Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Democrats have introduced some of our legislation. George W. Bush is now President Bush. His administration is coming in. We will have votes on nominees. I think the important word here is civility. I also point out--not that I am opposed to civility--I think when people in the country--in Minnesota, Nebraska, and around the Nation--say they want us to be bipartisan, what they are not saying is, we don't want any debate. People expect debate on issues and they expect us to have differences that make a difference, especially in their lives. But I think what people are saying is two things: No. 1, we want to have civility, we want to see civility; and the second thing that people are saying is we want you to govern at the center. But, colleagues, they are not talking about the center that I think pundits in D.C. talk about, or too many of us talk about. I think what people are talking about is not the usual labels but, rather, we want you, Democrats and Republicans, to govern at the center of our lives. That is what people are talking about, the center of their lives. So if, in fact, we have legislation on the floor and have amendments and debate about amendments that deal with making sure people are able to have a standard of living where they can support their families and give their children the care they need and deserve, we are governing at the center of their lives. If we are talking about legislation that provides more resources to enable States and school districts to do a better job of providing the best education for all the children in this country, we are governing at the center of people's lives. If we are going to speak, as the President did with considerable eloquence, about leaving no child behind, let us make sure this is not symbolic politics. This cannot be done on a tin cup budget. If we want to leave no child behind, the best thing we can do is make a real investment in early childhood development so these children, when they come to kindergarten, are ready to learn. They are not already way behind. If we are going to talk about governing at the center of people's lives then we are going to have to talk about the health insecurity that so many Americans experience. I am not talking just about elderly people who cannot pay prescription drug bills. I am also talking about people toward the end of their lives who are worried they are going to go to a nursing home and then lose everything before they get any help. What about how people can stay at home and live in dignity as long as possible? I am talking about, not just the 42, 43, 44 million people who have no health insurance at all, but the people who are underinsured. I am talking about people who are paying more in copays and deductibles than they can afford to pay. I am also speaking about the people who right now have plans but plans that do not provide anywhere near as good coverage as we have. It would seem to me that what is good enough for Senators and Representatives should be good enough for the people we represent. If we are going to talk about jobs and decent wages, economic development and economic growth--which is critically important, whatever ways we can contribute to that--and education and affordable child care and affordable health care, then we are governing at the center of people's lives and I think there can be real bipartisanship. But I also want to point out I don't see how we do it with a $1.3 trillion tax cut over the next 10 years. I don't see how we do it if that tax cut is all the way at the level of $1.3 trillion. I certainly do not see how we do it if it is too targeted to people at the top of the income ladder. I ask my colleagues this question: How can we give all the speeches and talk about the children and talk about education and talk about health care and talk about veterans and talk about our commitment to all these issues and all these people and at the same time have no revenue? You cannot do both. Let's have some balance here. Let's have some tax cuts that are targeted at middle-income working families and let's also not rob ourselves of the capacity to make the investments in the very areas we say we care so much about. I also say to colleagues that I think Speaker Gingrich found this out: Don't assume there can be an assault on basic environmental protections and protections at the workplace, health and safety protections, and that will go without a fight. There will be a real fight on those issues. I hope we can find middle ground, but I do not believe it is a agenda that speaks to the center of people's lives because the vast majority of people in our country believe we are all strangers and guests on this land and we should make the environment better; we should leave it better. I also believe we will have a healthy debate--again with civility-- over the question of whether or not there is such a thing as a workable star wars, a workable missile defense which ultimately could cost hundreds of billions of dollars. This was, at first glance, a good idea, starting in the late 1950s. But every time we look at it and realize the ways offensive weaponry overwhelms defensive weaponry, and we consider the danger of chemical and biological warfare being brought in by suitcases, there is no evidence this is technologically feasible, much less the way this puts the arms control regime in jeopardy. So I say to my colleagues on the first day: I look forward to the debate. I look forward to passionate politics. I look forward to politics focused on peoples' lives. I look forward to civil debate, civil politics. I think we can have that. But I believe so much has changed in the country, so much is at stake, the Senate is 50-50--we can agree on some important legislation that will help people. Let's move forward. Then when we do not agree, there will be major, major debate on the floor of the Senate. For my part, I look forward to working with my Republican colleagues whenever we can and wherever we can and to be honest. With a twinkle in my eye, I just as much look forward to the debate and disagreement. As a Senator from Minnesota, I am in profound disagreement with the direction on some things I think the President is going to go forward with. But that is what the Senate is all about, to have debate, to do your best for people, and I look forward to the Senate functioning at its very best. I hope we can make amendments on the floor to legislation that should not be closed off again. We can start early in the morning, work late at night, we can do the work and then I think the Senate will be at its best as a institution and give all of us a chance to be good Senators. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Robb. He is truly one of the most honorable individuals I have ever met in my life. I thank him. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President I want to voice my strong objection to the process by which this legislation is being passed by the Senate. The Omnibus Appropriations conference report--containing numerous other pieces of unrelated legislation--is being passed by the Senate tonight under a consent agreement that was entered suddenly by the Majority Leader without the normal notification process. We should have had a recorded vote. Since I first came to the Senate 9 years ago I have felt that it does the Senate no credit to pass such significant budgetary legislation--literally hundreds of billions of dollars--without a recorded vote. We cannot be held accountable as Senators to our constituents when such bills are passed in this manner. I want to make it clear; I oppose this legislation and I would like the Record to show that I would have voted no had there been a recorded vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, responding to my friend from Iowa, the President has called Senators and for good reason: This is a piece of legislation that has very little balance. I gave the example again of LTV workers in the iron range of Minnesota which is going to shut down in February. One month later, there could be an illness in a family, a medical bill, the worker no longer has a job and cannot pay the mortgage. Under this piece of legislation, what would be the income that is calculated? Would it be the income of this family with the head of the household unemployed? No. Under this bill, in order to see whether this family could file under chapter 7, you would look over the past 6 months and average out the income all the months he or she was working. But they do not have a job. Most of the people file for chapter 7 because of a major medical bill. It is 50 percent. Only about 3 percent game this system. Now we have a piece of legislation that does not ask the credit card companies to be accountable, does not do anything about their egregious practices, targets the most vulnerable people, and has very little balance. This piece of legislation should be defeated. That is why the President is opposed to it. That is why labor, civil rights, women, children, consumer organizations, all oppose this piece of legislation. I say to my colleagues, it is too harsh. It is without balance. I know there is a powerful economic constituency behind it, but I hope you will vote against it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are now in debate on the bankruptcy bill; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield myself, from Senator Leahy's time, 30 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry, I have my own time. Mr. President, The proponents of this bill argue that people file because they want to get out of their obligations, because they're untrustworthy, because they're dishonest, because there is no stigma in filing for bankruptcy. But any look at the data tells you otherwise. We know that in the vast majority of cases it is a drastic step taken by families in desperate financial circumstances and overburdened by debt. The main income earner may have lost his or her job. There may be sudden illness or a terrible accident requiring medical care. Specifically