 100 times more tough than powder sentences, and that this is, in fact, not fair-- a point with which I tend to agree. I prosecuted drug cases for 15 years. Every year since the sentencing guidelines were imposed, until 1992, I prosecuted drug cases. I understand how it plays out in a courtroom. The proposal that is made a part of Senator Grassley's amendment is the Hatch-Ashcroft-Abraham drug amendment, I guess it is. That proposal is designed to narrow the gap, saying that crack cocaine ought not to have 100 times more severe penalty than powder cocaine. An argument has been made that crack cocaine is more utilized in the African American community and, therefore, it has a disparity and a racial impact, and that we ought to look at this. Few would doubt that crack is a more dangerous drug than powder cocaine. It is smoked, it goes directly into the lungs, directly into the blood system, and directly to the brain. There are intense highs achieved at once. Some people, they say, are addicted the first time they try crack cocaine. It is a dangerous drug. Powder is normally sniffed through the nose. It is easy to receive through the nostrils, into the membranes, into the blood system, and it is not quite as intense as crack. It does not cause addiction nearly so quickly. So there is a difference. The idea of a 10-to-1 ratio is a movement in the right direction. But my reluctance at this point with this legislation is simply this: I believe it is time for us to look at the drug guidelines and the penalties we are imposing. This legislation would have no impact on the current crack guidelines but would raise the powder guidelines. We are talking about 50 grams of powder cocaine which you could virtually hold in one hand--50 grams of powder cocaine, 5 years without parole; 5 grams of crack, which could easily be held in one hand, is 5 years without parole in the Federal system. That is what we are talking about--Federal law, Federal penalties, not States which can have their own sentences in any way they want. I say to the Chair that, as a prosecutor, I took the enforcement of law seriously. We had one of the highest average sentences in the United States. I think one year we had the highest average sentence imposed in the United States in drug cases. We were honest in how we presented the case: This is the way it worked; this is what the law is. You charge an individual with selling crack cocaine, and normally the case doesn't just go down on the fact that he is caught with 25, 30, or 40 grams. Normally, you are prosecuting in Federal court an organization of drug dealers. You would bring in the underling who worked for that leader. You would ask him how long he had been out on this street corner or selling from this crack house. Then they say a year. How much has he sold over that year? Pretty soon, the amount goes up to kilograms, 1,000 grams, multikilograms of crack have been distributed, and that person is looking at literally 30 years, 20 years, or life without parole. I have seen sentences in Federal court of quite a number of young men and women to life without parole, and others 30 years, 25 years, or 20 years without parole. I believe strong sentences are effective. I believe they allow the law enforcement community to break the back of an illegal ring such as a drug ring. I don't want to go into any significant reduction in sentences, but I think it is time for us to evaluate whether or not we are approaching the drug penalties in the appropriate way. The judges are concerned. Judges think this minimum mandatory which has the effect of driving up all of the sentencing guidelines is too tough. General Barry McCaffrey has questioned the crack and powder cocaine laws as proposed in this amendment. He believes there is a better approach to it. I think it is time for us to consider that. I believe we have had these guidelines in effect for quite some time now--well over a decade. I believe we ought to look at it, have some hearings, and study it. I didn't want to, by voting for this amendment, suggest I was comfortable with these guidelines. In fact, my inclination would be not to vote for the amendment for that reason. I simply think the best way to reduce drug trafficking by law enforcement is to have more prosecutions. It is less important--I did this as a prosecutor for 17 years. I chaired the U.S. Attorneys Committee for the United States here in Washington on drug abuse and drug issues. I am a full and total believer in the sentencing guidelines, the tough Federal laws that are out there. But if you ask me, my personal view is that I would prefer to have 10 people caught and sentenced to 7 years in jail rather than 5 people caught and sentenced to 14 years in jail. The best way for us to improve our pressure from the law enforcement end on drug trafficking in America is to increase prosecutions and investigations. Whether they serve 7 years, 9 years, 12 years, or 6 years is less important than people who are out dealing drugs who know they are going to get caught and they are going to have a big time sentence to serve, and it is without parole. Make no mistake about it, in State systems they normally serve a third of the time. This Congress a number of years ago, in a great piece of legislation, passed honesty in sentencing that says you serve what the judge gives you; and not only that, but you have to serve the sentence that the sentencing guidelines call for. Based on the amount of drugs literally when the case hits a judge's sentencing docket and the judge looks at it, it may be the difference between 18 and 21 years. If he likes a defendant and feels sorry for him, he gives him 18 years. If he doesn't like him, he gives him 21 years. That is about all the discretion he has. I am not sure we ought not to take time now to reevaluate that to make sure we are properly sentencing and we are using our resources of incarceration wisely. What is it, $20,000 a year, to keep somebody in prison? Wouldn't it be better to drive down drug use by intensive prosecutions across the board, letting the drug dealer know he is soon going to be caught and will serve a significant amount of time, than just taking a few people and sending them off for 30 years without parole? I believe that would be a better policy. I am prepared to consider that. I am prepared to work with General McCaffrey and Attorney General Reno and others in an open and fair way. I do not believe we ought to eliminate the sentencing guidelines. I do not believe we ought to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for certain amounts of drugs. I believe that is appropriate. I don't believe we ought to retreat from a tough law enforcement presence with regard to illegal drug use. Just this morning, Senator Coverdell hosted with General McCaffrey a breakfast for the Attorney General of Mexico. I was able to sit at his table and share thoughts about what we can do as two nations to improve our war against drugs. Mexico is in a crisis perhaps bigger than they realize. As the power of that illegal drug empire grows, the harder and harder it is for that country to contain it. They have to, not because we pressure them, out of their own self-interest save that country from being corrupted and destabilized by a powerful, wealthy drug empire. I hope we can encourage that and work together to assist with that. We in the United States need to continue our effective efforts over the years to do education, prevention, treatment, prosecution, and incarceration of drug dealers. If we continue that effort and the interdiction effort, I believe we can bring drug use down. Everybody in this country will benefit from that. I wanted to share my thoughts on this. I hope to be able to vote for this amendment. But I am not sure I can. I believe we need to seriously evaluate the sentencing guidelines and the mandatory sentences for drug use in America to make sure they are rational, that they are effectuating our effort as much as they possibly can to reduce drug use and illegal distribution of drugs in America. