Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there are a number of problems that have contributed to the increase in bankruptcies in this country. We are now considering what I believe to be a historic and exceptionally fine bankruptcy bill. It came out of the Judiciary Committee with a 16-2 vote, demonstrating overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans. This legislation is something that we need to pass. But in some ways, the filing of a bankruptcy petition is the cleaning up of spilled milk. The milk has already been spilled, and it is difficult then to have any kind of fair and just determination or allocation of assets, and many problems arise from it. What we need today is more people who manage their money well. The generation that grew up during the Depression, like my father and mother, knew how to manage their money. They were cautious. Maybe they didn't make great sums of money and great investments, but they took care of themselves and their families through frugal living--and I mean frugal living. In my background, oftentimes it was very tough for us to fund the things that we felt we would like to have. However, what we have is a generation that has not been taught how to manage money. Today, more people have credit available to them. Frankly, I am not one of those who says the problem is that you can get access to credit. It would be a terrible thing in this country if you could not get a credit card, if you had to have a $40,000-a-year income before anybody would give you a credit card. A credit card is a very valuable thing for a person on a low income when they are trying to work and take care of their families. When they have a flat tire or a $400 car repair bill and they don't have $400 in their pocket, they can use a credit card to pay for it now and the pay it off over a period of months. This way they would not have to deny their family food, or not be able to get to work because of an automobile that he does not have the money to fix. Those are the kinds of things that are good. I don't see how we need to be critical of the fact that many credit card companies are offering cards. For the first time, credit card companies are beginning to get competitive. I have been very displeased with the high rates of interest some of these cards charge. For the first time now, they are soliciting business and offering lower interest rates. I think that is a good thing, also. But, fundamentally, we get into trouble because we don't have enough discipline and ability to manage the debt that we face. The way to deal with bankruptcy, fundamentally, is to educate the public on how to manage money. So this bill, for the first time in history, provides debtor education. It provides it both before filing and before you can be discharged from bankruptcy. I was pleased to offer the consumer credit counseling amendment. I was very pleased, and thrilled, actually, that it received so much support and was made a part of this bill. Let me just say this, Mr. President. I live in Mobile, AL, and I began to talk with people I know and respect about debt matters. I served with and go to church with an individual who is a bankruptcy administrator in Mobile. I know some of the bankruptcy judges. I have spent time talking with them about the problems with bankruptcy. Mr. Travis Bedsole and I both taught the same Sunday school class together over the years. We had some heart-to-hearts about what we really ought to do that would help people. When you have the ads that you see in the newspapers and on television, ``Come down, and, for $350, we will wipe out all your debt,'' that may work just like that advertising lawyer says, but it will not leave that debtor with a better understanding of how to manage his money. What I found was that there are alternatives to bankruptcy. Mr. Bedsole and I went to meet Sandra Dunaway in Mobile, who has a credit counseling agency. Families, married individuals, people in trouble, go to credit counseling agencies. Then, counselors sit down with the people who need assistance and help prepare a household budget; the lawyers don't do that. They look at all their debts and interest rates and figure out a way to save interest rates. Credit counseling agencies even have the ability--because of their prior relationships with banks and credit card companies and other financing companies--to call those institutions and say, ``This person is in credit card debt; they are paying 16 percent interest to you. We believe we can work them through this if you will cut your interest rate to 7 percent.'' They can actually reduce payments in various ways through negotiations with creditors. Often, creditors will cooperate with that. Then they help the debtor develop a family budget. Sometimes they will have them put their paycheck into the credit counseling department's account, and the counselor will pay the checks to the creditors and give the family what is left over for their normal needs and make sure they have enough to meet their household needs in that fashion. If they can't absolutely work their way out of this debt crisis, then they advise them to seek an attorney and file for bankruptcy. What we have discovered is that this sytem works. They tell me that there are a number of different things that are at work here. One of them is gambling. Many people are filing bankruptcy today because of the proliferation of gambling. They are addicted to gambling, and they are losing large sums of money gambling, and their families are suffering from it. So sometimes the way to help a family is to make sure they are connected with Gamblers Anonymous or some other State agency or private organization that can help those addicted to gambling. Sometimes there is a drug problem or an alcohol problem in the family, and these credit counseling agencies, who are United Way agencies, for the most part filled with people who care about the individuals, in a service mentality, not just to get the money and file bankruptcy, but help them go to Alcoholics Anonymous or to drug treatment and get in contact with mental health agencies if there is a mental health problem in the family, and seek other forms of assistance that are already available in the community and then help that family develop a plan to get through this financial crisis. It is a good thing and a lot of people see these ads: ``Bankruptcy Can Be a Smart Financial Move''--from $350 and up. This ad has another thing in there, by the way. ``Divorce, $300, including court