we know that nearly half of all debtors report that high medical costs forced them into bankruptcy--this is an especially serious problem for the elderly. But when you think about it, a medical crisis can be a double financial whammy for any family. First there are the high costs associated with treatment of serious health problem. Costs that may not be fully covered by insurance, and certainly the over 30 million Americans without health insurance are especially vulnerable. But a serious accident or illness may disable--at least for a time--the primary wage earner in the household. Even if it isn't the person who draws the income, a parent may have to take significant time to care for a sick or disabled child. Or a son or daughter may need to care for an elderly parent. This means a loss in income. It means more debt and the inability to pay that debt. Are people overwhelmed with medical debt or sidelined by illness deadbeats? This bill assumes they are. For example, it would force them into credit counseling before they could file--as if a serious illness or disability is something that can be counseled away. Women single filers are now the largest group in bankruptcy, and are one third of all filers. They are also the fastest growing. Since 1981, the number of women filing alone increased by more than 700 percent. A woman single parent has a 500 percent greater likelihood of filing for bankruptcy than the population generally. Single women with children often earn far less than single men aside for the difficulties and costs of raising children alone. Divorce is also a major factor in bankruptcy. Income drops, women, again, are especially hard hit. They may not have worked prior to the divorce, and now have custody of the children. Are single women with children deadbeats? This bill assumes they are. The new nondischargeability of credit card debt will hit hard those women who use the cards to tide them over after a divorce until their income stabilizes. And the ``safe harbor'' in the conference report which proponents argue will shield low and moderate income debtors from the means test will not benefit many single mothers who need help the most because it is based on the combined income of the debtor and the debtor's spouse, even if they are separated, the spouse is not filing for bankruptcy, and the spouse is providing no support for the debtor and her children. In other words, a single mother who is being deprived of needed support from a well-off spouse is further harmed by this bill, which will deem the full income of that spouse available to pay debts for determination of whether the safe harbor and means test applies. Mr. President, you will hear my colleagues talk about high economic growth and low unemployment and wonder how so many people could be in circumstances that would require them to file for bankruptcy. Well, the rosy statistics mask what has been modest real wage growth at the same time the debt burden on many families has skyrocketed. And it also masks what has been real pain in certain industries and certain communities as the economies restructure. Even temporary job loss may be enough to overwhelm a family that carries significant loans and often the reality is that a new job may be at a lower wage level-- making a previously manageable debt burden unworkable. So what does this bill do to keep people who undergo these wrenching experiences out of bankruptcy? Nothing. Zero. Tough luck. Instead, this conference report just makes the fresh start of bankruptcy harder to achieve. But this doesn't change anyone's circumstances, this doesn't change the fact that these folks no longer earn enough to sustain their debt. Mr. President, there is not one thing in this so called bankruptcy reform bill that would promote economic security in working families. When you push the rhetoric aside, one thing becomes clear: The bankruptcy system is a critical safety net for working families in this country. It is a difficult demoralizing process, but for nearly all who decide to file, it means the difference between a financial disaster being temporary or permanent. The repercussions of tearing that safety net asunder will be tremendous, but the authors of the bill remain deaf to the chorus of protest and indignation that is beginning to swell as ordinary Americans and members of Congress begin to understand that bankrupt Americans are much like themselves--are exactly like themselves--and that they are only one layoff, one medical bill, one predatory loan away from joining the ranks. For the debtor and his family the benefit of bankruptcy--despite the embarrassment, despite the humiliation of acknowledging financial failure--is obvious, to get out from crushing debt, to be able to once again attempt to live within one's means, to concentrate one's income on clear priorities such as food, housing and transportation. But it is also the fundamental principles of a just society to ensure that financial mistakes or unexpected circumstances do not mean banishment forever from productive society. The ``fresh start'' that is under attack here in the Senate today is nothing less than a critical safety net that protects America's working families. As Sullivan Warren and Westbrook put it in ``The Fragile Middle Class'': Bankruptcy is a handhold for middle class debtors on the way down. These families have suffered economic dislocation, but the ones that file for bankruptcy have not given up. They have not uprooted their families and drifted from town to town in search of work. They have not gone to the underground economy, working for cash and saying off the books. Instead, these are middle class people fighting to stay where they are, trying to find a way to cope with their declining economic fortunes. Most have come to realize that their incomes will never be the same as they once were. As their comments show, they realize they can live on $30,000 or $20,000 or even $10,000. But they cannot do that and meet the obligations that they ran up while they were making much more. When put to a choice between paying credit card debt and mortgage debt, between dealing with a dunning notice from Sears and putting groceries on the table, they will go to the bankruptcy courts, declare themselves failures, and save their future income for their mortgage and their groceries. I say to my colleagues, there may be many different standards that different members have for bringing legislation to the floor of the United States Senate. We come from different backgrounds, we come from different states, we have different philosophies about the role of government in society. We have differing priorities. But for God's sake, there should be one principle that all of us can get behind and that is that we should do no harm here in our work in America's working families. That's what is at stake here. This is a debate about priorities. This is a debate about what side you're on. This is a debate about who you stand with. Will you stand with the big banks and the credit card companies or will you stand with working families, with seniors, with single women with children, with African Americans and hispanics. But I would say to my colleagues on the floor of the United States Senate today that this is not a debate about winners and losers. Because we all lose if we erode the middle class in this country. We all lose if we take away some of the critical underpinnings that shore up our working families. Sure, in the short run big banks and credit card companies may pad their profits, but in the long run our families will be less secure, our entrepreneurs will become more risk adverse and less entrepreneurial. How so? Well this how a Georgia Congressman described the issue in 1841: Many of those who become a victim to the reverses are among the most high-spirited and liberal-minded men of the country--men who build up your cities, sustain your benevolent institutions, open up new avenues to trade, and pour into channels before unfilled the tide of capital. This is still true today. This isn't a debate about reducing the high number of bankruptcies. No way will this legislation do that. Indeed, by rewarding the reckless lending that got us here in the first place we will see more consumers overburdened with debt. No, this is a debate about punishing failure. Whether self inflicted or uncontrolled and unexpected. This is a debate about punishing failure. And if there is one that this country has learned, punishing failure doesn't work. You need to correct mistakes, prevent abuse. But you also need to lift people up when they've stumbled, not beat them down. Of course, what the Congress is poised to do here with this bill is even worse within the context of this Congress. This is a Congress that has failed to address skyrocketing drug costs for seniors, this is a Congress that has failed to enact a Patients' Bill of Rights much less give all Americans access to affordable health care. This is a Congress that does not invest in education, that does not invest in affordable child care. This a Congress that has yet to raise the minimum wage. But instead, we declare war on America's working families with this bill. What is clear is that this bill will be a death of a thousand cuts for all debtors regardless of whether the means test applies. There are numerous provisions in the bankruptcy reform bill designed to raise the cost of bankruptcy, to delay its protection, to reduce the opportunity for a fresh start. But rather than falling the heaviest on the supposed rash of wealthy abusers of the code, they will fall hardest on low and middle income families who desperately need the safety net of bankruptcy. I want to take some time to talk about the effect this bill will have on low and middle class debtors. Remember, nearly all debtors who file for bankruptcy are not wealthy scofflaws, but rather people in desperate economic circumstances who file as a last resort to try and rebuild their finances, and, in many cases, end harassment by their creditors. And in particular I want to remind my colleagues of the May 15, 