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I know some young people get in trouble by overspending their credit cards. A lot of adults get in trouble for that. The fact is, I don't believe we, as part of an effort to reform the bankruptcy court, need to be, at this moment, offering amendments; that ought to be done in the Banking Committee. There have been complaints about the fact that credit card solicitations are mailed out to people. Let me say this: We have had a banking bill in which Members have been outraged that banks won't loan to high-risk people, and they are complaining about not making enough loans. It is odd, striking, and shocking to me that poor people are being told they ought not to be even offered credit cards. Some say they are being mailed credit cards. Not so. It is a Federal law, a crime, and it is prohibited to mail credit cards unrequested to somebody. What they are receiving is offers of credit cards. They have to fill out forms and show their income and all that, and they may or may not get it once they fill it out. But to say you can't even offer a person below the poverty level a credit card is amazing to me. Credit cards are good for poor people. If somebody has a credit card and his tire blows up and he needs a set of tires for his car and doesn't have $200 cash, what is he going to do, park it until he can save up the money? With a credit card, he can do that and pay it off as he can. Credit cards are valuable things for poor people, for heaven's sake. For young people, we have this vision that an 18-year-old at college who is being funded by mama runs up a big debt on his credit card. The truth is, a lot of people are not doing that. A lot of people who are 18, 19, and 20 years old will be affected by this legislation, and they may be married, out on their own, going to college during the night, and working during the day. They have to get mama and daddy to sign on before they can even get the credit card they may need to help them through the unexpected expenses that may occur for them. The suggestion that somehow poor people are being oppressed by being offered credit cards is beyond my comprehension. In fact, one of the good things that is occurring is that we are seeing some competition now. Rates are coming down. People have alternatives. They can cancel a card and get a better card.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, will this mean we will have an opportunity this afternoon for debate by those who would be opposed to those amendments?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, in response to the remarks of the Senator from Wisconsin, I will not be able to support this amendment, although I do believe he has put some parts in it that make it superior to what had originally been offered in this regard. I will share with Members some of the reasons I believe we need to reject this amendment and why this is a classic problem with the current bankruptcy law that we need to fix. We haven't had a major reform of bankruptcy law since 1978. It is time for us to look at it to see how it is working out in the real world. Are there abusers? Are there loopholes, with clever lawyers zealously representing their clients able to utilize some of these loopholes and situations to abuse the fair workings of the bankruptcy court? Remember, a bankruptcy reform bill sets the law for an entire court. That is the court that handles bankruptcy. Senator Grassley's bill, with this amendment involving landlord/ tenant that I helped sponsor, simply clarifies existing law. It simply makes real and more effectual the existing law. The amendment offered by Mr. Feingold changes the current law; it moves us in a direction that will enhance and encourage litigation and delay and undermine the rule of law as we ought to see it in the country. There are some good lawyers out there practicing bankruptcy law. That is all they do. They know how to work the system and work it well. Under current law, if a landlord files an eviction against a tenant before the bankruptcy petition is filed by the tenant, that eviction can continue. If an eviction is filed by a landlord based on the fact that his lease has terminated--he has a 1-year lease; we are now in month 14, he files to evict the tenant; he can't just go and throw him out physically--he files a lawsuit in State court to evict the tenant, he will prevail in bankruptcy court. That is not the kind of action the bankruptcy court will permanently stay. What is the problem? Why are we having a problem? The problem is that when a person files for bankruptcy, all litigation is stayed; there is an automatic stay. So if you file for bankruptcy in Federal court, any lawsuits filed against you in the State court system for collection of your debts, including landlord/tenant, are automatically stayed. So what happens is, the landlord has to hire an attorney, send him down to Federal bankruptcy court, at great expense to himself, to file a motion and ask for a hearing to lift the stay and to say to that bankruptcy judge: Judge, we don't need you to stay this eviction case because the person is clearly in violation of his lease; he hasn't paid his rent, and/or the lease is terminated. It is time for him to be removed from his premises. He has to argue that. Uniformly, the courts will rule in his favor, and he can then take the matter to State court. In State court, the tenant has all the rights and privileges he has always had to defend himself against eviction. He gets a hearing in court. He just doesn't get a double hearing in Federal court and State court. This is a great cost to the landlords who have to go through this process. It also deals with landlords who have just a few apartment complexes or maybe just one and maybe the lease is coming up and they don't want to just occupy the premises themselves. Maybe they have already executed a lease with another tenant to take over this apartment. All of a sudden they find the tenant won't leave under his lease. Then he files a petition in bankruptcy. The court stays the efforts to evict and months go by. That is the kind of problem we are having. How does this abuse occur? We have seen advertisements and pulled them from phone books and newspapers. Here is one: ``Seven months free rent.'' It goes on to talk about how you can file bankruptcy--it has 7 calendar months here--and not be evicted for up to 7 months, even though your lease may have already expired. You have a 12-month lease, and that means you can stay there 19 months by the time you can get around to getting somebody removed from the premises, when you may have already agreed with your son, daughter, or some other possible tenant, that they can take over the property at a given time. The Feingold amendment, as I understand it, would protect the landlord who wanted to move in himself but not from leasing it to somebody else or letting a family member take over the property. Here is another one to a tenant organization, a flier that was passed out: ``We have more moves, when it comes to preventing your eviction, than Magic Johnson. Call us,'' the law firm says, ``and we will take care of you.'' ``Need more time to move? Stop this eviction from 1 to 6 months.'' And there are others we have seen here, quite a number of those kinds of activities. So I say to you that this is not just an imagined problem; it is very real. And still attorneys are advertising around the country, and they are disrupting legitimate landlord-tenant situations. It is an abuse. Eventually, under the current law, when they go to bankruptcy court and ask that the stay be lifted so they can continue with their eviction, they always win--but they always lose. They win on the law eventually, but they lose because they have been delayed in taking control of their own property and because they have had to pay an extensive legal fee. This is the kind of thing that is driving people mad who are dealing with bankruptcy on a regular basis. They are coming to us in Congress and saying: Jeff, these things are not healthy; they are