appearance.'' ``Injuries, sexual harassment at work, call us. $350.'' So they test that. They have a paralegal administrative assistant who meets with the person and they fill out all the bankruptcy forms. The lawyer may never even see them. He takes the forms. It looks OK. He takes them down to the court, files the forms, and, boom. They go to bankruptcy. There has been nothing done to deal with the fundamental problem that causes them to be in the circumstance they were. So credit agencies are really good. People do not realize it. They are in almost every city and midsized town in America. Credit counseling agencies are readily available. This bill says before you file bankruptcy we require that you go by and talk with a credit counseling agency. But before you commit yourself to the lawyer and filing of the bankruptcy and paying his fee, go talk to that credit counseling agency. You just may find that they have the ability to help you work through this thing, that they will help you get some creditors to withhold demands of payment, allow you to get caught up, help you set up a budget, and help you figure a way to get a side job, or to do the kind of things that most families do to work their way out of debt. When they do that, it can actually strengthen the family. Mr. President, there are some very dramatic numbers on this. But it is a major reality that a very large number--in fact, I think the highest number of divorces in this country are caused by financial disputes and arguments over finances. So this can help strengthen families and hold families together. I am a real believer in credit counseling. It convinced me. I spent several hours talking with them about precisely how they do that. We got a number of people from my church together. We met three or four times. We want to develop a program that helps train people even more in depth about how to manage their property and finances as well so that bankruptcy won't be facing them. Some have said that this amendment was opposed by the Federation of Credit Counselors, a national federation that has crediting standards, and that sort of thing. But that is not true. We have met with them. This amendment has been refined so that it has, I think, broad-based support by now virtually everyone. I am convinced that it has the potential for the first time to reduce the ever-increasing number of bankruptcies being filed, and for the first time they will have the government move more people from a strictly legal situation into a situation in which people care about them personally, who will be working with them personally, who confront their problems that exist within their family, and to help them figure a way out of it. I am really excited about that. It does not require a judge to order this to happen. If there are no legitimate or effective credit counseling agencies in the local communities, the amendment would not apply. But I am confident that in most areas it would apply. Another thing this new bankruptcy bill does that is excellent is it requires that those who file bankruptcy complete a financial management course prior to receiving their discharge from bankruptcy. This is going to put a new burden on the bankruptcy courts. But many of them have already moved in this direction and are working in this direction. I believe we owe a responsibility to those who had a circumstance in which they were unable to meet their debt to give them some training and education in how not to come back again. The truth is we have found a very large number of repeat filers in bankruptcies. Some districts have reported that 40 percent of their consumer bankruptcies are repeat filers. We know that it comprises more than 10 percent nationally. This problem will not go away if we don't do something to confront them in this process when they are seeking this relief. We want to confront them with their difficulties and help them establish a way to avoid coming back to bankruptcy. That is the kind of thing that I think would deal with the fundamental problem of debt in America. Mr. President, I believe that the Grassley-Durbin bankruptcy bill is an excellent bill. I believe that the 16-to-2 vote that it achieved coming out of committee is a strong testament to its fairness and objectivity and its ability to improve the bankruptcy court system. I believe for the first time we will be reaching out to these individuals and families who are in credit difficulties in helping them change their lifestyle and helping them find ways to deal with the problems--sometimes the fundamental, root causes of their financial difficulties so that they won't have to face this problem again; in fact, perhaps to be able to live in a family that is not always squabbling over money, that maybe does not break up because the family has figured out a way to handle its resources in a wise and good manner that would benefit children and the entire family. Mr. President, I believe that we are on the cusp of the opportunity of a great bill. I thank the Members of this body who have worked so hard to achieve it. I believe that we will pass it, that it will be law soon, and that this Nation will benefit from it. I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have spent most of the morning talking primarily about the bankruptcy bill that will be before us. We have done a lot of work on that bill, and there are some complicated and difficult issues involved. People have raised many objections and questions. The managers have done an outstanding job in trying to confront those objections and questions and tried to modify the bill, often on the spur of the moment, to deal with the potential objections. I have supported that. I have supported the managers' amendment that deals with many of these things. But there are a number of issues that still perhaps need more evaluation. I think one of the things we need to discuss is a mandate that we have now in the bill which tells the credit card companies a lot of new information that they must provide on their financial statements, including how many months a person would need to pay at the minimum payment before the credit card debt would be fully paid off. That may be a good idea, but I wonder, Have we actually asked these private companies how difficult that is going to be for them? Will we get the kind of benefit from it that we hope to get? Will it be worth the additional numbers that are required to be put on the form? Have was asked them how much will it cost? That cost, of course, will ultimately be passed on to the consumers. Some of those financial statements have become so complicated that you hardly know how to look at them when you get them. It may be that this is the kind of amendment we want to have. But I did want to suggest that, regarding this requirement that we have added without any hearings having taken place, we might need to ask the conferees to look at it. There may be a number of other issues of like note that need to be looked at in conference as well. Fundamentally, I believe the managers' amendment is a healthy thing, and I certainly support Senator Grassley in his efforts to move this bill forward.