Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will finish up. I say to our Democratic leader two things: No. 1, it still does not speak to my point--we talk about substantive debate, which is the commitment we made on this bill. Quite often, we are talking about 2 weeks of amendments and debate going through those amendments. All of a sudden, with the bankruptcy bill, we are talking about Friday and Monday as litmus test days and people need to be here. I am all for that. I am here. I find it interesting that in the haste to get through this bill--I understand a whole lot of folks and a whole lot of powerful folks are for it--I think this violates what I heard stated last week. There are a lot of important amendments that are going to be clotured out now, and I think that goes against the agreement. I am expressing my dissent on it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution to proclaim the third week of April each year as ``Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week''. I would like to recognize the many groups, particularly the Shaken Baby Alliance, who support this effort to increase awareness of one of the most unspeakable forms of child abuse, one that results in the death or lifelong disability of thousands of children each year. We must recognize child abuse and neglect as the public health problem it is, one that is linked with a host of other problems facing our country, including poverty and drug and alcohol addiction, and one that needs the comprehensive approach of our entire public health system to solve. For the past twenty years, the President of the United States has designated one month each year as National Child Abuse Prevention Month to increase awareness of the devastating harm done to our children by abuse and neglect. In 2001, April will be National Child Abuse Prevention Month. The extent of the tragedy that is child abuse is well-documented. The most recent government figures show that almost 1 million children were victims of abuse in 1998. Each day, three of these children die as a result of this abuse. The U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect reported in ``A Nation's Shame: Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect in the United States,'' that a more realistic estimate of annual child deaths as a result of abuse and neglect, both known and unknown to Child Protective Service agencies, is closer to 2,000, or approximately five children per day. The latest data showed that in 1998, the rate of child fatalities resulting from child abuse and neglect in 1998 for children aged 1 and younger accounted for 40 percent of the fatalities. For children aged 5 and younger child abuse and neglect accounted for 78 percent of the fatalities. Because of the problems of under-reporting and errors in diagnoses, the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse believes that the number of child deaths from maltreatment per year may be as high as 5,000. In most cases, the child's death is the result of head trauma, including the trauma known as Shaken Baby Syndrome, SBS. Shaken Baby Syndrome results from a caregiver losing control and shaking a baby, usually an infant who is less than 1 year old. This severe shaking can kill the baby, or it can cause loss of vision, brain damage, paralysis, and seizures, resulting in lifelong disabilities. This totally preventable form of child abuse causes untold grief for many families whose child dies, or is left with permanent, irreparable brain damage. The care for the child's resulting disability is estimated at more than $1 million in medical costs during just the first few years of the baby's life. The most effective solution to ending Shaken Baby Syndrome is to prevent such abuse, and it is clear that the minimal costs of educational and prevention programs may help to protect our young children and stop this tragedy from occurring. In 1995, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect recommended a universal approach to the prevention of child fatalities that would reach out to all families through the implementation of several key strategies. Such efforts began by providing services such as home visitation by trained professionals or paraprofessionals, hospital-linked outreach to parents of infants and toddlers, community-based programs designed for the specific needs of neighborhoods, and effective public education campaigns. Child abuse prevention programs have been shown to raise awareness and provide critically important information about Shaken Baby Syndrome and other forms of abuse to parents, caregivers, day care workers, child protection employees, law enforcement personnel, health care professionals, and legal representatives. Many prevention programs now include not only information about the dangers of shaking babies and how to cope with crying, but also address issues of anger management, stress reduction, appropriate expectations of children, and specific information on why shaking or impact can interrupt early brain development. Education programs for judges and others in the judicial system are also beneficial for SBS criminal cases. Ultimately, the education of all will help us reach a critical goal of zero tolerance toward shaking, a goal that will help to save children's lives. The prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome is supported by groups such as the Shaken Baby Alliance, an organization which began with 3 mothers of children who had been diagnosed with Shaken Baby Syndrome, and whose mission is to educate the general public and professionals about Shaken Baby Syndrome, and to increase support for victims and victim families in the health care and criminal justice systems. In my own state of Minnesota, the Shaken Baby Alliance is represented by the outstanding efforts of Kim Kang, whose daughter Rachel was diagnosed in 1995 with Shaken Baby Syndrome, after being violently shaken by a day care provider. My heart goes out to her family, and to all of the families who deal with the results of Shaken Baby Syndrome and all other forms of child abuse and neglect. Child abuse and neglect is a scourge on our country, and we must do more to prevent the damage done to our children, our families, and our society as a result of child abuse, and to help those who suffer its consequences. Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week is supported by the Shaken Baby Alliance, Children's Defense Fund, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, Child Welfare League of America, Prevent Child Abuse America, Brain Injury Association, National Child Abuse Coalition, National Exchange Club Foundation, American Humane Association, Center for Child Protection and Family Support, Inc., National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions, and many other organizations including the National Basketball Association, which is sponsoring a series of ``NBA Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Nights 2001'' events to generate public awareness about the issue of child abuse and neglect during National Child Abuse Prevention Month 2001. This year the Congress also has the opportunity to seriously address the issue of child abuse and neglect by increasing the funding for prevention and training programs as part of the reauthorization of Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, CAPTA. I look forward to working with my Senate and House colleagues on both sides of the aisle to direct additional resources to the prevention of abuse and neglect of our children. We must do more as a country to protect our vulnerable children from this most serious betrayal of trust, to prevent the fatalities and severe physical and psychological harm that results from such abuse, and to help those who work to end this national tragedy by providing the resources they need to do their work. I urge the Senate to adopt this resolution designating the third week of April each year as ``Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week'', and to take part in the many local and national activities and events recognizing the month of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Resolution be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thirteen.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I apologize to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, for delaying my arrival. We have a markup in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on the pension education bill. I have a number of amendments. That is the reason I did not come earlier. I am going to lay down an amendment in a moment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I also know Senator Dodd wants to speak on this amendment, and other colleagues may want to speak as well. This amendment says if you file for bankruptcy because of medical bills, none of the provisions of this bill will affect you. This is a very simple and straightforward amendment. Amendment No. 14