frustrating, and they are hurting our ability to commercially operate in an effective way. So how often does it happen? I would like to read a report from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office--just in one county in America. This is what the L.A. County Sheriff's Office said. They estimate that 3,886 residents--3,886--filed for bankruptcy in 1996 alone--in 1 year, in that county--to prevent the execution of a valid court-ordered eviction notice. Think about that. You can even have won your eviction case in court, and an order has been issued to have this person evicted, his or her lease is up, and this stay in bankruptcy stops that. It goes on to say that 7 percent of the eviction cases handled by the Los Angeles County sheriff's department are stayed as a result of bankruptcy filings. Losses are estimated at nearly $6 million per year. They advertise in many of the publications ``Live Rent Free.'' That is really what has been happening. ``More moves than Magic Johnson'' to prevent a legitimate execution of an eviction order. Remember, we are not saying a landlord can just go remove somebody. Every State has protection for renters. They have to go to court and get a valid eviction order. Many times, they are entitled to other delays before they can be evicted. So I think that is significant. Another matter that I think is important is the quote from a judge in the Central District of California who is concerned about these cases. He sees them very frequently. Judge Zurzolo in the Central District of California had this to say about bankruptcy and efforts to delay eviction. This is a quote from his opinion in court: The bankruptcy courts are flooded with chapter 7 and chapter 13 bankruptcy cases filed solely for the purpose of delaying unlawful detainer eviction. Inevitably and swiftly following the filing of these bankruptcy cases is the filing of motions for relief of stay by the landlords. They have hired a lawyer and they have to file a motion for relief of stay. These landlords are temporarily thwarted by this abuse of the bankruptcy court system. This judge calls it an abuse of the system. These relief from stay motions are rarely contested and never lost. That is, the lawyer who filed the bankruptcy rarely even contests them, and never are they ruled against the landlord. It is never ruled against the landlord, but they are filed and delay has already occurred. He says this: Bankruptcy courts in our district hear dozens of these stay motions weekly, none of which involve any justiciable conflicts of fact and law. So it is pretty clear. We have a national problem that ought to be fixed. We can fix it. What does the current legislation, the bankruptcy reform bill, say about it? It simply says that the automatic stay is not available when an eviction proceeding has already started prior to the filing of a bankruptcy. In other words, if the eviction has started before, you don't get that stay. If an eviction proceeding is based on the fact that the lease is already terminated, you don't get a stay. Otherwise, you would have the same stay. This will stop a lot of wasted effort, a lot of unnecessary costs, a lot of frustration for tenants and those kinds of problems. I believe this law is good public policy--the way it is written in the Grassley bankruptcy bill--because a bankruptcy court only has control over the assets of the person filing bankruptcy. A lease that has already expired, by its very definition, is not an asset. A lease that has clearly been terminated because of nonpayment of rent is not an asset of the person who is filing bankruptcy. Therefore, the bankruptcy court does not have legal power to control an asset that is not theirs; it is the landlord's. So that is why the courts always rule in favor of the landlord in these cases. The landlord may have another tenant who would want to take over, and that tenant's life may be disrupted if the landlord can't deliver the premises. In conclusion, the changes suggested in the Feingold amendment alter current law substantially. They allow the tenant to stay in the premises on which the lease has expired and for which they have been in default for lack of payment, or other reasons. This is unacceptable, and it is not sound law. You ought not to have a law that says you can stay in the premises when the lease has expired, for Heaven's sake. This would be the Federal bankruptcy court overruling State law that says when your lease expires, you are out. If we can't have honesty in the effectuation of contracts in America, we are in sad shape. I believe this is a poor amendment and it should not be approved. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, the Senator mentioned that 20 percent of our power is nuclear. I have had some occasion to study this issue. I served on the Clean Air Committee of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The President has committed us to his view of reducing emissions into the atmosphere by 7 percent, during a period of time when our demand for electricity is going to nearly double; but 20 percent of our electricity comes from nuclear power in the United States, is that right?

Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is important. Money cost is important, $15 billion already spent. For the Senator's edification and those in the body, in Alabama, outside of the education budget, the State general fund budget is less than $1 billion a year. This is 15 annual general fund budgets for the State of Alabama we have invested, and to date there has been no movement. I thank the Senator for leading the effort on this. I believe his remarks are a comprehensive demolishment of any objection by a rational human being to carrying out the legislative mandate of this Congress. We need the President to be helping rather than frustrating. We need to pass this law. I was a Federal attorney for a long time. The Federal Government has the power and does, on a daily basis, condemn properties all over America for public use. This is 40 miles away from people. It is the appropriate location where we have done nuclear testing. I stand in amazement that we are unable to bring it to a conclusion and thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. SESSIONS. I can see why the Senator began his remarks raising the concern that the Federal Government should honor its commitments.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the distinguished Senator for his leadership on this issue. Since I have been in the Senate, I don't think I have ever seen a public policy issue more bizarre than the inability of this Nation to remove nuclear waste from five sites in my home State of Alabama and all over the United States to one safe and secure location. Why that can't be accomplished and why those continue to frustrate our efforts to carry out the law is beyond me. I know the Senator said $6 billion had been spent on fixing this site so far. I understand everybody who pays their electric bill pays a certain percentage of that bill for storing of nuclear waste. Does the Senator know how much has been paid in by the citizens of America to make this a safe site for this disposal?

Mr. SESSIONS. It strikes me, if you were 40 miles away, you wouldn't get the little 5-millirem exposure. It would be infinitesimal, what anybody in Nevada would be exposed to as a result of storing this waste in one facility.

Mr. SESSIONS. Forty miles is a long way. I notice your chart showed that if you stood 6 feet from a trainload of this waste that was being sent out there, you would get about one-tenth as much exposure as we get here in the Senate?

Mr. SESSIONS. Do any people live right around there? Are people going to be living next to this facility?

Mr. SESSIONS. It will be inside casks and then inside a concrete tunnel?

Mr. SESSIONS. They are not just going to lay it out on the ground. There is a tunnel into the ground in the desert out there?

Mr. SESSIONS. The distinguished Senator from Alaska indicated that we have already spent $6 billion on this facility in Yucca Mountain?