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Durbin for the great work they have done in building bipartisan support for this bankruptcy bill. I think this is a historic step forward in bringing integrity and fairness and efficiency to the bankruptcy system. It came out of the committee with a 16-to-2 positive vote, and I think that reflects the strong bipartisan support this bill has. With regard to Senator Feingold's concerns about this provision, it is not for punishment of a lawyer who files these bankruptcy petitions. It simply defines the standard of care they ought to adhere to. We are always having the plaintiff lawyers tell us that they cannot do anything to reduce the standard of care on the part of private businesses. For example, they argue that we must not lower the standard of care for doctors because it might result in a patient or user of their product being injured or somehow being harmed. Nothing can reduce that, but yet at the same time the bar will take as much protection as they can get for anything they do in their professional capacity for which they were hired. Bankruptcy lawyers are not mere clerks, although the truth is, for those of us who know what is going on, most of the bankruptcy filings in America are done by lawyers who run bankruptcy mills, who advertise in phone books and newspapers and on television and radio, which just a few years ago lawyers could not do. In fact, there is some indication that the dramatic rise in bankruptcy is derived more from attorney advertising and the encouraging of people to file bankruptcy than any other factor. Particularly this appears to be true in light of the fact we have more bankruptcies in a time of strong economic growth and prosperity in this country. So I say to you, these lawyers have to comfort to some standard of care. What does Senator Grassley's bill say? It says they ought to be substantially justified in filing their bankruptcy under chapter 7. That is all. What is bad about that kind of standard? And if they are not substantially justified, what happens? Take for example, a person with a $100,000 income, and let's assume someone sues that person for an automobile accident and wins a $25,000 judgment against them. Although the judgment need not be that high, it could be any amount that the person does not want to pay. So they go to their lawyer and ask him how they can get out of paying it, and he says ``file bankruptcy.'' This will wipe out the debt, although he could have paid it on the income level he has. When the case comes to the bankruptcy court, they file under chapter 7, which would eliminate all debts. The chapter 7 trustee objects, and they hold a hearing. They present evidence, and they say: ``No, you should go into chapter 13 because you do not qualify for chapter 7.'' And then the judge must go further. Under the Grassley version, the judge must find not that the lawyer made a mistake but he was not substantially justified in filing the petition under chapter 7. Then he can assess the attorney the cost of that hearing--not huge amounts of attorney's fees, just the cost of the hearing that had to be held on the complaint of the chapter 7 trustee. Let me ask you--it comes down to this--who pays? Who pays for the expense of having to challenge this chapter 7 petition which was not substantially justified? Under Senator Feingold's proposal, it would be an administrative expense. That sounds OK, but we know in this country that there ``ain't no free lunches.'' You have heard that saying. Somebody always pays. Who pays, in this case, the administrative expense? The people who pay will be the ones who are owed money, the creditors, the ones who have not and probably will not be paid all they are owed, and it comes out of the money that goes to them. They pay for the lawyer filing a petition that is substantially unjustified. When we come down to the choice of who ought to pay, I say the lawyer ought to pay. He ought to be sure of what he is doing when he files the petition. He should know where it ought to be filed. I do not think that presents a conflict of interest. I understand that you could conjure that up as some theoretical possibility, but the truth is, under ethical rules of practice today, a lawyer cannot file a complaint he does not believe to be justified. He is required to do some preliminary work before he files it. So I do not believe that this would be contrary to the standards that are required currently of lawyers in what they do. And, again, it requires the action of a judge. And a bankruptcy judge knows these lawyers. There is usually a small group of lawyers that file the overwhelming number of bankruptcy cases in their courts, and many are not going to be unfairly abusing these lawyers. However, when a judge sees one who is consistently filing chapter 7 petitions that ought to have been filed in chapter 13, and his trustee has to have hearings and challenge it, and there are not sufficient facts to justify it, then he is going to have the opportunity under this bill to assess some costs against that attorney. This is not going to bankrupt the attorney. I know of attorneys in Alabama who are running advertisements, who are making $1,000 per bankruptcy case and filing 1,000 cases a year. They are making big bucks off this system. Maybe they are justified in doing that, but they ought to on occasion, when they make the point to go to great expense to hold a hearing, have the trustee challenge what they have done, and then find out they are not substantially justified--they ought to pay. I hope we will keep the Grassley amendment. The other alternative is to keep the present standard of assessing costs against an attorney, and that is the standard of frivolousness. That is a very high standard, and the net effect of the frivolousness standard is that nobody will ever recover, because it is just very, very difficult to meet that standard. The