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have been working with my colleague, Senator Dodd. I will not include him as an original cosponsor because I want to hear from him. But I believe he will be down here debating this amendment. One of the reasons I started out with this amendment--I will need to give this amendment some context--is that the proponents of this bill made the argument that we need to have ``bankruptcy reform'' because you have all of these people gaming the system. I will cite a number of different independent studies, including the American Bankruptcy Institute, that say it is maybe 3 percent of the people. This amendment says, wait a minute; we know that about 50 percent of the people who file for bankruptcy do so because of medical bills that put them under. They are not gaming the system, so some of the really onerous provisions of this legislation should not apply to these families. It will take me some time to give this amendment some context. I think, if this amendment should pass, it would make this piece of legislation a much better piece of legislation and far less harsh and far less imbalanced. Let my right away give this some context. I have, perhaps among Senators, been strong and vociferous in my opposition. I want to have an opportunity to lay out the reasons why. I will talk about this bill, and then we will go to the amendment. First of all, I think this piece of legislation is--I know it sounds strong. I hate to say it because I like my colleague from Utah so much. It has nothing to do with a dislike or a like. It has to do with policy issue. I think it will have a very harsh effect on a whole lot of people and a whole lot of families who are not able to file chapter 7, for whom the bankruptcy law has been a major safety net--not just low- income families but middle-income families as well. I find it bitterly ironic that this legislation is coming on the heels of the vote for a resolution that overturned 10 years of work for an ergonomics rule to provide protection for working men and women, mainly women in the workplace, for what has become the most widespread disabling injury--repetitive stress injury. Yesterday we did that. The Senate did it with no amendment, with limited debate; it overturned that rule. Today we say if you are working--believe me, trust me. I will say it on the floor of the Senate, and if my colleagues prove me wrong I will be delighted to be proven wrong--there will not be a substantial rule or any substantial piece of legislation providing people with protection at the workplace for repetitive stress injury for a long time. Basically what we are doing is saying OK, there won't be the protection. Now you are injured. Now you are disabled. Now you are not able to work. Now you have earned little income. Now you come to file chapter 7 because you find yourself in very difficult circumstances, and you are not going to be able to do so. But your home could be foreclosed. Your car could be repossessed. And a lot of people are going to get ground into pieces, in my opinion. It says a lot about the priorities of the majority party--that the first major piece of legislation we bring to the floor is an unjust, imbalanced bankruptcy bill which is great for the big banks and it is great for the credit card companies. I am sure Senator Feingold will have more to say about this. There was a piece in Business Week, which is not exactly a bastion of liberalism about, I guess, one of the largest credit card issuers, MBNA Corporation. By the way, I cannot make the assumption that because Senator Hatch or anyone else disagrees with me they are doing it because of campaign contributions. I refuse to make the one-to-one correlation. You can't do it. But you can say at the institutional level some people have certainly a lot more clout than other people, and it just so happens that the people who find themselves in terrible economic circumstances through no fault of their own--major medical bills, they have lost their jobs, or there has been a divorce--it is my view as a former political scientist and now a Senator for the State of Minnesota that those people do not have the same kind of clout that MBNA Corporation has, which, by the way, contributed $237,000 to President Bush, according to the Center for Responsible Politics; and on the soft money side, MBNA chipped in nearly $600,000, about two- thirds going to the GOP, and the other part going to the Democratic Party. There are a whole lot of heavy hitters and well-connected folks who are for this. We have an unjust and imbalanced bankruptcy bill that is great for big banks, and great for credit card companies, with hardly a word about any accountability calling for these companies to stop their predatory lending practices. I am going to have an amendment on payday loans. I hope we can adopt it. There is not a word about the ways in which they pump the credit on our kids in such an irresponsible way, but it is very harsh. When it comes to many working families--low- and moderate-income families--it says a lot about our priorities. It says that a special interest boondoggle, a bailout for big banks and credit card companies, is ahead of education, is ahead of raising the minimum wage, is ahead of providing affordable drug coverage, prescription drug coverage for seniors, and is ahead of expanding health care coverage for people. Remember, 50 percent of the people who file for bankruptcy do it because of major medical bills. But this bankruptcy bill --perfect for big banks and credit card companies--comes ahead of all those priorities. I believe what the majority party is trying to do is to sort of say: Look, here are the differences between President Clinton, who vetoed this bill, and President Bush, who said he will sign it. I hope the bill does not get to President Bush's desk in its present form. I think the odds of my succeeding with some of my amendments, and other Democrats and other Republicans perhaps succeeding with their amendments, are not good. But we will try. I say to my colleagues I welcome the contrast. I say what a difference an election makes. The civil rights community, the labor community, children, women, consumers, all have said this bill is too harsh and this bill is too one-sided. President Clinton stood up for them. He stood up for ordinary people. I give him all the credit in the world, as a Senator who has not always agreed with former President Clinton. Indeed, the differences do make a difference. I have no doubt that President Bush will sign this bill. In many ways, the financial services industry, the credit card companies, are part of his constituency. My question is, What about unemployed taconite workers in northeast Minnesota? My question is, What about struggling family farmers in greater Minnesota? My question is, What about a lot of low- and moderate- and middle-income people in Minnesota who, through no fault of their own--especially as the economy begins to take a turn downward--may find themselves in these difficult circumstances? I am interested in representing them. That is why I am out here today. That is why I am fighting this legislation. That is why I have been fighting this legislation for 2\1/2\ years or more. Let me talk a little bit about the history of this legislation. First of all, this bill was negotiated by only a small group of Members, out of the public eye. Second of all, up until this year, it had never been here in an amendable fashion. Third of all, until a hearing was held by the Judiciary Committee on February 8, there had been no hearings on this legislation. In fact, the Senate had not conducted its own hearing on bankruptcy since 1998. Finally, we had a hearing. So I see a compelling reason for some lengthy and important statements and debate on this bill. The bill deserves scrutiny. It should be held up to the light of day so that citizens can see what an ill-made, misshapen attempt at reform this legislation is. Colleagues in this body need to understand what bad legislation really is, how terrible an impact a piece of legislation such as this can have on America's most powerless families, and what a complete giveaway this piece of legislation is to banks, to credit card companies, and to other lenders. Bankruptcy ``reform'' is not being taken up out of any kind of urgency. Indeed, while the supporters of this bill have cited the high number of bankruptcy filings in recent years as a reason to move forward with this so-called reform, there has been a dramatic drop in the last 2 years in the number of bankruptcies. Over the past 2 years, any pretense that this legislation is urgently needed has evaporated. The number of bankruptcies has fallen steadily over the past year. Charge-offs on credit card debt are significantly down, and delinquencies have fallen to the lowest level since 1995. Proponents and opponents agree that nearly all debtors resort to bankruptcy not to game the system but, rather, as a desperate measure of economic survival, and that only a tiny minority of chapter 7 filers--as few as 3 percent--could afford any debt repayment. But through this legislation, we are going to make it well nigh impossible for families in our country to rebuild their economic lives. But the true outrage is that now the bankruptcies are projected to increase because of a slowing economy and high consumer debts that are overwhelming families. Proponents of this bill are using this as an excuse to curb access to bankruptcy relief. Because there will be more economic misery, because there will be more financial stress, because more American families will succumb to their debts, the proponents of this measure argue we should make it harder for them to get a fresh start. Let me make that clear. That is what this is about. Now the economy is going to turn down. We know there is high consumer debt. We know there is going to be more people struggling. We know there is going to be more financial distress. We know there is going to be more economic misery. And the proponents of this bill are now arguing that we need this measure to make it harder for these families in Minnesota and this country