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am proud today to join with Senators Tim Hutchinson, Warner, Torricelli, Mack, Shelby, Nickles, Inhofe, Thurmond, Ashcroft, McConnell, Roberts, Kohl, Feingold, Cleland, Hollings, Breaux, Graham, Collins, Grams, Lautenberg, Enzi, Murkowski, Gorton, Landrieu, Robb and Lincoln in introducing the Organ Donation Regulatory Relief Act of 1999. This legislation is designed to prevent an unprecedented Federal takeover of our Nation's organ transplant system by the Department of Health and Human Services. This act would nullify a highly controversial rule issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, that would give her sole authority to approve or disapprove organ allocation policies that are currently established by the private-sector transplant community throughout this country. This move by the administration would preempt Congress' role in encouraging a fair and equitable transplant system through the authorization of the National Organ Transplant Act. My bill would simply nullify the proposed HHS rule until such time as Congress passes amendments to the National Organ Transplant Act. This bill would preserve Congress' prerogative to consider changes or improvements to the current system while maintaining the private-sector role of thousands of patients, families, volunteers, and medical professionals that are now responsible for our organ transplant policy. It will allow Congress the time needed to consider new initiatives to encourage more organ donation which is the heart of our organ shortage problem. In my home State of Alabama, the University of Alabama-Birmingham, has one of the most effective and finest organ transplant centers in the world. It is the largest liver transplant facility in the world. I am extremely proud of their efforts. Let me just say this, this system has been built up carefully, utilizing State law and other laws. It works very effectively. I am very concerned that Federal Government policies have now been proposed that would upset this. It has not only upset the University of Alabama-Birmingham but transplant centers, and mainly university hospitals all over the country. And that is why we believe action needs to be taken at this time. I believe the current plan is fair and does a good job of acquiring and allocating organs for transplantation. For example, since the passage of the National Organ Transplant Act in 1984, the number of people receiving organs has increased annually, and the survival rate has improved steadily. A recent study by the Institute of Medicine came to the same conclusion: The committee found that the current system is reasonably equitable for the most severely ill (Status 1) liver patients, since the likelihood of receiving a transplant is similar across organ procurement organizations for these patients. The Institute of Medicine study contradicted the underlying rationale in some numbers that I believe were unwisely interpreted. They underlie this rationale for the controversial ``rule'' on organ allocation that has been proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services. In a careful analysis of 68,000 liver patient records, the Institute of Medicine panel said: . . . the ``overall median waiting time'' that patients wait for organs--the issue that seems to have brought the committee to the table in the first place--is not a useful statistic for comparing access to or equity of the current system of liver transplantation, especially when aggregated across all categories of liver transplant patients. HHS has maintained that reducing regional differences in waiting times was the primary goal of their new rule on organ allocation. The HHS rule is a solution in search of a problem and would only inhibit the continual improvements made by the transplant community since the passage of NOTA 15 years ago. The HHS policy is also shortsighted in its wholesale preemption of State laws regarding organ transplantation. Many of the beneficial policies that have served to improve organ procurement and donation are based on State laws, such as the organ donor checkoff on driver's licenses, and the HHS preemption fails to recognize that fact. This year's Labor-HHS appropriations bill provided for a 3-month moratorium on the implementation of the rule from the time of its enactment. But, unfortunately, this may not and probably will not provide adequate time for Congress to consider this very complicated issue in the context of amendments to the National Organ Transplant Act. That is why it is necessary, indeed, imperative. And that is why 26 Senators have signed on to this legislation in such a short period of time. It is imperative that we nullify the rule so that these life-and- death issues can be considered without fear of a clock running out on ways to improve the current system and provide the gift of life to so many Americans. Hospitals and the physicians who operate in those hospitals are the key to the success of the organ transplant program. They receive phone calls at all hours of the night, and they go out and retrieve those organs from people who have been killed. And they have to do it under short periods of time. If they are going to do that simply to send off the organs to some hospital of which they are not committed personally or to patients of which they are not serving, they will not be as effective in retrieving the organs. Not as many people will benefit and not as many people will have their lives saved as a result. I believe that HHS' actions are unwise. It reminds me of that old adage: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We do not have and have not seen a real complaint from the citizens of America over the operation of our organ transplant system. This has been created by unelected bureaucrats here in Washington, and it is not healthy, in my view. But there will be a full opportunity, if this bill is passed, to allow the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, to hold hearings and review the facts in order to develop the best transplant program we possibly can. If we can improve the system, I say let's do it. But let's be sure we do not break something that is not broken already. So I thank the outstanding work of several of my colleagues on this important issue, including Senators Tim Hutchinson, John Warner, Robert Torricelli, and Senator Don Nickles, the assistant majority leader. Without their leadership, this legislation could not have come to fruition. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleagues, Senator Chris Dodd, which will support the work of over 600 religious organization based credit unions in the U.S. Many of these credit unions provide an essential source of financing for churches, religious schools, mission agencies, and related community projects such as homeless shelters, drug intervention facilities, and homes for abused women and children. Some of these credit unions rely on other credit unions to fund their loans to religious organizations through loan participation agreements. these loan participation agreements are classified as business loans and are counted against the member business loan caps that credit unions must abide by as a result of the Credit Union Membership Access Act signed into law last year. Consequently, the exemption for credit unions having a history of business lending contained in that act though well intended, doesn't solve the problem because religious organizations based CUs will not be able to sell loans to other credit unions who will have to count these faith based loans toward their business lending cap. The sale of loan participations is a necessary first step before any of these loans can be originated. the legislation I am introducing along with Senator Dodd will allow the approximately 600 religious organization based credit unions in America to exempt from loan participations those loans they originate to religious non-profit organizations. In doing so, our bill will assure a steady source of capital for these organizations and community based missions. Finally, Mr. President, I would like remind my colleagues that religious organization based credit unions enjoy a long history of safe lending and encourage them join Senator Dodd and me in passing this legislation. No other credit union program will do more to help the poor, the homeless, the disabled and those otherwise in need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no object, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