2000 issue of Time magazine whose cover story on this so-called bankruptcy reform legislation was entitled ``Soaked by Congress.'' The article, written by reporters Don Bartlett and Jim Steele, is a detailed look at the true picture of who files for bankruptcy in America. You will find it far different from the skewed version being used to justify this legislation. The article carefully documents how low and middle income families--increasingly households headed by single women--will be denied the opportunity of a ``fresh start'' if this punitive legislation is enacted. As Brady Williamson, the Chairman of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, notes in the article, the bankruptcy bill would condemn many working families to ``what essentially is a life term in debtor's prison.'' Now proponents of this legislation have tried to refute the Time magazine article. Indeed during these final days of debate you will hear the bill's supporters claim that low and moderate income debtors will be unaffected by this legislation. But colleagues, if you listen carefully to their statements you will hear that they only claim that such debtors will not be affected by the bill's means tests. Not only is that claim demonstrably false--the means test and the safe harbor have been written in a way that will capture many 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! You might ask why the Congress has chosen to come down so hard on ordinary working folk down on their luck. How is it that this bill is so skewed against their interests and in favor of big banks and credit card companies? Maybe that's because these families don't have million- dollar lobbyists representing them before Congress. They don't give hundreds of thousands of dollars in soft money to the Democratic and Republican parties. They don't spend their days hanging outside the Senate chamber waiting to bend a Member's ear. Unfortunately it looks like the industry got to us first. They may have lost a job, they may be struggling with a divorce, maybe there are unexpected medical bills. But you know what? They are busy trying to turn their lives around. And I think it is shameful that at the same time this story is unfolding for a million families across America, Congress is poised to make it harder for them to turn it around. Who do we represent? I want to take a few minutes to explain exactly what the effects of this bill will be on real life debtors--the folks profiled in the Time article. I hope the authors of the bill will come to the floor to debate on these points. There could be the opportunity for some real progress on an issue that has yet to be addressed by the bill's supporters. Specifically, I challenge them to come to the floor and explain to their colleagues how making bankruptcy relief harder and much more costly to achieve will benefit working families. Charles and Lisa 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, Ms. Trapp had to leave her job as a letter carrier about two months before the bankruptcy case was filed to manage her daughter's care. Before she left her job, the family's annual income was about $83,000, or about $6900 per month, so under the bill, close to that amount, about $6200, the average monthly income for the previous six months, would be deemed to be their current monthly income, even though their gross monthly income at the time of filing was only $4800. Based on this fictitious deemed income, the Trapps would have been presumed to be abusing the Bankruptcy Code, since their allowed expenses under the IRS guidelines and secured debt payments amounted to $5339. The difference of about $850 per month would have been deemed available to pay unsecured debts and was over the $167 per month triggering a presumption of abuse. The Trapps would have had to submit detailed documentation to rebut this presumption, trying to show that their income should be adjusted downward because of special circumstances and that there was no reasonable alternative to Ms. 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 that Ms. Trapp should not have left her job, and that the Trapps should have tried to pay their debts in chapter 13. They also would not have been protected by the safe harbor. The Trapps would have had to pay their attorney to defend such motions and if they could not have afforded the thousand dollars or more that this would have cost, their case would have been dismissed and they would have received no bankruptcy relief. If they prevailed on the motion, it is very unlikely they could recover attorney's 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 the law (a much weaker standard than the original Senate bill.) Because the means test is so vague and ambiguous, and creditor could argue that it was simply making a good faith attempt to apply the means test, which after all created a presumption of abuse. Of course, young Annelise Trapp's medical problems continue and are only getting worse. Under current law, if the Trapps again amass medical and other debts they can't pay, they could seek refuge in chapter 13 where they would be required to pay all that they could afford. Under the new bill, the Trapps could not file a chapter 13 case for five years. Even then, their payments would be determined by the IRS expense standards and they would have to stay in their plan for 5 years, rather than the 3 years required by current law. The time for filing a new chapter 7 would also be increased by the bill, from 6 years to 8 years. Not only does the majority leader want to ram through bankruptcy legislation on the State Department authorization conference report, which he has literally hijacked for that purpose, there is no question that this is a significantly worse legislation than what passed the Senate. In fact, there is no pretending that this is a bill designed to curb real abuse of the bankruptcy code. Does this bill take on wealthy debtors who file frivolous claims and shield their assets in multi million dollar mansions? No, it guts the cap on the homestead exemption adopted by the Senate. I ask my colleagues who support this bill: how can you claim that this bill is designed to crack down on wealthy scoff laws without closing the massive homestead loophole that exists in five states, and in a bill that falls so harshly on the backs of low and moderate income individuals? I wonder how my colleagues who vote for this conference report will explain this back home. How will they explain that they supported letting wealthy debtors shield their assets from creditors at the same time that voted to end the practice under current law of stopping eviction proceedings against tenants who are behind on rent who file for bankruptcy. With one hand we gut tenants rights, with the other we shield wealthy homeowners. Nor does this bill contain another amendment offered by Senator Schumer and adopted by the Senate that would prevent violators of the Fair Access to Clinic entrances Act--which protects women's health clinics--from using the bankruptcy system to walk away from their punishment. Again, I thought the sponsors of the measure wanted to crack down on people who game the system. What could be a bigger misuse of the system then to use the bankruptcy code to get out of damages imposed because you committed an act of violence against a women's health clinic? And yet the secret conferees on his bill simply walked away. They walked away from the real opportunity to prohibit an abuse that all sides recognize exist, but they also walked away from an opportunity to protect women from harassment. They walked away from the opportunity to protect women from violence. So why shouldn't people be cynical about this process? Ever since bankruptcy reform was passed by the Senate this bill has gotten less balanced, less fair, and more punitive--but only for low and moderate income debtors. So again, I would say to my colleagues, this bill is a question of our priorities. Will we stand with wealthy dead beats or will we take a stand to protect women seeking reproductive health services from harassment? But unfortunately, these were not the only areas where the shadow conferees beat a retreat from balance and fairness. You know, a lot of folks must be watching the progress of this bankruptcy bill over the course of this year with awe and envy. Can my colleagues name one other bill that the leadership has worked so hard and with such determination to move by any and all means necessary? Certainly not an increase in the minimum wage. Certainly not a meaningful prescription drug benefit for seniors, certainly not the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. On many issues, on most issues, this has been a do nothing Congress. But on so- called bankruptcy reform, the Senate and House leadership can't seem to do enough! One can only wonder what we could have accomplished for working families if the leadership had the same determination on other issues. Unfortunately those other issues did have the financial services industry behind it. And you have to give them credit--no pun intended-- over the past couple of years they have played the Congress like a violin. And what do you know, here we are trying to ram through this bankruptcy bill in the 11th hour as the 106th Congress draws to a close. In reading the consumer credit industry's propaganda one would think the story of bankruptcy in America is one of large numbers of irresponsible, high income borrowers and their conniving attorney using the law to take advantage of naive and overly trusting lenders. As it turns out, that picture of debtors is almost completely inaccurate. The number of bankruptcies has fallen steadily over the past months, charge offs (defaults on credit cards) are down and delinquencies have fallen to the lowest levels since 1995, and now all sides agree that nearly all debtors resort to bankruptcy not to game the system but rather as a desperate measure of economic survival. It also turns out that the innocence of lenders in the admittedly still high numbers of bankruptcies has also been--to be