to get a fresh start. I reject that proposition. We are trying to address yesterday's headlines. But I have already stated that this really shouldn't be any wonder. The credit card industry wants this bill. They want to be able to protect the risky investments they have made, and so the Senate does their bidding. They want to be able to pump credit out there. They want to be able to engage in irresponsible lending practices. They are not held accountable at all. They want to make sure that people, in one way or another, are squeezed and squeezed and squeezed, so they can get as much money back as possible. This is a carte blanche blank check for the credit card industry. I have been proud to fight this bill. I am proud of the fact that it has taken many years for this bill to get through, and still it is not through yet. I hope we will be able to stop it or make it significantly better. Let me outline some of my reasons for opposing this bill, and then I will move to our first amendment. First of all, this legislation rests on faulty premises. The bill addresses a crisis that does not exist. Increased filings are being used as an excuse to harshly restrict bankruptcy protection, but filings have actually fallen in the last 2 years. In addition, the bill is based upon the myth that people feel no stigma; that they find it easy to declare bankruptcy, and there is widespread fraud and abuse. By the way, if you think there is widespread abuse, then you should be all for the amendment I am going to offer which says when people are going under because of medical bills, they should be exempt from the provisions of this legislation. Two, abusive filers are a tiny minority. Bill proponents cite the need to curb ``abusive filings'' as a reason to harshly restrict bankruptcy protection. But the American Bankruptcy Institute found that only 3 percent--if my colleagues have other data, they can present it-- only 3 percent of chapter 7 filers could have paid back more of their debts. Even bill supporters acknowledge that, at most, 10 to 13 percent of filers are abusive. Surely you would want to support this amendment that says when people have to declare bankruptcy because of major medical bills, they should be exempt because they could not be in any Senator's category of people who have been dishonest or have abused the system. Three, the legislation falls heaviest on the most vulnerable. This troubles me. The harsh restrictions in this bill will make bankruptcy less protective, more complicated and expensive to file. This will make it much more difficult for low- and moderate-income people to be able to effectively file. Unfortunately, the means test and safe harbor will not be a shield from a majority of those provisions that have been written in such a way that they will capture many debtors who truly have no ability to pay off any significant debt. As a result of this legislation, they are going to be put under. Four, the bankruptcy code is a critical safety net for America's middle class. Low- and moderate-income families, especially single parent families, are those who most need the fresh start that is provided by bankruptcy protection. This bill will make it much more difficult for people to get out from under the burden of crushing debt. That should matter to us. I know these folks don't have a lot of clout. I know they don't lobby every day. I know they are among the most vulnerable citizens. I know they don't have a lot of income, but they should matter. Five--and this should bother all of my colleagues--the banking and credit card industry gets a free ride. Why is there not more balance in this bill? The bill, as drafted, gives a free ride to banks and credit card companies that deserve much of the blame for the high number of bankruptcy filings because of their loose credit card standards. Any of us who have children know the kind of stuff that gets sent to them in the mail. Lenders should not be rewarded for reckless lending. That is what we are doing in this bill. We are just giving them a blank check. Six, this legislation may cause increased bankruptcies and defaults. Several economists have suggested that restricting access to bankruptcy protection will actually increase the number of filings and defaults because banks will be more willing to lend money to marginal candidates. Indeed, it is no coincidence that the recent surge of bankruptcy filings began immediately after the last major ``procreditor reforms'' were passed by Congress in 1984. I say to the Senator from California: I have sent an amendment to the desk which says we ought to go after people who are gaming the system, but if a family is filing for bankruptcy, chapter 7, because of a major medical bill, they should be exempt from the provisions of this legislation. I am now putting this in a broader context. I welcome discussion by any other Senators on the floor, and I do not intend to monopolize. It will take me some time to go through the amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I had said earlier that I find it bitterly ironic that on the heels of yesterday's action by the Senate, where in 10 hours we overturned 10 years of work to provide some protection to the workforce--men and women, mainly women--for the most serious disabling injury right now, repetitive stress injury, we now turn to the first major piece of legislation in this 107th Congress, a bankruptcy bill which is so imbalanced and so harsh in its effect, especially on middle income, low- and moderate-income people, many of whom, again, are women and children. It speaks volumes about our disordered priorities, which we will speak to. I ask unanimous consent to go into a quorum call for 30 seconds, and then I will regain the floor and go forward with the amendment.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have much more to say about the bill, but I will get to the first amendment I want to introduce today, which I think goes to the heart of what is a fundamental problem with this legislation. This legislation purports to go after abuse in the bankruptcy system, but it casts a wide net that captures all debtors who file for bankruptcy, regardless of their circumstances. This is a simple amendment. This is what it says. If you file for bankruptcy because of medical bills, none of the provisions of this bill will affect you. I know Senator Dodd has been working on a very similar amendment, and he and Senator Chafee have been working on an amendment. I think as the debate goes forward, we will probably join forces. The reason I introduce this amendment--and other Senators also are interested in the same kind of amendment--is, in the vast majority of cases, the people who file for bankruptcy do it because of desperate financial circumstances and do it because they are overburdened by debt. Specifically, we know that nearly half of all debtors report that high medical costs force them into bankruptcy. This is an especially serious problem for the elderly. Just think about prescription drug costs and the increased medical bills one has as they become older. A medical crisis is a double whammy for a family. First, there are the high costs associated with the treatment of a serious health problem, costs that may not be covered by insurance. Certainly, for some 40 million people in the country who have no health insurance whatsoever, it can put them under. And please remember, anyone who has spent one second in any coffee shop back in their States knows that the health care crisis is not just people with no health insurance at all. It is also people who are underinsured. They have some coverage, but it is by no means comprehensive. The other thing that happens is, if it is a serious accident or illness, then for a time, if you are the primary earner in the household, the income is not coming in. And even if it isn't the person who draws the income, a parent, if I am working and my child is very ill, you know what--many of us know this now--or if your parent is very ill, then you may need to be caring for that elderly parent. This means a loss of income. It means more debt and more of an inability to pay back the debt. I am kind of surprised, frankly, that the proponents of this legislation did not at least have some sort of clear exemption and, if you will, some compassion for people who end up filing for bankruptcy because of a major medical illness that has put them under. Are the people in our country--the families in Minnesota --who were overwhelmed with medical debt or sidelined with an illness and therefore they can't work, are they deadbeats? This bill assumes they are. For example, it would force them into credit counseling before they could file for bankruptcy, as if a serious illness or disability is something that can be counseled away. Colleagues, that is not what it is about. Both of my parents had Parkinson's disease. My father had severe Parkinson's disease. I believe, ultimately, it is the reason my dad passed away. We helped take care of him, and I saw him struggle. I can assure you that the cost of the drugs to treat those diseases is not something that can be counseled away. It has nothing to do with these citizens and these families being bad managers of their budget. It is, ``There but for the grace of God go I.'' People, through no fault of their own, are stricken with illnesses and disabling injuries and, therefore, major medical bills can put them under. When these families need to file for bankruptcy, they should be exempt from the harsh and restrictive provisions of this bill. A