bankruptcy judges are not going to abuse these attorneys. It will give the bankruptcy judges a little leverage, a little power to say to these attorneys who are filing cases recklessly without enough thought, causing the creditors to lose money and otherwise abuse the system, that they can bring a little integrity to and have some watchfulness over the system and maintain discipline on the lawyers who practice there. I understand the Senator's concern about it, but I do not see this as an extreme position at all. I think it is quite consistent with the bankruptcy court. I believe it will help, as Senator Grassley said, make sure people file their petition right the first time. If it is chapter 13, they ought to file in chapter 13, not in chapter 7 on a theory that, well, we will just have a hearing and maybe we will win or maybe they won't object. We need it filed right the first time so we will have fewer proceedings to transfer the action. That is the purpose behind this and I think the Feingold amendment would undermine that purpose. I thank the Chair for this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, with regard to the Feingold amendment that deals with the waiver of filing fees for those who file bankruptcy, I think we need to be very cautious about that amendment. It has very serious implications. It has been considered by this Senate numerous times and rejected. It has been the argument that this is somehow unfair and denies access to the court system. Courts themselves have denied this argument repeatedly. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has rejected this position. Fees run from around $110 to $160. By that time, the filer would have already hired a lawyer, probably for much more than that. I have here an ad of a lawyer in Texas who says: ``Bankruptcy can be a smart financial move.'' He does not say that bankruptcy is a way to take care of unacceptable debts that you have no chance of paying. This is the what we used to think bankruptcy was for: to help those who, through various circumstances, have found themselves hopelessly in debt. This man says: ``Bankruptcy can be a smart financial move.'' It can be a smart financial move. You can legally--under the current law--defeat legitimate debts. You can just walk away from them, as this man says ``For $350 total.'' And the truth is, that is why we have increased filings of these kinds of advertisements in phone books, in newspapers, in magazines, in the yard sale publications that are passed out free in this country. These people go to their lawyers and they quit paying all their debts, and they then file for bankruptcy. Virtually every court filing in America requires a fee. And this is a reasonable fee. This fee has so been upheld by the courts. Somebody will pay for the cost of these filings, if it is not going to be those who use this system, then the taxpayers will pay for it. We are talking about a large amount of money and a drain on the system. Also, it would create a large number of court hearings, adding to an already crowded docket. I am a critic of our court systems on occasion, but I must say that the bankruptcy courts have, done an outstanding job, Mr. President, in handling an ever-increasing caseload. The caseload has doubled. We have not had a doubling of the judges, but they have used computers, they have used staff people, they have used sophisticated measurement techniques, and they have been able to keep up with their caseloads without a massive expansion of the number of bankruptcy judges. If bankruptcy courts are going to have a hearing on everybody that comes before them to determine whether or not there is any way they can pay their filing fee, then we are going to have to add severe costs to the system and more overloading. Judges, along with lawyers and clerks representing people on both sides will run up expenses that could, in fact, exceed the real cost of the filing fee in this matter. I understand the sentiments behind this amendment. It is something that has been considered for years, rejected consistently, and upheld by the courts. It is a road we should not go down. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to express my appreciation for the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia, and to take this moment to repeat again to him how much I appreciated his remarkable address earlier this week in the Old Senate Chamber in the majority leader's Lecture Series on the History of the Senate. He had the largest crowd I can remember. He had the rapt attention of virtually every Senator as he shared with us the great traditions of this body. Of course, we know that he has written a three-volume history on the U.S. Senate. On Fridays, I am often in the Chair that the Presiding Officer is in today, and I had the occasion to hear him address this body. I have written two letters congratulating Senators on speeches, and they have both been to Senator Byrd. I remember one of his speeches talked about education. He referred to our textbooks as ``touchy, feely twaddle.'' Too often, I think, they don't have or possess the power of the great historians to uplift, causing us to think and dream about heroic acts. He shared with us on one of those occasions his experience in the two-room schoolhouse where he grew up. I thought then of my grandmother who taught in a one-room schoolhouse. I remember the schoolhouse as I was growing up. Although it has been torn down now, I remember in her library--I don't know how she obtained it--was Macauley's ``History of England,'' Gibbon's ``The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,'' Shakespeare, and other great literary works. She shared those with the elementary schoolchildren in those schoolrooms. I am of a belief that they were richly educated in that one-room schoolhouse. There is something more significant than color pictures and videos in transmitting what it is that we are about as a people. I taught in the sixth grade 1 year, and we used what they called Basil Readers. They wrote stories in little pieces, and at the end of them were a lot of questions, and in each story they would add new words. It was all scientifically done, you see. It was to teach them vocabulary and things of that nature. But the children hated them and would not read those books. And around the classroom--it was an old class school--there were a lot of books like I had in my schoolroom-- Daniel Boone, the old bluecoat, the Hardy Boys, Tom Swift. And so I started encouraging them to read those books, and they loved them because they were stories that had some meaning and some adventure and showed people in situations which required courage. At any rate, I say to Senator Byrd, thank you for sharing your opinions with us. You can have a $500 textbook, but if it has no moral message, no meaning to it, does not uplift the spirit and no one wants to read it, then that textbook is not worth very much. Too often I think that is the problem with modern education. I, again, say how much I appreciate the Senator's remarks and the Senator's leadership in this Senate. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his comments. I do share his views about teachers. My grandmother, in her first job--and I have a photograph of the class--had a real rough looking group of poor kids, no doubt. But in that group was an individual who may have been somewhat inspired by her and who went on to become a U.S. Congressman, Frank Boykin, a man of some note. I always claim that whatever he learned, he learned in that first through sixth grade schoolroom when she taught there. So I think teachers do inspire us. Good teachers understand and are knowledgeable and learned people themselves, and they can then share that. Sometimes I think we spend too much time on process rather than on substance. I again express my appreciation to Senator Byrd for his leadership of this body, this Senate, for reminding us on a regular basis of what we are about, our heritage here, and calling us to our best and highest instincts. Thank you, Senator Byrd.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. For the information of all Members, the majority leader advises that the Senate will reconvene on Monday at noon and begin a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the bankruptcy bill. Members who may still offer amendments to the bankruptcy bill under the consent agreement of September 11 are encouraged to come to the floor during Monday's session to offer and debate their amendments. It is the leader's intention to complete action on the bankruptcy bill by early Tuesday afternoon, so it is hoped all Members will have offered and debated all amendments by that time. Members are reminded that a cloture motion was filed today to the committee substitute to the Child Custody Protection Act. Therefore, under the provisions of rule XXII, Members have until 1 p.m. on Monday to file first-degree amendments regarding child custody. As a further reminder, there will be no votes during Monday's session, and the next votes will occur beginning at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 22. Members will be notified how many votes will occur on Tuesday when that information is available.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 2402 be discharged from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and be referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I further ask unanimous consent that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1301, the bankruptcy bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. On behalf of the majority leader, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, September 21. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be waived, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved. I further ask that there then be a period of morning business until 2 p.m., with the first hour under the control of Senator Craig, or his designee, and the second hour under the control of Senator Dorgan, or his designee.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate disagree to the amendment of the House, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on behalf of the Senate.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 2206) to amend the Head Start Act, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981, and the Community Services Block Grant Act to reauthorze and make improvements to those Acts, to establish demonstration projects that provide an opportunity for persons with limited means to accumulate assets, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2206) entitled ``An Act to amend the Head Start Act, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981, and the Community Services Block Grant Act to reauthorize and make improvements to those Acts, to establish demonstration projects that provide an opportunity for persons with limited means to accumulate assets, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open today until 2 p.m. for the purpose of introducing bills and statements.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. He is truly a treasure for this Senate and the country in his knowledge of matters involving nuclear power and weapons. His leadership in this crucial area could in fact help us to avoid a tragedy in the future, and I think it is wonderful that he is continuing to show leadership on this important issue. I express my appreciation to the Senator.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I know this is a good-sounding and popular-appearing bill, but I am not one who enjoys going to banks and going in banks. Over the years, I have thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to obtain the cash I need on a daily basis from ATM machines. In fact, it allows you to carry less cash in your pocket, and you can find ATM machines everywhere. They are exploding to every corner of America. Businesses have them. Grocery stores have them. And they cost money--$30-, $40-, $50-, $80,000 to put in one of those machines. So it has been a remarkable, wonderful advancement for the people of America, that they can obtain money on virtually any corner of a city, at their grocery store, at their bank, at their gas station, and so forth. This has been a wonderful advancement. It seems to me particularly odd that we would say that a bank which is servicing someone who is not their customer, who does not have an account at their bank, and yet they might have spent $50,000 to put in this ATM machine, cannot charge a fee for it; that someone can use their machine without being able to charge a fee. It seems to me that would be an unreasonable thing. I think most banks don't have it free for their own customers. I wish to make a number of points. While this fee, I don't suggest, would eliminate all ATM machines, I think it is quite reasonable to suggest that it would eliminate marginal machines, and as we know when we take money out of an ATM machine, it pops up on the screen how much the fee is. So if you are at a grocery store and you have your