charitable-- overstated. As high cost debt, credit cards, retail charge cards, and financing plans for consumer goods have skyrocketed in recent years, so have the number of bankruptcy filings. As the consumer credit industry has begun to aggressively court the poor and the vulnerable, bankruptcies have risen. Credit card companies brazenly dangle literally billions of card offers to high debt families every year. They encourage card holders to make low payments toward their card balances, guaranteeing that a few hundred dollars in clothing or food will take years to pay off. The lengths that companies go to keep their customers in debt is ridiculous. In the interest of full disclosure--something that the industry itself isn't very good at--I would like my colleagues to be aware of what the consumer credit industry is practicing even as it preaches the sermon of responsible borrowing. After all, debt involves a borrower and a lender; poor choices or irresponsible behavior by either party can make the transaction go sour. So how responsible has the industry been? I suppose that it depends on how you look at it. On the one hand, consumer lending is terrifically profitable, with high cost credit card lending the most profitable of all (except perhaps for even higher costs credit like payday loans). So I guess by the standard of responsibility to the bottom line they have done a good job. On the other hand, if you define responsibility as promoting fiscal health among families, educating on judicious use of credit, ensuring that borrowers do not go beyond their means, then it is hard to imagine how the financial services industry could be bigger deadbeats. According the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, the amount of revolving credit outstanding--i.e. the amount of open ended credit (like credit cards) being extended--increased seven times during 1980 and 1995. And between 1993 and 1997, during the sharpest increases in the bankruptcy filings, the amount of credit card debt doubled. Doesn't sound like lenders were too concerned about the high number of bankruptcies--at least it didn't stop them from pushing high cost credit like candy. Indeed, what do credit card companies do in response to ``danger signals'' from a customer that they may be in over their head. According to ``The Fragile Middle Class'' an in depth study of who files for bankruptcy and why, the company's reaction isn't what you would think. In other words, those folks who may have come into your office this year or last year talking about how they needed protection from customers who walked away from debts, who thought Congress should mandate credit counseling--to promote responsible money management--as a requirement for seeking bankruptcy protection, who argued that reform of the bankruptcy code is needed because of decline in the stigma of bankruptcy have been pouring gasoline on the flames the whole time. Of course, in the end, if this bill passes, it's working families who get burned. But guess what? It gets even worse, because the consumer finance industry isn't just reckless in its lending habits, big name lenders all too often break or skirt the law in both marketing and collection. For example: In June of this year the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reached a settlement with Providian Financial Corporation in which Providian agreed to pay at least $300 million to its customers to compensate them for using deceptive marketing tactics. Among these were baiting customers with ``no annual fees'' but then charging an annual fee unless the customer accepted the $156 credit protection program (coverage which was itself deceptively marketed). The company also misrepresented the savings their customers would get from transferring account balances from another card. In 1999, Sears, Roebuck & Co. paid $498 million in settlement damages and $60 million in fines for illegally coercing reaffirmations-- agreements with borrowers to repay debt--from its cardholders. But apparently this is just the cost of doing business: Bankruptcy judges in California, Vermont, and New York have claimed that Sears is still up to its old strong arm tactics, but is now using legal loopholes to avoid disclosure. Now colleagues, Sears is a creditor in one third of all personal bankruptcies. And by the way, this legislation contains provisions that would have protected Sears from paying back any monies that customers were tricked into paying under these plans. This July, North American Capital Corp., a subsidiary of GE, agreed to pay a $250,000 fine to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission that the company had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by lying to and harassing customers during collections. In October 1998, the Department of Justice brought an antitrust suit against VISA and Mastercard, the two largest credit card associations, charging them with illegal collusion that reduced competition and made credit cards more expensive for borrowers. These are just a few examples, I could go on and on. At a minimum, these illegal and unscrupulous practices rob honest creditors who play by the rules of repayment. And the cost to debtors and other creditors alike are tremendous. But other practices are not illegal, merely unsavory. Let me repeat myself in case my colleagues somehow missed the blatant hypocrisy of what's going on here: The big banks and credit card companies are pushing to rig the system so that you cannot file for bankruptcy unless you perform credit counseling at the same time that they are jeopardizing the health the credit counseling industry and making it significantly more costly for debtors. That is pretty brazen, but as my colleagues will hear over and over in this debate, this isn't just an industry that wants to have it both ways, it wants to have it several different ways. Of course, these are mild abuses compared to predatory lending. Schemes such as payday loans, car title pawns, and home equity loan scams harm tens of thousands of more Americans on top of those shaken down by the mainstream creditors. Such operators often target those on the economic fringe like the working poor and the recently bankrupt. They even claim to be performing a public service: providing loans to the uncreditworthy. It just also happens to be obscenely profitable to overwhelm vulnerable borrowers with debt at usurious rates of interest. Hey, who said good deeds don't get rewarded? Reading this conference report makes it clear who has the clout in Washington. There is not one provision in this bill that holds the consumer credit industry truly responsible for their lending habits. My colleagues talk about the message they want to send to deadbeat debtors, that bankruptcy will no longer be a ``free ride'' to a clean slate. Well what message does this bill send to the banks, and the credit card companies? The message is clear: make risky loans, discourage savings, promote excess, and Congress will bail you out by letting you be more coercive in your collections, by putting barriers in between your customers and bankruptcy relief, and by ensuring that the debtor will emerge from bankruptcy with his vassalage to you intact. This is in stark contrast to the numerous punitive provisions of the bill aimed at borrowers. The record is clear: lenders routinely discourage healthy borrowing practices, encourage excessive indebtedness and impose barriers to paying of debt all in the name of padding their profits. It would be a bitter irony if Congress were to reward big banks, credit card companies, retailers and other lenders for their bad behavior, but that exactly what passage of bankruptcy reform legislation would do. I would characterize the debate like this and make it very simple for my colleagues. This is fundamentally a referendum on Congress' priorities and you simply need to ask yourself: whose side am I on? Am I on the side of the working families who need a financial fresh start because they are overburdened with debt? Am I for preserving this critical safety net for the middle class? Will I stand with the civil rights community, and religious community, and the women's community, and consumer groups and the labor unions who fight for ordinary Americans and who oppose this bill? Or will you stand with the credit card companies, and the big banks, and the auto lenders who desperately want this bill to pad their profits? I hope the choice will be clear to colleagues. Let me say a few words about the process on this legislation, which is terrible. The House and Senate Republicans have taken a secretly negotiated bankruptcy bill and stuffed it into the State Department authorization bill in which not one provision of the original bill remains. Of course, State Department authorization is the last of many targets. The majority leader has talked about doing this on an appropriations bill, on a crop insurance bill, on the electronic signatures bill, on the Violence Against Women Act. So disparate are we to serve the big banks and credit card companies that no bill has been safe from this controversial baggage. We are again making a mockery of scope of conference. We are abdicating our right to amend legislation. We are abdicating our right to debate legislation. And for what? Expediency. Convenience. However, I am not sure that we have ever been so brazen in the past. Yes we have combined unrelated, extraneous measures into conference reports. Usually because the majority wishes to pass one bill using the popularity of another. Putting it into a conference report makes it privileged. Putting into a conference report makes it unamenable. So they piggy back legislation. Fine. But this may be the first time in the Senate's history where the majority has hollowed out a piece of legislation in conference--left nothing behind but the bill number--and inserted a completely unrelated measure. I challenge my colleagues to walk into any high school civics class room in America and explain this process. Explain this new way that a bill becomes law. What the majority has essentially done