study published in May of 2000 by professors Melissa Jacoby, Teresa Sullivan, and Elizabeth Warren determined that: Hundreds of thousands of middle class families declare bankruptcy each year in the financial aftermath of an encounter with the American health care system. The study goes on to note: The data reported here serve as a reminder that self- funding medical treatment and loss of income during a bout of illness or recovery from an accident make a substantial number of middle class families vulnerable to financial collapse. They also demonstrate that the American social safety net is composed of interwoven pieces, including government subsidies for medical care, private insurance and personal bankruptcy. For middle class people, there is little government help, so that when private insurance is inadequate, bankruptcy serves by default as a means for dealing with the financial consequences of a serious medical problem. Let me translate that into ordinary language. There are many people in our country, families in our States, who are either not old enough for Medicare--and even if they are, it doesn't cover prescription drug costs, catastrophic expenses--or they are not poor enough for Medicaid and they are not fortunate enough to be working for an employer where they have any coverage, or for an employer that gives them comprehensive coverage that is affordable. Therefore, when the private insurance is inadequate and people are faced with a major medical catastrophe, bankruptcy serves by default as a safety net, a way in which these families can deal with these medical consequences. This piece of legislation takes that support away. Again, this is the point I have been trying to make over and over again in this debate: Bankruptcy is a critical safety net for middle- class Americans. Yet we have a bill which rolls the safety net back. A study conducted by Ian Domowitz and Robert Sartain found that the presence of medical debt had ``the greatest single impact of any household condition in raising the conditional probability of bankruptcy . . . households with high medical debt exhibit a filing probability greater than 28 times that of the baseline.'' Come on. A lot of people who file for chapter 7 bankruptcy do it because of major medical bills. This amendment says exempt them. The figures I have cited so far speak to all bankruptcies. But the statistics become even more troubling if you look specifically at seniors or single women with children who file for bankruptcy. Single women with children are 50 percent more likely to file because of medical bills than single men. You know what. There is a reason for that. Unfortunately, in many families--maybe 50 percent now--there is a divorce, and quite often in the large percentage of the cases the single parent who has the most responsibility for taking care of the children is the woman. That is one of the reasons why so many of the women's organizations and children's organizations are adamantly opposed to this legislation. There was another way we could have gone after this problem because for these folks the problem isn't the bankruptcy system; it is the health care system. I will concede that to my good friend from Alabama. It is a shame that this has to be the way in which people can get some support for major medical bills. The United States of America is the only advanced economy in the world that does not have some form of universal health care coverage. The United States paid a third more per capita for health care than any other nation, and we spend a greater percentage of our gross domestic product--14 percent--and we get far less for our money, according to the World Health Organization report. There are about 44 million people in our country who have no health insurance whatsoever, and there are about the same number of people who are underinsured. We could have gone after this problem in another way. I could be on the floor right now--I would love it--advocating for senior citizens and, for that matter, other working families, saying we ought to have affordable prescription drug coverage. But that is not our priority. We have to consider this bankruptcy bill. I could be out on the floor arguing for health security for all citizens, that we could, as a national community--in fact, maybe this will be one of the amendments. Maybe I can have a vote on the following amendment, a sense of the Senate that the people we represent should have as good a health care coverage as we have. We could be out here talking about health security for every citizen. We could be talking about the ways in which we can agree nationally on a package of benefits as good as what we have and that there should be patient protection. The Presiding Officer was one of the first people in the Senate to talk about patient protection. We could be talking about how we can make it affordable for families. We could be talking about how to get to universal coverage. We could talk about how we could decentralize health care so the different States can make a lot of decisions about cost containment and delivery of care. That would be a way of dealing with this problem. We could be talking about expanding the children's health care plan to include their parents. We could be talking about more support for community health care clinics. But that is not what we are doing. You might ask, Paul, why is this amendment even necessary given what the author of the bill, my friend, Senator Grassley from Iowa, said just recently: So that I am crystal clear, people who do not have the ability to repay their debt can still use the bankruptcy system as they would have before. On the one hand, Paul, if you are telling me this bill is incredibly harsh and will punish working families who need a fresh start, but the proponents of the bill say this bill will not affect people who are gaming the system, how do you explain that? If you listen carefully to their statements, you will hear that they only claim such debtors will not be affected by the bill's means test. Not only is that claim, I think, subject to much debate--the means test and the safe harbor have been written in a way that will capture working families who are filing for chapter 7 relief in good faith--but it ignores the vast majority of this legislation which will impose needless hurdles and punitive costs on all families who file for bankruptcy, regardless of their income. Nor does the safe harbor apply to any of these provisions. Do not take my word for it. Here is how an article in the conservative Wall Street Journal on February 22 characterized this bill: In most cases, the bill, which is almost identical to the one that President Clinton vetoed, will make filing for bankruptcy more costly and more of a hassle. That's the point: It will increase lenders leverage to pressure consumers to pay bills instead of going to court to void them. That is exactly right. The article concludes on this point: The bill is so full of hassle-creating provisions, some reasonable, some prone to abuse by aggressive creditors trying to get paid at the expense of others. In a thicket of compromises, Congress risks losing sight of the goal: making sure that most debtors pay their bills while offering a fresh start to those who honestly can't. That is what this amendment does: to make sure we offer a fresh start for those people put under by medical bills who honestly cannot pay back. Again, this is the Wall Street Journal, hardly a bastion of populist sentiment, but that is the net effect of the bill: to make it harder for families who have hit financial ruin, who have hit financial bottom to get a fresh start. That is what is wrong with this legislation. The proponents of this bill have said that all these provisions are necessary to curb abuse. OK, let's take them at their word. If that is true, then I assume the proponents of this bill will support this amendment. If the proponents mean what they say, that the whole point of this legislation is to curb abuse, then my colleagues will want to support this amendment because this amendment just exempts those families who are filing for bankruptcy because of major medical bills. They are not slackers. They are not cheaters. They have not gamed the system. If the sponsors are serious about just taking on deadbeats, not ordinary Americans who file bankruptcy because they simply have no other choice to rebuild their lives, then they should be rushing to the floor to cosponsor this amendment. I repeat that. If the sponsors are serious about going after the deadbeats but making sure ordinary people, hard-working people who file bankruptcy because they have no other choice, are going to be able to rebuild their lives, then they should be rushing to the floor to cosponsor this amendment. I hope I will get support from my colleague from Utah. Surely no one will argue that families that are drowning in debt as a result of medical bills are gaming the system. These are the people who need the safety net the most. These are the people who need to make a fresh start. Here are a number of examples of what I am talking about: The prebankruptcy credit counseling requirements at the debtor's expense is a requirement that people have to go to prebankruptcy counseling. The debtor pays for it, as if, again, people who have been put under because of cancer, diabetes, or some kind of horrible injury, can counsel away these conditions. They are not in financial difficulty because they need credit counseling. New limits on repeat filings, again, regardless of personal