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, I thank the distinguished ranking member for his comments. I have enjoyed working with him on moving this bill. I thought I would mention a couple of things that are particularly valuable in the bill that may not be that clearly understood by most people. I had the privilege of offering a credit counseling amendment early on in this process a year and a half ago. I offered that after having spent almost an entire day at a nonprofit credit counseling agency in my hometown of Mobile, AL. I was extraordinarily impressed with what they do. They have individuals who come to them in financial trouble. They have a rule: They bring in the entire family. They sit down in a nice conference room, and they go over all the debts that are owed and the income that is coming in. They sit down and see if they can't help that family work their way out of the debt in which they find themselves. They have established over the years respect with financial institutions, such as credit card companies and banks. Those institutions will frequently reduce the amount of money they demand that is owed. They will reduce the interest rate that may be paid, if this person will make a good-faith effort to reorganize their finances and pay what they can pay on the debt. This is working all over America. In fact, there are credit counseling agencies in virtually every town and city in the Nation. They are serving a valuable purpose. They sit down with individuals and find out what is wrong with the family. It may not be known to everyone, but it is well known in professional circles that financial disputes are probably the most common cause of divorce in America. We know many people are in financial trouble because of alcoholism. Many people are in financial trouble because of gambling. Gambling is driving an increase in bankruptcy in a number of areas in this country. Some people simply have an inability to discipline themselves. One member of the family feels as though the other one is getting an advantage on them in spending, so they spend more and vice versa. They go on a downward spiral of financial management. We have individuals who have mental health problems who are simply not able to be disciplined about their money. Credit counseling is a tremendous thing. They care about the families with whom they are dealing. They help work with them to discover a way to work out their problems. It is a good thing. What this bankruptcy bill requires is that someone, before they file bankruptcy, at least go and talk to a credit counseling agency, to meet with them and see if that agency may have the ability to solve their problem short of filing bankruptcy. Most people do, in fact, want to pay their debts, and they work hard to try to pay their debts. If they are given this kind of option, where a company will reduce their interest or reduce their debt, they work out a payment plan. The family signs onto it, the mother and father, son and daughter. They can restore pride and confidence. They can learn something about how to manage money. They may well receive marital counseling, mental health treatment, Gamblers Anonymous references, or other help. What happens in bankruptcy today is that somebody is sued for a debt they haven't paid. They don't know what to do. They have seen on the TV, or in the newspaper: Call this lawyer if you have debt problems. So they call the lawyer and he sits down and says: The thing for you to do is file bankruptcy. There will be a $1,000 fee, and you will wipe out all your debts. They will say something like: How am I going to pay you? I don't have $1,000. He will say something like: You won't have to pay any more payments on your credit card. In fact, go buy everything you can with your credit card because we are going to wipe out all those debts when we file, unless they are short-term debts concurrent with the bankruptcy filing. The lawyer will say: You do that and pay me, and we will wipe out everything. That is what you ought to do. The lawyer has a financial incentive there. He spends no time with the family. Oftentimes, they tell me the paralegals and staff people fill out all the forms and the paperwork; the lawyer hardly even meets the client. He goes down in court and calls out their name and they come up to him, and he introduces them to the judge. They do the bankruptcy and they go home. And nothing has been done about the fundamental problem in that family, or the lack of discipline which is often the case that causes bankruptcy. Many bankruptcies--a substantial percentage --are due to very severe events. But a substantial portion are also caused by a gradual descent into debt, and a lack of discipline, or some sort of emotional or psychological problem. I believe if we can give them the choice to go through credit counseling and work out ways to deal with their debts as a family, we will do something good for this country. How many would choose this? I don't know. But most people who have been sued or are getting credit calls over debts they owe from all kinds of debtors and creditors get nervous and don't know what to do. They are told file bankruptcy and that is what they do. They think they have no choice. I believe we can do better than that. This bill will lead us in that direction. I believe it will be a historic step for this system. We also have people who are filing repeat bankruptcies, people who file bankruptcy again and again. This bill will attempt to reduce that. More than 10 percent of the people who file for bankruptcy have previously filed. In some Federal court districts in America, 40 percent of the consumer bankruptcies are repeat filers. They learned the first time it worked, so they do it again. They haven't learned the discipline and effort that it takes to maintain an honest credit rating. So one of the things this act requires is that before a person is discharged from bankruptcy, they will have to have some counseling on how to manage their debt, and perhaps they will not come back again. I think that would be a good thing. We are concerned about fraud in bankruptcy. The forms are basically self-proving. They are accepted by the court. Whatever a person says their income is and their ability to repay is, it is basically accepted and rarely verified. We find that is a problem. So they will have to file documents with their bankruptcy file. It will include a Federal tax return, monthly income and expenses, their actual wage stubs, how much money they are actually making, so it will allow a judge to decide properly what the right procedure is under the circumstances. It allows that a person to whom a debt is owed gets notice--a small businessman, garage owner, furniture store, or a doctors office gets a note from the court that Billy Jones is filing for bankruptcy, and you are notified as a creditor. This says you don't have to have a lawyer, but you can, in fact, go on your own and defend your interests in the bankruptcy court. You may need a lawyer, in which case you can hire a lawyer. But it will clearly make it known that creditors who have clearly proven debt can go down to the bankruptcy court and establish that debt and defend their interest, without having to spend more money on an attorney than perhaps the debt is worth. I think that would be good. We are dealing with a huge increase in personal bankruptcies--1.4 million, a 94-percent increase, since 1990. In many States in this country, in many Federal bankruptcy districts, many people are filing under chapter 13. When you file under chapter 13, what you do is you go to court and you say: I owe all this money, judge. I have this much income and I would like to work my way out of it. These people are suing me. I am getting phone calls at home. I want you to have a stay, to stop them all from suing me. Take my money and tell me who to pay and I will pay my money, every bit I can, to pay off these debts. That is a preferable way, in my opinion, for a person to deal with financial difficulties, if they can't pay their bills. Some people are so far in debt that it will be hopeless; straight bankruptcy chapter 7 is for them. Under the present state of the law, amazing though it might be, there is no standard on that. The debtor himself can choose whether to go into chapter 13 or chapter 7. He can choose whether or not to pay off his debts. In Alabama, I am proud to say, in the northern district of Alabama, over 60 percent of the individual filers choose to file chapter 13 and repay a large portion of their