own bank machine down the street, but you would like to get your cash in the grocery store and they are not going to service you but for $1.50, you do have a choice. You have your choice of going to your bank or going to a machine that may charge less. I hope and expect that as we have an expansion of machines, we may well find some of these fees will begin to drop rather than increase, and that has been the pattern in free enterprise since its beginning. So it seems to me that what we are suggesting is that on a bankruptcy bill, where at least with regard to this committee that deals with bankruptcy we are tacking on a credit card banking issue that was not part of the markup on this bill, it could jeopardize the bill and not be relevant to what we are considering. I note that the Banking Committee on July 30 on a bipartisan 11-to-7 vote rejected this amendment. They considered it in some detail, and that committee, after careful consideration, balancing the great utility and advantage of having ATM machines at virtually every corner versus the cost of it, have opted in favor of allowing the continued expansion and convenience of more and more machines. I do not think there is any doubt that the growth in availability of machines will end and, in fact, it is likely that we will have a reduction in the number of machines, therefore reducing convenience. Many bank machines are totally dependent on access fees, and many of these are particularly convenient to small businesses and small grocery stores. Many new ATMs in rural and other low-volume, high-convenience sites operated by nonbanks will be economically unfeasible. They will be closed. They will not exist. You simply have to be able to make a profit if you are going to provide a service. Nobody is going to invest $30-, $40-, $50,000 if they do not have any prospect of a return. We know that. We talk about the big banks, but it is not always big banks that are involved. Mr. President, I believe that on this bankruptcy bill, we ought not to be dealing with banking issues and credit card issues. Those are matters that ought to be held in those committees and, in fact, they have been considering it. I urge the Members of this body to wait for another forum, another time to deal with this issue and reject this amendment because it is not good economics. It is not good public policy to limit the expansion and the convenience and accessibility of ATM machines. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his excellent remarks in pointing out a lot of people age 18 to 21 are not in college. I just had two children graduate from college, and I still have one in college. I believe a credit card is a good thing for them to have. Almost every college student is going to have a credit card. The fact that we have some competition in the credit card industry-- they are offering lower rates and less charges if you will use their credit card--that is good. We have needed that. In my opinion, the biggest complaint about credit cards is they charge too much interest. Those rates have been driven down because of competition. There are 6,000 credit card companies, and they are sending out mailings, and they are encouraging people to use their credit cards. What is bad about that? What troubles me is we are saying if you want a young person to have a credit card, they may have to get their parents to sign as a cosigner and be financially responsible for their debt. That doesn't seem to me to be fair or correct. Maybe a parent says if you want to get a credit card you can, but it is your debt to pay, not mine. The requirement we are debating now would prohibit them from getting a credit card under those circumstances. What about young persons whose parents are deceased? The Federal Government should not be stepping in and telling a credit card company you can't take a chance on a young person, or that you have to get the parent to cosign before giving a young adult a credit card. This seems unhealthy to me. I am sure it is true that credit card companies like to get young people accustomed to using their cards and hope they will use them throughout their career. I don't know that there is anything wrong with that. Mr. President, a 20-year-old who may be temporarily unemployed may find a credit card to be very valuable. Suppose you have to drive to a job interview and the guy down at the car inspection place says your vehicle emits too much pollution and you have to spend $400 to fix it; or your tire blows out and you have to have $75 to get the car towed and another $50 to put a tire on it. A person may not have that cash in their pocket at times such as these, when they really need it. That is why credit cards are a good thing. Credit cards have been helpful in many ways for citizens in America. The problem is with people who abuse them and who don't show personal discipline. We all know that is a problem. We need to encourage personal discipline, not have the Federal Government telling a young person they can't have a credit card unless their parent agrees to pay their debt.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President. The effect of this will be to require mandatory lending at no possible profit for a credit card company. We have 6,000 credit card issuers today. They are all providing different services; some charge a fee and you have to pay monthly, others don't. It is just not right for us, without a hearing, to even impose on a credit card company a duty to lend money in a way in which they will never be able to make a return. I don't think we need to be entering into wage-and-price controls. We have a very vigorous free market, and, for the first time, interest rates are beginning to come down because we do have a lot of credit card companies competing out there. I think we ought not to intervene at this time. This is an unwise amendment. I understand the motivation behind it. It is not appropriate, and I oppose it strongly at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would certainly go along with Senator Grassley. I am not sure I will use any time. If Senator Grassley is comfortable with it, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there are a number of amendments on this bill, and we have to finish this bill by 2 o'clock. I just think that there has always been an advantage on floor time for the proponents and not opponents. I know Senator Grassley has no time. I reluctantly object.