circumstances; revocation of automatic stay relief for failure to surrender collateral; changes to existing cram-down provisions in chapter 13, making it more difficult for debtors to keep their car; the new presumption of abuse of credit card if the debt is incurred within 3 months of the bankruptcy. We have all of these new burdens, all of these hurdles. Why do we want to make it so horrible difficult for people who find themselves in horrible financial circumstances because of a major medical illness, a major medical bill, to file chapter 7 and rebuild their lives? They are not slackers. They are not gaming the system. This amendment says let us have a good bill, and one of the ways to do it is to at least have an exemption for these families. Again, some of these onerous hurdles, requirements, that I mentioned might be useful to get the deadbeats or go after the irresponsible people--I am all for that. The problem is that all of these changes also affect working families who file for bankruptcy through no fault of their own. Should a person who files because of medical bills be treated with the same presumption of abuse as wealthy slackers? That is what this bill does. I repeat that. Should a person who files because of major medical bills be treated with the same presumption of abuse as wealthy slackers who are gaming the system? That is what this bill does. I cite two specific examples of how this bill will hurt debtors who file for medical reasons, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the issue will come to the floor--I know the distinguished Senator from Utah is here--to refute this, if they can. Both of these families were talked about in an excellent Time magazine story last year which was called ``Soaked by Congress.'' My colleagues may remember this. Allen Smith is a resident of Delaware, which has no homestead exemption. In other words, he cannot shield his home from his creditors. Ironically, under this bill, wealthy scofflaws can shield multimillion-dollar mansions from their creditors with little planning, but not Mr. Smith. It is 2 years in advance. If you know you are facing trouble and you are a multimillionaire, you can hire your lawyers and then buy your real estate in Florida or wherever. There is no such break for Mr. Smith. As a result, when the tragic medical problems described in the Time article befell his family, he could not file a chapter 7 case without losing his home. There was no homestead exemption. Instead, he filed a chapter 13 case which requires substantial payments in addition to his regular mortgage payments for him to save his home. Ultimately, after his wife passed away and he himself was hospitalized, he was unable to make all these payments and his chapter 13 plan failed. Had Delaware had a reasonable homestead exemption and had Mr. Smith been able to simply file a chapter 7 case to eliminate his other debts, he might have been able to save his home. He lost his home. Mr. Smith's financial deterioration was caused by unavoidable medical problems. Before he thought about bankruptcy, he went to consumer credit counseling to try to deal with his debts. However, it appears he went to consumer credit counseling just over 180 days before the case was filed, and he did not receive a ``briefing.'' The new bill would have required him to go again. This would have been very difficult considering his medical problems. In fact, his attorney demonstrated a dedication to his client that sharply contrasts with the creditor propaganda picture of bankruptcy lawyers just out to make a buck. He made several home visits to Mr. Smith and his wife, who was a double amputee. The new bill would also have required a great deal of additional time and expense for Mr. Smith and his attorney, through new paperwork requirements and a requirement that he attend a credit education course. Such a course would have done nothing to prevent the enormous medical problems suffered by Mr. Smith and his wife. He did not get into financial trouble through failure to manage his money. He is 73 years old and had never before had any debt problems. The bill makes no exceptions for people who cannot attend the course due to exigent circumstances. Mr. Smith might never have been able to get any relief in bankruptcy under the new bill. Under the new bill, this bill, Mr. Smith would also have had to give up his television and VCR to Sears which claimed a security interest in the items. Under the bill, he would not be permitted to retain possession of these items in chapter 7 unless he reaffirms the debt or redeemed the items. Sears may demand reaffirmation of his entire $3,000 debt under the bill, and to redeem, Mr. Smith would have to pay the retail value. After his wife died and her income was gone, Mr. Smith did not have the money to pay the amounts to Sears. Since he is largely home bound, loss of these items would have been devastating. Sadly, this is a real person, about real people. Mr. Smith's medical problems continue. Under current law, if he again amasses medical and other debts he cannot pay, he could seek refuge in chapter 13 where he would be required to pay all he could afford. Under the new bill, Mr. Smith cannot file a chapter 13 case for 5 years, when he is 78 years old. The time for filing a new chapter 7 has also been increased from 6 to 8 years. What will happen to people such as him? Charles and Linda Trapp were forced into bankruptcy by medical problems. Their daughter's medical treatment left them with medical debts well over $100,000, as well as a number of credit card debts. Because of her daughter's degenerative condition, Linda Trapp had to leave her job as a mail carrier about 2 months before the bankruptcy case was filed to manage her care. Before she left her job, the family's annual income was about $83,000 a year or $6,900 per month. Under the bill, close to that amount, $6,200, the average monthly income from the previous 6 months is deemed their current monthly income, even though their gross monthly income at the time of filing was only $4,800. Based on the fictitious deemed income, the Trapps would have been presumed to be abusing the bankruptcy code since allowed expenses under the IRS guidelines amounted to $5,339. The difference of $850 per month would have been deemed available to pay unsecured debts and was over the $6,200 a month, triggering a presumption of abuse. The Trapps would have had to submit the detailed documentation to rebut this presumption, trying to show their income should be adjusted downward because of special circumstances and that there was no reasonable alternative to Linda Trapp leaving her job. Because their current monthly income, although fictitious, was over the median income, the family would have been subject to motions for abuse, filed by creditors who might argue Linda Trapp should not have left her job and that the Trapps should have tried to pay debts in chapter 13. That is the same problem for taconite workers. I will be proposing an amendment I hope will get 100 votes that will say LTV, the large company that laid off 1,400 workers, if they file for bankruptcy, chapter 7, should not be able to walk away from their health care obligation to retirees. The working men and women are out of work. You will do their average income over a 6-month period and then determine whether or not they are eligible for chapter 7. How are they able to rebuild their lives? They will not be able to do it. Their average income over the last 6 months might look pretty good. That doesn't do you much good if you were laid off 2 months ago. Where in the world does this test come from? The Trapps wouldn't have been protected by a safe harbor. The Trapps would have paid their attorney to defend the motion, and if they could not have afforded the $1,000 or more it would have cost, the case would have been dismissed and they would not have received relief. If they prevailed, it is unlikely they would recover attorney fees from a creditor who brought the motion, since recovery of fees is permitted only if the creditor's motion was frivolous and could not arguably be supported by any reasonable interpretation of law. That is a much weaker standard than the original Senate bill. In fact, we have had better bills. This bill has gotten worse and worse. We once had a bill that passed 99-1. I was the only Senator opposing it. Because the means test is so vague and ambiguous, any creditor could argue it would simply make a good faith attempt to apply the means test which created a presumption of abuse. Mrs. Trapp's medical problems continue and are only getting worse. Under current law, if the Trapps amass medical and other debts, they could seek refuge in chapter 13 where they would be required to pay all they could afford. Under the new bill, the Trapps could not file a chapter 13 case for 5 years. Even then the payments would be determined by the IRS expense account and they would have to stay in the plan for 5 years rather than 3 years required under current law. The timing for filing chapter 7 would be increased by the bill from 6 to 8 years. What does this bill do to keep people who undergo these wrenching experiences out of bankruptcy? Nothing. Zero. Tough luck. Instead, this legislation just makes the fresh start of the bankruptcy harder to achieve. This doesn't change anyone's circumstances. This doesn't change the fact that these folks don't earn enough any longer to sustain their debt. There is not one thing in this bankruptcy ``reform'' bill that would promote health security in working families. I