debt. That is something I think reflects well on the people of the northern district of Alabama. The numbers are high in the other districts in Alabama--over 50 percent, choose Chapter 13. But we know in certain other districts in this country, the number of people filing chapter 13 is under 10 percent. Many of these people have high incomes and could, in fact, easily pay off all or part of their debt. So that is why we have said in this legislation that if your income is above the median income, which for a family of two is $40,000, and for a family of four, over $50,000--if you are making above the median income, then you ought to be considered by the judge for repayment of as much of your debt as you can under the chapter 13 bankruptcy. So for the first time we will have a realistic way for a judge to objectively analyze these debtors, to see if they can pay back some of their debts. That is why Senator Hatch says the average bankruptcy costs the average family $400 per year. When people don't pay their debts, somebody else has to pay them. It drives up the cost of business, the interest rates at the bank, and it drives up the charges the furniture store is going to make, or that the doctor office has to charge, to come out ahead if people are not paying their debts. It is that simple. Paying your debt is a big deal. If we ever get to the point in this country where people don't feel like they have to pay debts back and they can wipe them out whenever they want to, we will have endangered the economic strength and commercial vitality of our Nation. Make no mistake about it. Our legal system and our economic system is based on honesty and integrity and responsibility. People pay their taxes based on their own calculations. They add up the numbers and they write that check to the Federal Government. That is why taxes ought to be low because when we ask too much of people they start cheating; they feel justified in cheating. We have relatively low taxes compared to other nations, and we have the lowest amount of cheating in the world. We are making some important progress with this legislation. It will help us economically because, as the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Summers, has said, bankruptcy costs do add to interest rates. Everybody will pay higher interest rates if the bankruptcy filings are up. If bankruptcies are down, interest rates can drop. It will be passed on to the consumer. It ultimately always is. I wish to express my appreciation to Senator Grassley, who has worked so hard on this legislation. He has listened to everybody concerned. He has spent an extraordinary number of hours with the members of the Democratic leadership and members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. He has worked with them to achieve a bill that is responsive to virtually every complaint that can be thought up. Essentially this same bill passed this body 97 to 1 last year. It passed the House with over 300 votes. Why we couldn't get it finally passed last time is beyond my comprehension. It was nothing more than a bunch of obstructive tactics. I can't accept the complaint and refuse to accept the argument that women and children are somehow being abused under this act when every objective analysis would indicate that we are making a historic move toward providing the greater protection that has ever been provided to alimony and child support payments. That is absolutely false. Why people tend to want to attack this bill to delay its passage and frustrate us in this effort is beyond me. I believe we are eliminating abuses in the system. For example, I point out a landlord who leases an apartment to a tenant; that tenant's lease is for 1 year, that year is up, and he owes the landlord money. The landlord seeks to move him out because he is going to rent the apartment to somebody else. That tenant can file for bankruptcy and stay, or stop, any lawsuits for eviction. Months can go by. And the landlord has to hire an attorney to go to bankruptcy court to try to get the ``stay'' lifted--that is what they call it--on filing the eviction notice so they can go forward with it. This bill would say if your lease is up, you can continue with your case. Eventually the landlord always wins, but often it takes months to get a final hearing, and it will cost him a good deal of money and attorney's fees. There are many abuses such as this in the system. Those kinds of things ought to be eliminated. We have had the experience of the existing system since 1978. We have not given it the kind of overhaul it needs. We have completed that now. I am proud of this legislation. I know that Senator Hatch, who chairs the Judiciary Committee and has worked extraordinarily hard on it, also shares that view. I am also pleased to have the support and leadership of Senator Torricelli and the ranking member of the subcommittee. He has worked hard for this bill. He understands the economics behind it. He understands that this is going to help those who are in need and at the same time is not going to allow abuses to occur in the system. We are at a good point. I think we are going to have a vote next week. I am confident that once again we will have an overwhelming vote for this legislation.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his amendment and the remarks he made. There are some good questions. We do want to help those who are in nursing homes and so forth. I am somewhat nervous and troubled by the breadth of the language because economics is a fairly crystal science in a lot of ways. This just says you want to help a dependent. In effect, what he is saying by this amendment is that a debtor who owes people who he has gotten benefits from and promised to pay them money, he won't pay them; he will be able to take money they should get and apply it to the family members to whom he wants to give it. I don't know whether that is a good proposal for this bill or not. As he said, maybe we can't fix health care in the bankruptcy bill. Maybe not. We will be glad to review that, and I am sure Senator Grassley will. I wish to make a number of points about some of the issues that have been raised because I do so strongly believe this piece of legislation is good. I believe it is going to make a major step forward in improving bankruptcy and having more fairness, eliminating these complaints that all of us are, in fact, hearing from people in our States who have been abused by the process in bankruptcy. Many times they blame the lawyers, and sometimes so do I. But the truth is, lawyers are using the laws we pass. It is our responsibility, if the law isn't working, to come to this floor and present legislation to fix it. Over 70 percent of the people believe we need to reform bankruptcy law. This isn't a special interest piece of legislation. But I will say this: There is no doubt that banks and others who regularly go to bankruptcy court see what is going on there on a daily basis. They have every right to call to our attention what they see are problems and injustices. We have a responsibility, if that is so, to fix it. That is fundamental. That is what American law is all about. What we are doing with the bankruptcy bill is trying to reform and improve bankruptcy law, which has had no real analysis since 1978. We have had more than double the filings in bankruptcy since 1978. Indeed, we have had a virtual doubling of bankruptcy filings since 1990, during that period of time. Larry Summers, the present Secretary of the Treasury, stated that bankruptcy does, in fact, increase interest rates. Businesses have to charge more when more people are bankrupting and not paying back their debts. It raises the interest rates. The present Secretary of the Treasury understands that, and any economist would. Senator Hatch, chairman of our Judiciary Committee, has pointed out the average cost per family of the debts wiped out in bankruptcy per year is $400. What that means is that somebody is not paying their debt and, in fact, is shifting the burden to other people to pay them for them. Sure, bankruptcy is a historic part of American law. It is something we never want to eliminate. We want to protect that right. It is mentioned in the Constitution but not provided for in detail. Our Founding Fathers recognized we ought to have a bankruptcy system. It has always been a part of the Federal court system, and we, as the Congress, have the responsibility to analyze it periodically to see what abuses and problems are occurring and, where there are problems, to fix them and see if we can't make the system work better. Now they say we want to talk about credit cards. That is an issue we may want to talk about. But this piece of legislation was designed to deal with the bankruptcy court system. We have banking committees and others that are dealing with these credit disclosure acts and the kind of bank loans and interest rates credit cards ought to utilize. In fact, the chairman of the Banking Committee is not happy we are down here amending banking law on a bankruptcy bill that has nothing to do with banking law. Rightly, he should be. I don't think we need to distract ourselves on that. Frankly, I think we ought to just confront this issue that is being raised. Bankruptcy is the fault of all of the credit card companies, and they are giving too much money to people who are marginal credit risks. They are allowing them to have credit cards--horrible things they are doing, allowing a poor person to have a credit card. That is bad. We just had a banking bill that almost went down over a debate among those liberals in this body who wanted to ensure that the banks lend more money to at-risk, high-risk borrowers. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. If they weren't lending money to poorer people, weren't allowing them to have credit cards, then they would be much condemned for it, and rightly so. Ninety-nine percent of people who have credit cards pay their debt--99 percent. The banks are not lending substantial sums of money to people who can't pay their debt. But I will tell you this. If you are living on a fixed income, you have a $25,000-a-year income, you have a family, you are trying to do things, and the tire blows out on your car, you are glad you have a credit card so you can pay for it to be fixed, so you don't have to sit it on the blocks, or you can get your momma, or somebody, to lend you the money to fix the tire. And it allows you to pay it back over a period of time. It is an odd thing to me that people who think and claim they care about the poor are going to be complaining because credit card companies allow them to have credit cards so they can borrow money when they need to. It becomes a critical thing for them. Then there is a complaint that somehow this legislation is unfair to women and children. That is a stunning event. From day 1, Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley made a commitment to make a historic change in the way bankruptcy treats child support and alimony. There is a list of things that have to be paid first when you pay off your debts in bankruptcy. They call them priorities. Child support and alimony used to be seventh on that list. From day 1--this bankruptcy bill has proceeded for over 2 years now--we have raised child support and alimony to No. 1, ahead of lawyer fees. That is historic. They are complaining, too. But we made a commitment that nothing would take priority in bankruptcy court over child support and alimony. It amazes me. I am astounded that those who want to kill this legislation, for reasons I cannot fathom, come down here and complain that the reason they are against it is that it hurts children. This is a historic move to provide unprecedented protections and priorities for children. I find that a stunning argument to make. They argue that this is going to penalize a single woman with a child who has financial troubles and needs to go into bankruptcy, and that somehow that woman with that child would be required to pay back some of their debt when they wouldn't have been required to pay some of their debt under the old law, because fundamentally what this bill says is, if you can pay back some of your debts, you ought to. What is wrong with that? If you can pay back some of your debts, you ought to pay some of them back. That is fairness. That is one of the biggest abuses we have. We have young yuppies making $100,000 a year in income, running up a bunch of debts, and then they just wipe them out and start all over again. That is not right. If they can pay back some of those debts, they ought to pay them. The question is, Won't this abuse women with children at home who have financial difficulties? Let me explain this simply. If there is a mother and a child, a family of two, the median income in America is $40,000. If they make less than $40,000, they will be able to file bankruptcy just as they always have. If two of them are making $40,000 a year--which is a pretty solid income--or below, they will not be subject to these rules that require those who can pay to pay. If they make over $40,000, the judge will have the responsibility to evaluate their debt, evaluate their expenses, and see if they can pay back some. If they can pay back 25 percent, or 30 percent, or 50 percent, or maybe 100 percent, if their income is $100,000 a year, what is wrong with that? Should a single woman be given preference over a single man with a child? We have to have simple rules that are fair and objective. All I am saying is, it would take a family with a substantial income before the principles of law would apply that they would have to pay back any money. There is a suggestion that somehow because a father is paying alimony and he might pay back some of his debt, he will not be able to pay his child support. But as we know, he is required to pay his child support first. And no plan in bankruptcy can be approved by a bankruptcy judge unless this gives priority to repayment of past due child support and paying current child support. That is a bogus argument. This bill requires the judge, before he approves a bankruptcy payback plan, to give priority to the payback of child support and alimony. In fact, it will strengthen the ability of children to receive the alimony payment because instead of walking in and filing bankruptcy under chapter 7 and just wiping out all of his debt and starting fresh, the deadbeat dad will be under the control of the bankruptcy court, under chapter 13, and will have to report his income on a regular basis. If he is not paying that, he can be disciplined through the bankruptcy court. That is not a good argument, I would suggest. There is a study by a group of professors who said only 4 percent of the people filing bankruptcy could pay even 25 percent of their debt. In that instance, if that is true--and I doubt that; I think the figure is a good bit higher than that but not a lot higher. I am not saying it is a huge number. Maybe it is 15, 20, or 10 percent. But those 10 percent who can pay it, those 4 percent who can pay their debts, why shouldn't they pay them? That is what we are saying. The law will not make them pay if they can't pay. If their income is below the median income, they won't have to pay back the debts at all. I think that is not an argument that is important to us today. There is another complaint about mailing credit cards. I heard a lot of people say, I get credit cards in the mail. They are not getting credit cards in the mail. If they are, they ought to call the Federal State law enforcement because it is illegal to send somebody a credit card they haven't asked for. What they are receiving in the mail from credit card companies are solicitations or offerings for credit cards. I think that is probably good because I don't like those high interest rates on credit cards. I shop around. I don't like paying 18 percent interest. I hope most people can avoid running up any significant debt because that is a high interest rate. But one of the good things that has happened of late is, credit cards are getting competitive. They are offering us to join up: Convert to our credit card, have no interest for so many months, and you are going to have a lower interest rate than you had before. They are getting some competition in the credit card industry. We are going to come around now and pass a law in this Congress that says a credit card company can't write you a letter and offer you 15- percent interest instead of your current 17-percent interest? What kind of idea is that? We have some poor economic thinking in this Congress. By the way, as the Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton has indicated, defaults on payments in bankruptcy drive up interest rates for everyone. It was suggested we have to make these reforms in amendments because old people are not able to pay their debts. Old people are not the ones filing bankruptcy. The figures cited were older people over 55. Filers over 55 have gone up almost 120 percent since 1990, but during that time all filings have gone up 