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President. I would first like to congratulate the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Enzi for his amendment and his work on this issue. In his comments he has laid out a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the problem and has stated plainly and with integrity and insight exactly how it is we ought to deal with it. Let me try to briefly share some thoughts I have on this matter. I was attorney general of the State of Alabama. In this capacity I was one of 25 attorneys general who signed, just over two years ago, a letter to the Secretary of the Interior indicating to him our firm conviction and legal opinion that he did not have the authority to enter into compacts with Indian tribes in the manner detailed in the proposed regulations he drafted. Let me tell you why that is very important. Alabama has one recognized Indian tribe, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, a very fine group. Chairman Tullis of that tribe is a friend, and I have known him for many years. We had occasions, when I served as Federal U.S. attorney, to work on a number of issues, and I have always admired his commitment and work. He has at that Indian tribe a large bingo parlor. They make a considerable amount of money on it. Under Alabama law the tribe has the ability to build a horse racetrack or a dog racetrack. But under the law the tribe does not and has not been given the authority by the Governor of the State of Alabama to build a casino. Alabama has debated this repeatedly, and the casino advocates have failed. Let me provide some further background on this Alabama example. In Alabama, the Poarch Creek tribe has about 2000 members, and it owns about 600 acres of property. It has been recognized for less than 30 years, and it is a small tribe. But they own property, near both Mobile, AL, where their primary location is, and also near Wetumpka, Alabama. The city of Wetumpka is near Montgomery, AL, and is roughly 180 miles away from Mobile. The tribe would like to build casinos outside of Mobile and outside of Montgomery and Birmingham, AL, in the little town of Wetumpka where they have property. Do you see the significance of this? If the Secretary of the Interior can override the opinion of the people of the State of Alabama and give this Indian tribe the right to build casinos on their land, then they could build at least two, maybe three casinos in Alabama and would, in fact, abrogate the considered will of the people of the State who have consistently rejected casino gambling. It is just that simple. This is not an insignificant matter. We are talking about giving the Secretary of the Interior, who is now under investigation by a special prosecutor for campaign contributions arising out of his approval of one Indian tribe's activities with regard to gambling, the unilateral authority to override the considered opinion of States all over this country. If this amendment doesn't pass we are talking about the Secretary of the Interior having the ability to enrich selected tribes by millions or hundreds of millions of dollars overnight by the stroke of a pen. That is a powerful thing. You can raise a lot of campaign money with that ability to do such a thing. I do not think it is healthy. The attorneys general association, the National Association of Attorneys General, steadfastly opposes the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Interior that would give him this ability, and strongly supports the Enzi-Sessions amendment. Allowing the Secretary to have this kind of power is wrong. He does not have the constitutional power to do it, first, in my opinion, yet he persists in suggesting that he does and is moving forward with regulations that appear to suggest that in fact he will. So what is the first thing that is going to happen if the Secretary's regulations are enacted? Lawsuits are going to spring up all over the country attacking his authority to do this and cost all kinds of money. And we are going to continue with litigation involving it. I think ultimately he is going to lose. But what we are saying is, let us not go down that road; let us not do that. Let me show you what the midsized city of Wetumpka feels about this issue. Wetumpka is a wonderful town. I have a number of friends there. This is what the mayor, Jo Glenn, wrote me. She writes this: Our infrastructure and police and fire departments could not cope with the burdens this type of activity would bring. [That is a casino.] The demand for greater social services that comes to the area around gambling facilities could not be adequately funded. Please once again convey to Secretary Babbitt our city's strong adamant opposition to gaming facilities. The City of Wetumpka support this amendment. Additionally, the Montgomery Advertiser states in an editorial written opposing the Secretaries proposed regulations that: Direct Federal negotiations with tribes without State involvement would be an unjustifiably heavy-handed imposition of authority on Alabama. The decision whether to allow gambling here is too significant a decision economically, politically, socially to be made in the absence of extensive State involvement. A casino in Wetumpka--not to mention the others undoubtedly that would follow in other parts of the State--has implications far too great to allow the critical decision to be reached in Washington. Alabama has to have a hand in this high-stakes game. Let me note that others have expressed similar objections to the Secretary's proposed regulations. Attorney General Robert Butterworth of Florida and Attorney General Gale Norton of Colorado have written expressing support for this amendment. My successor as Attorney General of Alabama, Bill Pryor, who is a brilliant lawyer, Tulane graduate, editor-in-chief of the Tulane Law Review, and a fine legal scholar-- says: Again, I strongly support the proposed amendment [Enzi- Sessions]. I have no confidence that the Secretary listens when the states tell him that he lacks the power to override their Eleventh Amendment immunity and that he operates under an incurable conflict of interest when he proposes to act [himself] as a mediator. The proposed amendment is necessary to stop further action on the Secretary's part. His opinion is shared, as I mentioned, by the National Association of Attorneys General. A number of other attorneys general have written me to express that same position as well. Mr. President, I say again, this is not a matter of theoretical debate now. We are beyond that. It is a matter of real public policy. And if you allow every