conclude this way: I came to this issue almost by accident. I am not on the Judiciary Committee. I am not a lawyer. My colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, is a very able lawyer. It is complicated. With all of the fine print and all of the detail, the more you go through it, the more you are able to realize this piece of legislation lacks some balance. This amendment gives this legislation badly needed balance. What this amendment says is, go ahead, let's not let anyone game the system. Whether it is the 3 percent the American Bankruptcy Institute or the 10 to 13 percent that others talk about, don't let people game it. Don't let people be slackers. Don't let people get away with murder. When people go under--50 percent of the bankruptcy cases are because of a major medical illness--give them an exemption from the onerous requirements, give them the opportunity to rebuild their lives. They didn't ask for the illness. They didn't ask for the major medical bill. They didn't ask for the disabling injury. They didn't ask to be put under. The bitter irony is that just yesterday we passed a motion that emasculated 10 years of work to get a rule to provide protection for people, many of them women, against repetitive stress injury, disabling injuries, in the workplace. Now we turn around today and say, and you know what, not only don't you have the protection--and I said earlier, I made the prediction we will not see an ergonomics standard passed by this Congress for years now. If I am wrong, I will be pleased to be wrong. Now what we say is there is not the protection and now, if you have a disabling injury and now you do not have the income coming in and now you are in a desperate financial situation, we are going to make it impossible for you to file chapter 7 and rebuild your life. It is not a good week for working people, not a good week for ordinary citizens. What we could have done--and I conceded this point earlier in the debate. I really apologize that chapter 7 in bankruptcy is one of the ways people can deal with major medical bills because, frankly, it is a pretty poor excuse for what we should be doing. We should not have 44 million people without any coverage. We should not have at least that number of people who are underinsured. We should be able to have comprehensive health care reform. I think one of the amendments I should offer is to make sure all the people we represent have as good health coverage as we have. We should be doing that, but we are not. Instead, we are going to make it impossible for some good, honest people to rebuild their lives when they find themselves in desperate financial circumstances through no fault of their own. I hope there will be support for this amendment that just says if you file for bankruptcy because of major medical bills, none of the provisions in this bill will affect you. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I also want to explain to my colleague from Utah what I said earlier this morning is that we have a markup. My understanding from Senator Leahy is that other Senators will come down with amendments. I have a markup also going on at the same time with amendments in committee. I will have to go back and forth. First of all, when my colleague from Utah says there has been an adjustment in the means test for medical bills, I hope Senators' staffs will take a look. When my colleague says, Wait a minute, we have taken care of problems with major medical bills, we don't do an adjustment to the means test. This is the part of the bankruptcy bill that deals with that. Here is the whole bill. There are lots of other very harsh provisions in this bill that go way beyond this. I am talking about the whole bill. There are prebankruptcy credit counseling requirements at the debtor's expense. Why in the world do you want people who have been put under because of a major medical bill to have to go to credit counseling? What kind of presumption do you make? Then they have to pay for their counseling. What is that doing in here? You think people can credit counsel their way out of having to deal with cancer and the bill they incur? Again, my colleague from Utah talks about one little part of the bill. The revocation of the automatic stay relief from failure to surrender collateral is another provision. Now at least when you file for bankruptcy, there is some time that goes by. This means that Sears can come and repossess. There is no time. There are changes to existing cram-down provisions in chapter 13, making it more difficult for debtors. You end up paying for the full loan, not the value of the car. How about this one? You can't file a new chapter 7 case for 8 years or a new chapter 13 case for 5 years--again, making it more difficult. What happens if a family is put under with a major medical bill and then there is another illness? You say this period of time has to go by? You have to go 7 or 8 years from 6 years in chapter 7, and from 6 years under chapter 13 to 5 years. There is no limit under current law. There are lots of provisions in this piece of legislation that are very harsh. I do not understand. I think this is a very challenging vote for Senators. I say to the Senator from Iowa and other Senators who are on the floor right now that this amendment concedes the point that we certainly ought to have some legislation that deals with people who game the system--again, I think it is about 3 percent--people who really game the system, people who really do not need to file chapter 7. But surely with this bill there are many harsh provisions, and we would want to at least have an exemption for people who go under because of major medical bills. Let's just concede the point that people in Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, and around the country who are having to file for chapter 7 because of a major medical bill that put them under ought to be exempt from all of these loopholes. Talk about bureaucracy, and ways of discouraging people from filing, and making it difficult for people to get relief. Why wouldn't you at least have an exemption? I have opposed this bill with all my might for several years. I find it interesting that there are articles in Business Week and the Wall Street Journal. There was a piece last night on ABC News; Time magazine, a long piece--all of which say--I don't think this is necessarily the tradition of blaming liberal media--that this bill is imbalanced and it is a dream come true for the credit card industry and for the financial services industry. There is no question about it. But it is too harsh for many ordinary citizens in the country. I say to my colleagues again: We represent people, too many of whom don't have anywhere near the health care coverage we have. We represent people who, through no fault of their own, wind up with a major illness or injury that puts them under financially. Maybe I feel strongly about it. I think it took my mother and father, as I remember, 20 years to pay off a medical bill in our family. I think it took them 20 years, as I remember. That still remains one of the great fears and sources of insecurity of the people we represent-- that there is going to be a major medical bill that puts them under. We do not come out here on the floor of the Senate and make prescription drugs more affordable. We don't come out here on the floor of the Senate and introduce and debate legislation that would provide more health security for the people we represent and that would make health care coverage more comprehensive and more affordable. We don't come out here in the Senate and dedicate ourselves to the proposition that the people we should represent should have as good a coverage as we have. I think that would be a good amendment to vote on, on this bill. Then we take what is a safety net, given the fact that we haven't done any of that in public policy and given the fact, therefore, that over 50 percent of the people who file for bankruptcy do it because of major medical bills, and we tear the safety net apart. I will tell you, I have some good friends on the other side of the aisle on this issue. One of them is about to speak. I have said publicly that whatever the Senator from Iowa says and whatever he advocates is what he honestly believes. Political truth can be elusive. One person's solution can be another person's horror. People in good faith can disagree. So what I am about to say now is not directed personally. But again I finish this way at least for the moment. I will tell you, I don't like the feel of this at all. I don't like the feel of this bill at all. I think when you look at the lobbying coalition and the campaign contribution, because there is not one Senator--I need to say some of us aren't good at this if we aren't careful. We can't make a one-to-one correlation because a Senator received one contribution. That is not fair to do. But what you can say is that the families I talked about, the unemployed Taconite workers on the Range--I say to the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Nebraska, that farmers who are facing the price crisis and barely hanging on--and a whole lot of middle-class families who were doing well, they were doing well. My folks were doing well. I do not know if they were middle class--what definition you would use; they did not have a lot of money--but they were doing fine. But then there was a major medical illness. I am saying, you should exempt those families who file for bankruptcy from the provisions of this legislation. That way you get the cheaters and you get the slackers, but you do not make it impossible for a lot of people who are in a whole lot of physical pain and a whole lot of economic pain to rebuild their lives. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why I am not getting colleagues on both sides of the aisle sponsoring this amendment. I yield the floor. I am sorry, I saw the Senator from Iowa. I thought he would want to speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am not finished with my final remarks on this amendment, but I always defer to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I just want to thank my colleague. Sometimes a distinguished Senator can go on and on and on, and it is not sincere. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his graciousness. I have never doubted his commitment to this legislation. I have never doubted his conviction on it. And I want to apologize. I have a markup on an education bill, so I am going to leave now. The amendment will be laid aside. I will be back in a while. I did not want to appear to be impolite. I just have to go to the markup.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I had a chance this afternoon to speak about this amendment at great length and may not need all of my time. I respond to some of the arguments made while I was off the floor. They were not made because I was off the floor; I had to go to markup on an education bill, and another Senator spoke. Let me take some of the arguments and respond as colleagues sort this out and decide how to vote. First of all, this amendment provides that no provision of the bankruptcy bill will affect a debtor who files for bankruptcy if the court determines that the debtor filed as a result of overwhelming medical bills, unless the debtor elects to have a particular provision apply. We are really saying if the goal of this bill is to go after those that have gamed the system--again, I cite the American Bankruptcy Institute's report that, at best, that is 3 percent of the people; there are others who say 10 or 13 percent. Surely in those cases where the court determines that the debtor who files for bankruptcy has filed for bankruptcy because of a major medical bill, we would want to exempt them from the provisions of this legislation. This is somebody who is now going under because of cancer or because of a disabling injury. There, but for the grace of God, go I. These are not people gaming the system. I also pointed out earlier today--and I think it is important to give this amendment some context--it is unfortunate we are not spending more of our time trying to figure out how to legislate so we can cover the 43 or 44 million people with no insurance, or people who are underinsured, people who go under because of catastrophic expenses. Sad but true, being able to file for chapter 7 is one of the ways people can rebuild their lives. It is one of the ways people can get back on their feet when they have been knocked down by a major medical bill. Why is it necessary? The bankruptcy bill purports to target abuses of the bankruptcy code by wealthy scofflaws and deadbeats who, as I said, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute, make up about 3 percent. Yet hundreds of thousands of Americans file bankruptcy every year. They don't file bankruptcy to game the system. They file bankruptcy because of medical bills. That can happen to any of us. Unfortunately--and I went through these this afternoon--there are at least 15 provisions in S. 420 that make it harder to get a fresh start, regardless of whether the debtor is a scofflaw or a person who must file because they have been made insolvent by medical debt. In the case of those families made insolvent by medical debt, they ought to be exempt from some of the onerous provisions in this bill. Some of the provisions in the bill include but go beyond the means test. I said this to my colleague from Iowa this afternoon. An analysis in the Wall Street Journal last week said: The bill is full of hassle- creating provisions. Some reasonable, some prone to abuse by aggressive creditors trying to get paid at the expense of others. In a thicket of compromises, Congress risks losing sight of the goal, making sure that most debtors pay their bills, while offering a fresh start to those who honestly can't. My amendment makes sure we do not deny a fresh start to people who really won't be able to do that with the bill the way it is written. This amendment preserves the fresh start for those debtors who honestly can't because they are drowning in medical debt. That is what this amendment is about. Let me go through some of the arguments that were made. Is the Wellstone amendment made redundant by the means test in the bill? Absolutely not. Neither the means test nor the safe harbor in the bill applies to the vast majority of new burdens placed on debtors. I held up the whole bill. The bill is more than just the means test. The bill is this size and the means test is this size. Under S. 420, debtors will face those hurdles to filing, regardless of the circumstances. Let me give some examples of some of these hurdles. One is the prebankruptcy counseling requirements at the debtor's expense, as if medical debts can be counseled away. Why would you want to say to a family that is being put under by a medical bill, that is going through a living hell, that they have to go through credit counseling and they have to pay for it? No. 1, they wouldn't be filing for bankruptcy if they weren't at the end of their wits; they wouldn't be filing for bankruptcy if they had a lot of extra change, a lot of extra money. This presumption that they are trying to abuse the system or have been bad managers and need to go through prebankruptcy counseling requirements makes no sense at all. It makes no sense at all when families are being put under because of medical bills. There are no limits on repeat filers, regardless of personal circumstances. There are changes to existing cram-down provisions in chapter 13 making it more difficult for debtors to keep their car and new tax return filing obligations and new administrative burdens that are expected to raise the cost of filing, even in a simple case, by hundreds of dollars. The point is, if you are going to try to deal with those people who you think are deadbeats or are gaming the system, for God's sake don't do it for families who are going under because of medical bills and for whom chapter 7 gives them a chance to rebuild their lives. No. 2, does the Wellstone amendment carve out a serious loophole in the means test? No. The debtor can only get an exemption from this bill if the court finds that the debtor was forced to file because of medical debt. A debtor who has carried some medical debt but filed because he ran up a bunch of credit card bills is not going to meet the standard and he is not going to be protected by this amendment. I need to make that point again. The debtor can only get the exemption from this bill if the court finds that this family was forced to file for bankruptcy because of medical debt. Where is the burden of proof? On which side do we want to err? Don't we want to err on the side of making sure, when people have been put under because of medical circumstances, they are able to get a carve- out and go forward and file for chapter 7? No debtor can get an exemption from this bill unless the court finds that the debtor was forced to file because of medical debt. It is not enough to say, ``I had a medical bill,'' and then you see somebody who has run up all kinds of credit card bills.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am talking about my amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. No. 3, does the Wellstone amendment leave hospitals or medical centers at a disadvantage? No. The amendment doesn't make medical debt a lower priority than other debt. The point is, this doesn't change current law. With this bill, you have auto lenders, you have credit card companies, you have all sorts of people who have a claim. But this particular piece of legislation does not affect the dischargeability or nondischargeability of medical debt at all. This is the same protections that people have right now. We are not changing any current law in terms of whether hospitals are able or not able to get reimbursement. Can I give a real-world example of how the nonmeans test portion of the bill affects medical debt filing? My colleague from Delaware may want to respond to this Time magazine example about Allen Smith, a resident of Delaware, a State which has no homestead exemption. In other words, he can't shield his home from his creditors. Ironically, under this bill, wealthy scofflaws can shield multimillion-dollar mansions from their creditors with a little planning. All you have to do is, a couple of years in advance, know you are going to be in trouble. A lot of people with high incomes know that. You hire a lawyer and you are fine. But Mr. Smith doesn't get that break. As a result, when the tragic medical problems described in the Time magazine article befell his family, he could not file a chapter 7 case without losing his home. Instead, he filed a chapter 13 case, which required substantial payments in addition to his regular mortgage payments for him to save his home. Ultimately, after his wife passed away and he himself was hospitalized, he was unable to make all those payments and his chapter 13 plan failed. Had Delaware had a reasonable homestead exemption and Mr. Smith been able to simply file a chapter 7 case to eliminate