is started down the road toward a virtual tricameral legislature--House, Senate, and conference committee. But at least the House and the Senate have the power under the constitution to amend legislation passed by the other house--measures adopted by the all-powerful conference committee are not amendable. Is bankruptcy reform so important that we should weaken the integrity of the Senate itself? It is not. I question whether any legislation is that important, but to make such a blatant mockery of the legislative process on a bill that is going to be vetoed anyway? That is effectively dead? Just to make a political point? What have we come to? This is a game to the majority. The game is how to move legislation through the Senate with as little interference as possible from actual Senators. I remind my colleagues of what Senator Kennedy said 4 years ago when the Senate voted to gut rule XXVIII, the Senate rule limiting the scope of conference which we are violating with this conference report. Speaking very prophetically he said: The rule that a conference committee cannot include extraneous matter is central to the way that the Senate conducts its business. When we send a bill to conference we do so knowing that the conference committee's work is likely to become law. Conference reports are privileged. Motions to proceed to them cannot be debated, and such reports cannot be amended. So conference committees are already very powerful. But if conference committees are permitted to add completely extraneous matters in conference, that is, if the point of order against such conduct becomes a dead letter, conferees will acquire unprecedented power. They will acquire the power to legislate in a privileged, unreviewable fashion on virtually any subject. They will be able to completely bypass the deliberative process of the Senate. Mr. President, this is a highly dangerous situation. It will make all of us less willing to send bills to conference and leave all of us vulnerable to passage of controversial, extraneous legislation any time a bill goes to conference. I hope the Senate will not go down this road. Today the narrow issue is the status of one corporation under the labor laws. But tomorrow the issue might be civil rights, States' rights, health care, education, or anything else. It might be a matter much more sweeping than the labor law issue that is before us today. He was absolutely right. We are headed down that slippery slope he described. For the last three years we have handled appropriations in this manner. We have combined bills, the text is written by a small group of Senators and Congressmen and these bills have been presented to the Senate as an up or down proposition. And now we're doing it with so-called bankruptcy reform. Conference reports are privileged. It is very difficult for a minority in the Senate to stop a conference report as they can with other legislation. That is why these conference reports are being used in this way, and that is why the rules are supposed to restrict their scope. Last year, Senator Daschle attempted to reinstate rule 28 on the Senate floor. He was voted down, and he spoke specifically about how we have corrupted the legislative process in the Senate: I wish this had been a one time event. Unfortunately, it happens over and over and over. It is a complete emasculation of the process that the Founding Fathers had set up. It has nothing to do with the legislative process. If you were to write a book on how a bill becomes a law, you would need several volumes. In fact, if the consequences were not so profound, some could say that you would need a comic book because it is hilarious to look at the lengths we have gone to thwart and undermine and, in an extraordinary way, destroy a process that has worked so well for 220 years. So where does it stop? As long as the majority want to avoid debate, as long as the majority wants to avoid amendments and as long as Senators will go along to get along we will find ourselves forced to cast up or down votes on legislation--a rubber stamp yes or no--with no ability to actually legislate. Each Senator who today votes for this conference report should know they may find themselves in the majority today, they may be OK with letting this bill go because they are not offended by what it contains, but be forewarned, the day will come when you will be on the other side of this tactic. Today it is bankruptcy reform, but someday you will be the one protesting the inclusion of a provision that you believe is outrageous. Regardless of the merits of bankruptcy reform, this is a terrible process. I would urge my colleagues to vote no to send a message to the leadership. Send a message that you want your rights as Senators back. Finally, I end on this note. I think many in this body believe that a society is judged by its treatment of its most vulnerable members. By that standard, this is an exceptionally rough bill in what has been a very rough Congress. All the consumer groups oppose this bill, 31 organizations devoted to women and children's issues oppose this legislation. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a bad bill. It punishes the vulnerable and rewards the big banks and credit card companies for their own poor practices. And this legislation has only gotten worse in the sham conference. Earlier, I used the word ``injustice'' to describe this bill--and that is exactly right. It will be a bitter irony if creditors are able to use a crisis--largely of their own making--to convince Congress to decrease borrower's access to bankruptcy relief. I hope my colleagues reject this scheme and reject this bill. Mr. President, I will not repeat what I said yesterday at the beginning of this debate. I will respond to some comments that were made on the floor dealing with chapter 12. Some of my colleagues have talked about chapter 12 farmers' bankruptcy relief, and they have made the argument that opposition to this bankruptcy bill has really held up chapter 12, which is very important for protection of family farmers. I point out to colleagues that it is precisely the opposite case. A year ago when it first became clear that this bankruptcy bill, for very good reasons, was not going to move forward, under the able leadership of Senators and Representatives--Senators such as Senator Grassley--legislation was introduced and passed which extended chapter 12 bankruptcy protection for farmers. Within about 20 days, it was signed by the White House and passed. No problem. This past summer, in June, the House passed an extension, but for some reason the majority leader took no action over here. Then in October, the House passed a 1-year extension for chapter 12 for family farmers. Again, the majority leader took no action over here. This can pass within 24 hours. What we have here is a bit of a game going on where chapter 12 becomes held hostage to a bankruptcy bill with many harsh features which will be vetoed by the President and, in my view, either the veto will be sustained or we will not be here and it will be pocket vetoed and it will not become law and should not become law. But let me be clear. Chapter 12, the bankruptcy relief for family farmers, can be passed separately within a day or two. It is not a problem. So no one from any ag State should believe that somehow you have to vote for a harsh piece of legislation, that targets the most vulnerable citizens, that is completely one sided, that calls for no accountability from credit card companies or larger banks, in order to get bankruptcy relief for family farmers. It is just simply not true. The proponents of this bill have argued--they have been pretty explicit about this--that often the people who are filing for chapter 7 do so because they want to get out of their obligations, because they are untrustworthy, because they are dishonest, and because they sort of feel no stigma in filing for bankruptcy. I would, one more time, like to point out on the floor of the Senate that about 50 percent of the people who file for chapter 7 do so because of major medical bills that have put them under. Quite often, it becomes a double whammy: Either you not only are faced with a major medical bill that puts your family under--we have not done anything to help our families afford health care--or, which is the double whammy, you cannot work because you are the one who is ill, in which case you lose your income, or it can be a loved one who is faced with a serious illness or disabling injury and you are the one who takes care of them, in which case, again, you can lose your job and your income. So I do not really think we ought to be viewing families who file chapter 7 because of major medical bills as dishonest or untrustworthy. Now the largest single group of those citizens who file for bankruptcy are women. They are one-third of all the filers. They are the fastest growing group. Since 1981, the number of women filing alone increased by more than 700 percent. It is not so surprising that single parents--women with children--are among the largest or disproportionate number of people who file for bankruptcy. Because, in addition to medical costs, divorce is a major factor in bankruptcy--income drops--women again are especially hard hit. Many of them have not worked prior to divorce, and now they have custody of the children and find themselves in very difficult financial circumstances. Are single women with children deadbeats? All too much of this bill assumes they are. The new nondischargeability of credit card debt will hit hard those women who use the cards to tide them over after divorce until their income stabilizes. The safe harbor in the conference report, which proponents argue will shield low- and moderate-income debtors from the means test, will not benefit many single mothers who need the help the most because it is based upon the combined income of the debtor and the debtor's spouse, even if they are separated. The spouse is not filing for bankruptcy, and the spouse is providing no support for the debtor or children, but that spouse's income is