100 percent. Always the older citizens of the country are the least likely to file bankruptcy. They are the most responsible and keep up with their books and manage their debts well. That is not the biggest problem in bankruptcy. Check the ages and it won't be the people 65 years old and up filing bankruptcy in America today. They are responsible. They have learned how to manage their money. One amendment is to crack down on subprime lenders, banks that loan to poor people. We have legislation attacking banks for redlining areas and not loaning to poor people. We had a big fight over it on the banking bill. The people receiving these loans were viewed as vulnerable and preyed upon. Sometimes they can be vulnerable and sometimes I guess they can be preyed upon. However, one doesn't have to take a loan if they don't think it is better. If a person has $10,000 credit card debt at 18-percent interest and they can get a loan at a bank at 12.5 percent to pay it off and they don't have a good credit rating, but 12.5 percent is better than 18 percent. People make those choices daily. I don't know as part of bankruptcy court reform that we ought to try to reform banking law. That ought to be thought through more carefully. This bill is essentially the bill that passed 97-1 in this body. It is essentially the bill that passed the House last year by a veto-proof majority. It has already passed the House again this year by a veto- proof majority. There is bipartisan support for it. It is beyond me why we can't have a final vote and get it passed. I have only been in this body a little over 2\1/2\ years, and I don't see how we have a bill with this kind of support. It is frustrating trying to get a final vote and do what the people of this country want done. We debated it. They said we have not had hearings. We had hearings for years on it. Everybody knows the issues. We have had staff meetings in excruciating detail. Senator Grassley has been more than generous in working with those who have concerns about the bill. He has met with the staff, met with the White House. My staff is meeting with a representative from the White House today trying to work out the language on one or two issues that we think we can reach an agreement on. There have been great efforts to make some changes. Why some want to spin this as a bill that is unfair is beyond my comprehension. We had this year a joint House- Senate Committee on bankruptcy--the first time in history--to consider those issues. My vote is not for sale. I am not going to support a bankruptcy bill or any other bill because of any political contribution. I am offended by those who come on the floor and suggest that is what we are doing. I am prepared to debate any issue on this bill on the merits of what is good for public policy in this country. I am getting sick and tired of sanctimonious Senators suggesting they are above all the rest of us and everybody is corrupt--because industry gives political contributions to both parties. That is not right. Let's talk about what is wrong with this bill. Let's talk about why something in here is unfair, if it is. If it is unfair, we will fix it. I am not happy with that. I think we need to do better. Mr. President, 70 percent of the people are in favor of this legislative reform. There is overwhelming popular support for a system the reform of which is long overdue. We can do it. I don't blame the people who are in the process of dealing with it every year for being angry. They have a right to be. There are multiple loopholes in this bankruptcy system that we have seen. We have seen how they work and we can fix them. One of the driving factors behind increased filings of bankruptcy is advertising by attorneys. Watch their ads. They don't say: Come on down and we will file bankruptcy. It says: Got problems with your debts? Come talk to me. You talk to them and the next thing you know a person who has never been given an opportunity for a different opinion has suggested they can pay a certain fee and file bankruptcy and they will take care of him; all their debts will be wiped out. And the debtor says: You mean that, really? And the lawyer says: Absolutely; that is the law. We passed that law. We talk about needs-based reform. What we are saying is, if you can't pay your debts, you have an income below the median income in America, $50,000 for a family of four--that is what the median income is--if you can't pay, you can have traditional benefits of chapter 7 and wipe out your debts, if that is what you choose. However, if you make above that, the judge can order you to pay some of the money back. I think that is only fair. I believe that will eliminate some of the abuses in the bankruptcy system. Another amendment Senator Kohl and I have offered deals with what I consider another abuse in bankruptcy. I have an example from the New York Times article of last year about some people who used and abused the bankruptcy system. The First American Bank and Trust Company in Lake Worth, Fla., closed in 1989, and 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. During much of the bankruptcy proceedings, Mr. Talmo drove around Miami in a 1960 Rolls-Royce and tended the grounds of his $800,000 tree farm in Boynton Beach. 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. Mr. Talmo, though, now looks back as a more humbled man, ``Bankruptcy is something I don't want to do again,'' Mr. Talmo said. ``Mine is a sad story. I have my home, but otherwise I was wiped out.'' This is the way it works: The former commissioner of baseball--lots of prominent people do this--runs up a big bunch of bills; the business fails; he owes a lot of people money. So you say: What can I do? I can move to Florida; I can move to Texas; I can buy a big mansion, put all my money there on the Atlantic coast or the gulf coast or the Texas coast or wherever, and I will just put everything I have liquid right now in that house. I will claim it as my homestead and they cannot take it. Then, after I have wiped out all these people I legitimately and lawfully owe, I can sell my multimillion-dollar mansion and live high the rest of my life. That is what this law allows. It is proper and legal in the American bankruptcy system today, and we ought to put a stop to it. People say it is States rights. Not so. Bankruptcy is totally a Federal court proceeding. It is referred to in the U.S. Constitution. It is totally a Federal court proceeding and we have, as a Federal Congress, the right to set the standards as we choose them for a homestead exemption. In my view, this is an abuse. It allows people to move in interstate commerce and to defeat totally legitimate creditors and live like kings and not pay back people they owe. I am going to mention one other example in the New York Times article: Even when residents of Texas and Florida sell their homes and pay off their mortgages during bankruptcy, they can still walk away rich. Talmadge Wayne Tinsley, a Dallas 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, a rule that did not sit well with him. 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 of 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. The court refused, forcing a sale, but by Mr. Tinsley still did rather well for himself. He sold his house in October for $3.5 million using the proceeds to write a $659,000 check to the Internal Revenue Service and another for $1.8 million to pay off the mortgage. That left $700,000 for Mr. Tinsley after closing costs and other expenses were deducted from the proceeds, according to court officials. About $58 million of his debts were left unpaid. I believe there are abuses there. I believe the Kohl-Sessions amendment will deal with it. It is not a question of States rights. The Federal bankruptcy courts have allowed States to set the standard, but it has never been a problem, that the Federal court could set a national standard if they chose. We, by this amendment, say you could only have $100,000 in equity in your home--not the value but in the equity of your home--and be able to keep it; whereas, over two-thirds of the States limit it to $40,000. So we are just moving down some of those States with extreme laws to a reasonable level. I believe that will eliminate one of the most glaring abuses in the bankruptcy system. I am pleased to be joined now by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, who has worked hard to bring this legislation to fruition. I am proud to serve on his committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.