his debts, he might have been able to save his home. Mr. Smith's financial deterioration was caused not by his being a spendthrift, not because he was a bad manager of his budget, not because he did anything wrong. His financial deterioration was caused by unavoidable medical problems. Before he thought about bankruptcy, he went to consumer credit card counseling to try to deal with his debt. However, it appears that he went to consumer credit card counseling just over 180 days before the case was filed and he did not receive a briefing, so the new bill would require him to go again. This would have been very difficult, considering his medical problems. In fact, his attorney made several visits to Mr. Smith and his wife, who was a double amputee. The new bill would also have required a great deal of additional time and expense for Mr. Smith and his attorney through new paperwork requirements and a requirement that he attend a credit education course. Such a course would not have done anything to help prevent the medical problems suffered by Mr. Smith and his wife. He did not get into financial trouble through his failure to manage his money. He is 73 years old and he never had any debt problems. The bill makes no exemptions for people who cannot attend the course that they are supposed to take, this counseling, due to circumstances beyond their control. So Mr. Smith might never have been able to get any relief in bankruptcy under this new bill. Do we really want to do this to people? Under the new bill, Mr. Smith also would have had to give up his television and VCR to Sears, which claimed a security interest in the items. Under the bill, he would not be permitted to retain possession of these items in chapter 7 unless he affirms the debt or retrieved the item. Sears may demand reaffirmation of the entirely $3,000 debt under the bill, and to redeem, Mr. Smith would have to pay the retail value. After his wife died and the income was gone, Mr. Smith did not have the money to pay these amounts to Sears. Since he is largely homebound, loss of the items would have been devastating. The point is, Mr. Smith's medical problems continued. Under the current law, if he again amasses medical and other debts he can't pay, he could seek refuge in chapter 13 where he would be required to pay all that he could afford. Under the new bill, Mr. Smith cannot file a chapter 13 case for 5 years. The time for filing chapter 7 has also been increased. There have been a bunch of reports about this bill. I know the proponents think they have been unfair. We all have our own definition of right and wrong here. ABC had a tough piece last night. Time magazine had a tough piece. The Wall Street Journal was tough. Business Week had a tough piece. Personally, as I said about 50 times today, every time I talk about money and the credit card industry, I have to be careful because you cannot make the assumption that because you have an industry, a powerful industry that has poured the money into doing the lobbying, it is a one-to-one correlation to people's positions. You can't do that. I refuse to do it. People can do that to anybody here on any issue. But that is not the point. Institutionally, I have to say this is, unfortunately, a classic example of an industry with a tremendous amount of financial wherewithal, with an all-out lobbying effort, which I think is probably well satisfied with this piece of legislation because, frankly, there is very little in this legislation that calls for any accountability on the part of this industry. You will have an amendment tomorrow that deals with some of the predator practices and the ways in which they push credit cards on children. But there is a whole lot in this legislation going way beyond a means test--too many provisions, too many hurdles which are too harsh--which make it really too difficult for a whole lot of ordinary people who haven't abused anybody or any system to be able to file for chapter 7. That is what I think this debate is about. Of course, the people most hurt are the people with the least amount of clout. I think if this amendment passes, it makes this a much better bill because I don't disagree with the premise. I think the legislation is way too broad. Unfortunately, I think the legislation has some very far-reaching and far-ranging serious implications in terms of how it affects people's lives. If we want to go after people gaming the system, let's do it. Why not just say when you have a family filing for bankruptcy because of medical bills that we exempt them from all of these different tests and provisions and hurdles that will make it impossible for them to rebuild their lives? That is what this amendment is about. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am trying to respond to some of what my good friend from Delaware has said. It is true that in the example I gave of Allen Smith, he is not affected by the means test. That is my point. There are 200 pages to this bill. I say to my colleague, I went over some of these provisions this afternoon that affect everyone, regardless of income, regardless of whether or not they file for chapter 13 or chapter 7.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will make a couple points, and then I will yield to get the Senator's response. My point is, why would you want to have these kinds of rules and these kinds of provisions when you have a family being put under because of medical bills? I am trying to get all my notes together, one by one. My colleague said, conceptually why not somebody who has lost their job? That could very well be an amendment that I will have on this bill. It is pretty horrible when people lose their jobs. By the way, the next thing they worry about, when they lose their job, is losing their health care coverage. You sort of assume, if somebody loses their job, they can find another job. But what if somebody has been put under because of a medical bill and they themselves are struggling with a disease or a disabling injury? It seems to me this would be the first, if you will, order of exemption. My colleague says there are sweeping changes to this amendment. That is true. This bill is also cause for sweeping changes. It depends on whether you think the changes are good, whether you think they are the right thing to do or not. That is where we disagree. Now, it is true--and this is a key point to make--that what I am doing is saying there ought to be some discretion in the system. My colleague talked about the standards. I do not mind having rigorous or even rigid standards, as long as you do not capture the wrong people. But you are capturing the wrong people. The people who pay the price, as I have tried to argue, are people who, again, as determined by the court are filing for bankruptcy because of medical expenses. I think that is about 50 percent of the cases, at least on the basis of what I have seen. Although, interestingly enough--and I do not want to have a side debate with my colleague on this--although, interestingly enough, in consumer surveys actually people cite credit card companies as the reason they file for bankruptcy before they do for medical expenses.

Mr. WELLSTONE. To my mind----

Mr. WELLSTONE. You can't have it both ways, but it can be interactive. Frankly, there are a number of variables that come into play. I think my colleague from Delaware is right when he talked about job loss. But, I say to the Senator from Delaware--I do not know if he heard my first response, which was that I absolutely understand conceptually what he was saying when he said: Why not job loss? And I said that could very well be another amendment--as awful as that is, the place to start is the medical expenses. In relation to job loss, we have this going on right now with 1,300 taconite workers. You go up there and talk to people. The next thing they are frightened of is that in 6 months they will lose their health insurance. If they worked there a little longer, they lose it after a year. And do you know what else. And I am going to try--and this one I am hoping to get support on from a lot of Senators--the other thing I am worried about, I say to Senator Biden from Delaware, is that the retirees are terrified--and ``terrified'' is the right word; and too many of them, I would argue, are dealing with cancer--that LTV, the company, is going to file for bankruptcy and they are going to walk away from their health care obligations. That is a huge concern.

Mr. WELLSTONE. But my argument would be that with the medical, it is not just the bills. I am imagining people who have been stricken with illnesses or disabling injuries. So I thought: Look, if there is any group of people--there, but for the grace of God, go I--it applies to them. Again, I am not arguing that there isn't discretion. Deliberately, we have discretion put in here. I think the rules are too rigid in this bill. I am not arguing that the means test is the issue. In fact, I said this afternoon--and I say tonight--there are a whole bunch of other provisions--I outlined 12, or 13, or 14 provisions--that I think make it difficult for people to rebuild their lives. That is the point I am making. I do not see why we can't have an exemption. I think it would make the bill a much better bill, and it would accomplish the goal you are trying to accomplish, which is to not let folks game it. But for the families I am talking about, they are not gaming it. I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield some of my time. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.