considered. This piece of legislation does not provide a whole lot of help to many hard-pressed single parents, most of whom are women. I have heard some of my colleagues out here on the floor talking about economic growth, low unemployment, saying: Given this economic performance, how can you have people filing for bankruptcy? Surely, it must be, again, that these are people who feel no stigma. You know what. This rosy picture masks the fact that there is real pain in certain industries, and there are certain communities and certain families under siege. This is a news release from the LTV Corporation, Hoyt Lakes, MN, which had previously announced on May 24, 2000, its intention to close the local mining operation. They were going to close at the end of the summer. Now they have said, in this release, that they are going to cease permanently on February 24, 2001. This is some holiday gift from this company to--I don't know--1,300 or 1,400 miners. These miners and their families wonder what is going to happen to them. These are the kinds of families who all too often find themselves in these difficult economic circumstances, even with this booming economy, and quite often have to file for chapter 7. Are we going to make the argument that these families are without a sense of responsibility? Are we going to make the argument that these families are loafers and they feel no stigma? What does this piece of legislation do to help keep people from having to undergo these wrenching experiences that force them into bankruptcy? Nothing. Zero. Tough luck. The only thing this piece of legislation does is make it harder for people to file bankruptcy, to file chapter 7, to rebuild their lives. We do not do anything to help on health care costs. We do not do anything in terms of dealing with the unfair dumping of steel with a fair trade policy. We do not do anything in terms of passing an Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We do not do anything on affordable housing. We do not raise the minimum wage. We do not do anything to make these families more economically secure. But instead, what we do is we make it difficult for people to rebuild their lives. This is sham reform. When you push the rhetoric aside, one thing becomes clear: The bankruptcy system is a critical safety net for many middle-class, working-class, low-income families. It is a difficult, demoralizing process, but it is a critical safety net for families. And we are tearing up that safety net. I say to my colleagues, there may be many different standards that different Members have when they bring legislation to the floor of the Senate. We come from different backgrounds. We come from different States. We have different philosophies about the role of Government in society. We have different priorities. But, for God's sake, there should be one principle that all of us can get behind, and that is that we should do no harm to the most vulnerable people and most vulnerable families in this country. I believe strongly--and I have argued yesterday and today--that that is exactly what we are doing. That is what is at stake here. This is a debate about priorities. This is a debate about what side you are on. This is a debate about with whom you stand. Will you stand with the big banks and credit card companies or will you stand with hard-pressed families, with seniors, with single women with children, with African Americans, with Hispanics, with people of color, with consumers? What the Congress is poised to do here with this bill is worse within the context of this Congress because this is a Congress that has failed to address skyrocketing drug costs for seniors; this is a Congress that has failed to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights; this is a Congress that has failed to make sure that Americans have access to affordable health care; this is a Congress that has failed to invest in education; this is a Congress that has failed to invest in affordable child care; this is a Congress that has failed to raise the minimum wage. But instead, with this bill we declare war on working families. What is clear is that this piece of legislation will be a death of a thousand cuts for all debtors regardless of whether the means test applies. There are numerous provisions in the bankruptcy reform bill designed to raise the cost of bankruptcy, to delay its protection, to reduce the opportunity for a fresh start. But rather than falling heaviest on the supposed rash of wealthy abusers of the Code, they will fall hardest on low- and middle-income families who desperately need this safety net of bankruptcy. I commend to my colleagues, but I will not take a lot of time on it, the May 15, 2000, issue of Time magazine whose cover story on so-called bankruptcy reform legislation was entitled ``Soaked by Congress.'' I hope they will read it. I will quote from Brady Williamson, Chairman of the National Bankruptcy Commission. Please remember, 116 law professors in this country who teach bankruptcy law, who do their scholarship in this area, have said this bill is harsh and one-sided, without balance, and should not pass. Brady Williamson, Chairman of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, notes in the article from Time magazine: The bankruptcy bill would condemn many working families to ``what essentially is a life term in debtors' prison. I will talk a little bit about this piece of legislation in relation to what the Senate passed before. Not only does the majority leader want to ram through bankruptcy legislation on the State Department authorization conference report, which he has literally hijacked for this purpose, there is no question that this is a significantly worse piece of legislation--I heard colleagues yesterday say ``better''--than passed by the Senate. Does this piece of legislation take on wealthy debtors who file frivolous claims and shield their assets in multimillion-dollar mansions? No. It guts the cap on the homestead exemption which was adopted by the Senate. It was taken out in conference. I ask my colleagues who support this bill, how can you claim that this bill is designed to crack down on wealthy scoff laws without closing the massive homestead loophole that exists in five States? And in a bill that falls so harshly on the backs of low- and moderate- income individuals, you have a huge exemption for people who can go buy million-dollar plus mansions. How do you explain that back home? How will you explain that you supported letting wealthy debtors shield their assets from creditors at the same time you voted to end the practice under current law of stopping eviction proceedings against tenants who were behind on rent and who filed for bankruptcy? Poor tenants are evicted. Wealthy people can shield their assets and go buy multimillion-dollar homes. On the one hand, we gut tenants' rights, while on the other hand we shield wealthy homeowners. That is what this piece of legislation is about. Nor does this bill contain another amendment offered by Senator Schumer and adopted by the Senate that would prevent violators of the Fair Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which protects women's health clinics, from using the bankruptcy system to walk away from their punishment. Some folks are watching the progress of this bill and they are watching the way this bill has developed over the last year with a considerable amount of awe and envy. Can my colleagues name one other bill on which the leadership has worked so hard and with such determination to move by any and all means necessary? Certainly not an increase in the minimum wage; that is not a priority. Certainly not a meaningful prescription drug benefit for seniors; that is not a priority. Certainly not reauthorization of the Elementary Secondary Education Act. On many issues, on most issues, there has been nothing done in this do-nothing Congress. But on the so-called bankruptcy reform, the Senate and House leadership can't seem to get enough. One can only wonder what we could have accomplished for working families if the leadership had the same determination on these other issues. Unfortunately, those other issues did not have the financial services industry behind them. You have to give them credit, no pun intended. Over the past couple of years, the financial services industry has played this Congress like a violin. And what do you know, we are trying to ram through this bankruptcy bill in the 11th hour as the 106th Congress comes to a close. In reading the consumer credit industry's propaganda, you would think the story of bankruptcy in America is one of large numbers of irresponsible, high-income borrowers and their conniving attorneys using the law to take advantage of naive and overly trusting lenders. As it turns out, that picture of the debtors is almost completely inaccurate. The number of bankruptcies has fallen steadily over the past several months. It turns out that the people about whom we are talking are vulnerable citizens. The major reason is major medical costs. I have made that argument. As high-cost debt, credit cards, retail charge cards and financing plans for consumer goods have skyrocketed in recent years, so have the number of bankruptcy filings. As the consumer credit industry has begun to aggressively court the poor and the vulnerable, bankruptcies have risen. Credit card companies brazenly dangle literally billions of credit card offers to high-debt families every year. There is no accountability for them. They encourage credit card holders to make low payments toward the card balances, guaranteeing that a few $100 in clothing or food will take years to pay off. The lengths these companies go to keep their consumers in debt is ridiculous. So in the interest of full disclosure, something that the industry itself is not very good at, I would like my colleagues to be aware of what the credit card industry is practicing even as it preaches the sermon of responsible borrowing. After all, debt involves a borrower and a lender. Poor choice, irresponsible behavior by either party can make the