Indian reservation in America to overnight, or step by step, tribe by tribe, after having to wine and dine the Secretary of the Interior and sweet-talk the Secretary of the Interior and the President and maybe making campaign contributions, to induce him to approve gambling, then we are going to have one of the most massive erosions of the public's ability to set social policy within their State we have ever seen. This is really a major event. Senator Enzi's proposal is reasonable. I am proud to be a cosponsor with him on it. It simply delays this thing so we can make sure we are doing the right thing. As to Senator Domenici's problem, I think that will need to be dealt with specifically and not as part of this amendment. But I believe we cannot allow this amendment to fail. The Governors, the attorneys general, groups like the Christian Coalition, and others, support this amendment, because they recognize the negative consequences that arise from allowing the Secretary of Interior to exert this sort of power. I again thank Senator Enzi for his leadership. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I add my compliments to Senator Abraham from Michigan for his outstanding work in crafting this professionally drafted, constitutional, and well-done amendment. There was a recent article in the New York Times by an abortion doctor who admitted to doing 45,000 abortions. He said in that article that parents ought to be consulted in these circumstances. He said that, when someone--often some young man--takes a very young girl across a State line to a State where abortions don't require parental consent, he is jeopardizing the health of that young girl, because the parents won't even know to watch out for her health. Having had the abortion a long distance away, the girl won't be able to return to the abortion clinic for follow-up. The parents won't be watching their daughter's health and the complications that can arise. The doctor said that pro-abortion forces do themselves a disservice when they oppose such legislation as this. I think that is plainly so from a medical point of view. I think it is plainly so from a family point of view. Young toughs who have impregnated a young girl ought not to be able to avoid their responsibility by secretly taking her away to a distant place, without the knowledge of her parents. This is basic. I was a Federal prosecutor for nearly 15 years, and during that time we had what we call the Mann Act. It prohibits the interstate transportation of a female across a State line for the purpose of prostitution or other immoral purposes. That is a law that has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court. This bill will be upheld by the Supreme Court. It is consistent with American law. I am amazed that we can't even get the bill up for a vote and that there are people opposing it. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his leadership.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator McConnell, and I thank all Members of the body for this excellent debate on a very important issue. I suggest that there are different views about what is noble and fair and of the highest order. A jurist at one time said that to talk of justice is the equivalent of pounding on the table; everybody seems to say that their view is just and fair and wonderful. But I think there are a lot of competing principles here, and I would just like to share a few comments on this subject. I ran in a Republican primary, had seven opponents, two of whom spent over $1 million of their own money, and the total that those seven opponents spent was some $5 million. My opponent in the general election spent about $3 million, the Democratic nominee. But when you figure it on 4 million people in Alabama, that is about $2 per voter. A number of the expenditures--and it irritated me at the time--were these stealth advocacy ads that have been referred to. Groups ran ads that tried to claim they were advocacy ads but in fact were aimed at me and trying to drive my numbers down and to help their candidate get elected. It irritated me, and when I got here I was irritated with some of the campaign laws. It struck me as somewhat unfair that a man could spend $1 million but I could not ask anybody for more than $1,000. So I was pretty open to reviewing that. Since I have been here and had the time to do a little thinking about it, talking with Senator McConnell and others, I have become pretty well convinced that we do not need to deregulate the institutional media, allow them to run free doing whatever they want to, and just tell groups of people, even if I don't agree with them, they can't come together, peaceably assemble and raise money and petition their Government. That is a fundamental first amendment principle. The right to assemble peaceably and petition your Government for grievances is a right that is protected by our Constitution. In no way can we abridge freedom of speech. We have a number of cases dealing with that. The particular Snowe-Jeffords amendment that we talked about has been touched upon in a famous case from Alabama. NAACP v. Alabama, in 1958, clearly established that groups have a right to assemble and they do not have to reveal the names of individuals who have contributed to them. They said: Well, we don't want to demand that of everybody, just if you run a campaign ad 60 days in front of a general election. Only then do we want to know who gave you money; only then do we abridge your right to free speech, because we are abridging it by saying you can't express yourself unless you tell who gave money to your organization only within 60 days of the election. That is the only time we want to do it. So, Mr. President, I would ask, when do you want to speak out? When do people become concerned and energized about issues? I believe in my State, for example, that we had abuse of the laws of Alabama, and we had too many lawsuits and uncontrolled verdicts, and we needed tort reform. The trial lawyers of Alabama are a very aggressive group. A small group of them contribute huge sums of money. I saw recently where about seven plaintiff law firms, relatively small law firms, had given some $4 million to political campaigns in the last cycle. They spent $1 million--some of these were stealth advocacy ads aimed at me. They ran one ad against a Supreme Court Justice, the skunk ad that was voted the dirtiest ad in America.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I object to further proceedings on the bill at this time.