transaction go sour. So how responsible has the industry been? It depends upon how you look at it. On the one hand, consumer lending is terrifically profitable, with high-cost credit card lending the most profitable of all, except for perhaps even higher cost credit such as payday loans. So I guess by the standard of responsibility to the bottom line, this industry is doing great. On the other hand, if you define responsibility as promoting fiscal health among families, educating on judicious use of credit, ensuring that borrowers do not go beyond their means, then it is hard to imagine how the financial services industry could be bigger deadbeats. From studies from the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, some of the settlements that have been reached with Providian Financial Corporation, Sears & Roebuck, American Capital Corporation, a subsidiary of GE, the Department of Justice brought an antitrust suit against Visa and Mastercard. We have example after example after example of abuses by this industry but not one word in this piece of legislation that calls for any accountability. In case my colleagues miss the blatant hypocrisy of what is going on here, the big banks and credit card companies are pushing to rig the system so you cannot file for bankruptcy unless you perform credit counseling, at the same time that they are jeopardizing the health of the credit counseling industry by pumping credit cards, by themselves abusing the system, and hardly making it easier for people, only making it more difficult. To make it simple for my colleagues, this debate is fundamentally a referendum on Congress's priorities. You simply need to ask yourself again: Whose side am I on? Are you on the side of working families who need a financially fresh start because they are overburdened with debt? Fifty percent of bankruptcies are because of major medical bills. Are you for preserving this critical safety net for the middle class? Will you stand with the civil rights community and the religious community and the women's community and consumer groups and labor unions who fight for ordinary Americans who oppose this bill or will you stand with the credit card companies and the big banks and the auto lenders who desperately want this bill to pad their profits? I hope there is a clear choice for Senators. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. My understanding is that the bill passed with the Schumer provision in it, and it also dealt with the homestead exemption. That is a different bill from the one we are considering right now. Am I not correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, let me say I like my colleague from Iowa so much that I will let his comment about the Clinton recession pass and not respond to that. I also want to make it clear that my use of the word ``hypocrisy'' of course was not aimed at any Senator and certainly not the Senator from Iowa, who I actually really love working with even though we don't agree on all policies. I have to say one more time that there is a lot of hypocrisy in a piece of legislation that on the one hand goes after this percentage and on the other hand in conference committee knocks out an amendment, so that now we have millionaires in a position to be able to shield their money and go buy multimillion-dollar homes in other States. If that is not hypocrisy, I don't know what is. If that doesn't tell you about how lopsided a piece of legislation this is, I don't know what does. I also think it is more than just a little hypocritical to have a piece of legislation that in the main targets the most vulnerable citizens--I have made that point over and over again--with study after study saying that the highest percentage would be 12 percent, probably 3 percent of the people at most ``gaming'' this. People who file for chapter 7 do so because they are in difficult circumstances. Major medical illness puts them under, a divorce, loss of job. But at the same time that we are now going to make it virtually impossible for many families who find themselves in difficult economic circumstances to rebuild their lives, we don't have one word to say by way of demanding some accountability for these credit card companies that push this debt on to people, that send these cards to our kids, that do all the solicitation, that charge exorbitant interest rates, that are reckless in their lending policies. Not a word. Not a word. Could it be these are the people with more clout in the Congress? I fear that is part of the problem. I say to my colleague from Iowa and other Senators, it is simply not the case that most of the people who file for bankruptcy are gaming the system. Let me give a case study which goes to why this bill is so profoundly wrong. LTV is going to shut down. Miners up on the Iron Range are going to be without a job. I know the way this bill works. It is an honest disagreement, but it is a wrong disagreement. If one of these families 2 months from now has a major illness--now they are going to have trouble paying their mortgage--do you know what this bill does? This bill doesn't figure their income in February, after they have been laid off. This bill figures their average income over the prior 6 months, during all the times they were gainfully employed. That is not going to work for these miners, that is not going to work for these hard-pressed working families, and you had better believe I am going to be out here on the Senate floor raising Cain in behalf of these Minnesotans. Finally, let me one more time, before my colleague from Vermont takes the floor, remind all Senators, but especially Democrats: This is the majority leader, I believe, who has made a mockery of the legislative process. We have taken a State Department embassy bill and gutted it. There is not a word left; there is only a number. Instead, you had a bankruptcy bill put in, completely unrelated--never mind rule XXVIII-- without the deliberation, without the debate, without the ability offer an amendment. This is not the way we legislate. This is the Senate at its very worst. There may be a different majority 2 years from now. We can do the same thing to the minority. Frankly, it should not be done by anyone. I certainly hope Democrats will vote against this. The minority leader yesterday said he is going to vote against this bill because, he said, it does not meet the standard of fairness. And it does not--not on substance and not on process, not on the basic standard of what the Senate should be about. I hope Senators will vote against this piece of legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. My colleague is correct. That is right. Though there is not a word about that. There is nothing left except for the bill number.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Vermont that argument has not been made. So far, that argument has not been made.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Illinois.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will speak on the bankruptcy bill in a moment. But in the time I have in morning business, I will speak on another matter. I do not have any statistics with me, but maybe that is better; I can talk about it in more personal or human terms. In 1997, we passed the Balanced Budget Act with much acclaim. To be very bipartisan about this, President Clinton was very much for it. I think many Democrats and Republicans voted for it. But what has happened is--with the benefit of some time for observation and, hopefully, reflection--the cuts in Medicare have been draconian and have had a very harsh effect on health care, the quality of health care in our States, for Minnesota, Rhode Island, and all across the country. It does not do any good to look back and affix blame. The point is, last year we said we were going to fix this problem. I think Senators-- Democrats and Republicans alike--have heard from people back in their States. In my State of Minnesota, here is the effect of this. First of all, in our rural communities, in what we call greater Minnesota outside the metro area, in the absence of getting some decent Medicare reimbursement, where you have a disproportionate number of elderly people living who are dependent on health care, the cost of providing that health care runs ahead of the reimbursement. The hospitals are losing money. Here is the problem. This is not the case of greedy hospitals or greedy doctors. As a matter of fact, they have a very low profit margin. In fact, many hospitals have gone under over the last several years. When the hospital is no longer there, that is the beginning of the death of a community because people do not raise their children in communities unless there are good schools and good hospitals and good health care. So we are in a real crisis, which should be spelled in capital letters, in the State of Minnesota, where many of our rural health care providers will go under unless we fix this problem, which is a problem we created. The same thing can be said for nursing homes, where there is inadequate reimbursement. The same thing can be said for home health care providers. The same thing can be said for medical education, which is financed, believe it or not, in part out of Medicare. The cuts in the reimbursement have led to a very serious situation in all of our States--certainly in Minnesota. Then there are those hospitals--Hennepin County Medical Center is a perfect example; it is a very good public hospital; there are not a lot of them left--that, in fact, provide medical care to a disproportionate number of poor people in America. These hospitals are really having a difficult time making it. They are not going to continue to be financially solvent because we have so cut the reimbursement that they do not have the financial stability. We never should have done this, but we did. Then last year, we passed a piece of legislation. I feel kind of guilty about this. I didn't think it 100-percent fixed the problem, but I thought it did more than it did. So I went back to meet with people. We all go back to our States. We should. We meet with people in communities. We want to do well for people. I said: Listen, I think this is going to really help. To the best of my ability, I talked about what this package was. But as it turns out, it, at best, I think, dealt with about 10 percent of the cuts, somewhere in that neighborhood. We should not leave here--I want to go home, believe me. I want to go home. I would love to be back home. I would love not to be here right now, although I am always happy to be in the Senate. It is an honor. But you know what I am saying. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 more minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If we just put everything off and have a continuing resolution until next year and we do not fix this problem, it will be irresponsible. There is one proposal--that tends to be the Republican proposal, as I understand it--that gives a lot more of the money over the next 5 years to managed care plans without any requirement that they be accountable and that they serve senior citizens and serve people who live in rural communities, which they do not do now. Too many managed care plans have cut loose people they are supposed to be helping, and that is not the answer. We have a package--I believe it is a Democratic package; it can be Democratic, Republican, anybody's package for all I care; I just want to get it done--which is $40 billion over the next 5 years, which does put the emphasis on getting the resources back to our rural health care providers and home health care providers and nursing homes and public hospitals and medical education, all of which is essential to whether or not we are going to be able to provide people with humane, dignified, and quality health care. This is an important family issue. This is an important people issue. This is an important Minnesota issue. This is an important national security issue. We ought to get the job done before we leave. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we now have concluded with morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have up to an hour. I don't know that I will take all that time. I might take about a half an hour now. If other Senators come down to the floor, then I certainly would yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time for tomorrow. We are at the final days of the 106th Congress, I hope. Maybe we are not. Maybe we are going to be here until Hanukkah or Christmas. I think we are in the final days. It is bitterly ironic to me that once again we are dealing with this bankruptcy ``reform'' bill. Chapter 7 bankruptcy is a major safety net program so that if you find yourself in horrible financial circumstances, crisis financial circumstances, you can file chapter 7 and rebuild your life. About 50 percent of the people who do that do it because of a medical bill that puts them under or they lose their job or have such a tight budget. We don't have that kind of tight budget. We make a very high salary. But a lot of people don't. So if every month you have to scratch and claw to make ends meet, and your car breaks down or, Lord, your child has some kind of an infection and you get antibiotics that can cost $80-$90, you can find yourself in a tough situation. It is major medical bills that are the principal reason. At the end of the 106th Congress, a do-nothing Congress, are we doing anything during this lame duck session to deal with economic security for families? No. Are we considering any kind of health care legislation that would make health care coverage more affordable for people? No. Are we passing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which focuses on that issue about which I heard so much in the Presidential campaign; namely, education, making sure that there is good, high-quality education for every child? No. Have we raised the minimum wage yet? No. Have we done anything to deal with catastrophic medical expenses, if you should be aged, older, and wind up in a nursing home, or you need somebody to help you stay at home so you don't have to be in a nursing home? No. What do we have before us instead? We have something before us in this lame duck session--the majority leader came out yesterday and called for another cloture vote--that is 100 percent representative of the 106th Congress; that is to say, it will do nothing. It is will do nothing because it is going to come to nothing. And it is going to come to nothing because the President is going to veto it. In all likelihood, we won't be here anyway. It will end up being a pocket veto. If we are here, I am convinced we would get the 34 votes to sustain the veto. But that is now how we are spending our time. This is a do-nothing effort for, unfortunately, a worse than do- nothing bill because it will do harm to people which will amount to nothing in a do-nothing Congress. There is a symmetry to this. I observed one thing from the beginning about this bill. It is hemorrhaging support. There was a time when there was a stampede for ``bankruptcy reform,'' but now what has happened is, at least on our side, the majority of Democrats are opposed to this bill. Every single civil rights organization, labor organization, women's organization, children's organization, and consumer organization opposes it. I didn't say the credit card companies oppose it or the big financial institutions. I think we will get a solid vote on Thursday, and it will pass. But we will be close to the number of votes that we need to sustain a Presidential veto. I thank President Clinton for being so strong on this. In any case, in all likelihood we will be gone. I don't even know what this exercise is about. We can do better in the 107th Congress. We can have a piece of legislation that is balanced. We can have bankruptcy reform. We can make sure the scope of this legislation deals directly with those people who abuse this system, a very small percentage, and we can also call upon the credit card companies to be accountable. Instead we have this out here, which is going to go nowhere. I rise to talk a little bit about how awful this piece of legislation is. Supporters have cited the high number of bankruptcy filings in recent years as the reason to move forward on what they call ``reform.'' But there has been a dramatic drop in the last 2 years in the number of bankruptcies. That is about the period of time we have held up this piece of legislation. In the months since the Senate passed bankruptcy reform, any pretense that this legislation is needed has evaporated. The number of bankruptcies has fallen steadily over the past year. Charge-offs and credit card debt are down significantly, and delinquencies have fallen to the lowest level since 1995. The proponents and opponents agree that nearly all the debtors who resort to bankruptcy do not game the system but do it out of desperate financial circumstances, and that only a tiny minority of chapter 7 filers, as few as 3 percent, could afford repayment. Where is the crisis? We are trying to address yesterday's headline. But as I have already stated, there really should not be any wonder. The credit card industry wants this legislation. They want to be able to protect the risky investments they have made. They want to be able to pump their credit cards out to our children--everybody has had that experience--and they want the Senate to do their bidding. Bankruptcy ``reform'' has been nothing more than a filler on the Senate calendar. It is a place holder while we wait for some appropriations bill, some agreement. That is what this proceeding is about. Guess what. That is where all the attention is focused. The calendar may say that bankruptcy is on the agenda, but I can tell you--and my colleagues know this is true--it is not bankruptcy ``reform'' that is on the minds of our colleagues. Instead, we are all obsessing over negotiations in maybe a smoke-filled room--or maybe it is not smoke filled--with very few of us who are party to it. That is why right now there is little attention given to this legislation. That is another awful thing. We don't get our work done, we don't get these bills out here, and it winds up with a few people negotiating and the rest of us waiting around like potted plants. None of us worked hard to get here for this kind of process. I will tell you something else. None of us worked hard to get here for a process where the majority leader can take a piece of legislation--the State Department embassy bill--and completely gut it, where the only thing left is the number, and put a bankruptcy bill in it and bring it over here under the conference committee rules. That makes a mockery of the legislative process--a mockery. I will tell you something else. I will try to say it with a twinkle in my eye because it never does any good to get bitter. But even from my own caucuses I sometimes don't understand the votes of some Democrats on this, because we have discussions in our caucus, and the one thing we feel strongly about--and I hope Republicans feel just as strongly about this--is that we have to change our modus operandi. We cannot continue to do things outside the scope of conference and put everything into conference committee. We have to have bills out here, we have to have amendments, and we have to have debate. We have to have a vital institution again where Senators can become good Senators--not wait around for a year and a half where you can hardly do anything. We have had that discussion in our caucus, and then some Democrats come out and vote for this turkey. I don't understand why. It is such an affront to what should be the legislative process and the way this institution works. I wish to begin by laying out my reasons for opposing this measure, and I hope today we will have a thorough discussion. I know a number of Senators are going to be speaking in opposition. I am sure some colleagues and friends, such as Senator Grassley, will be out here to speak for it, or Senator Biden. Reasons for opposing the conference report: The legislation, No. 1, rests on faulty premises. The bill addresses a crisis that doesn't exist. Increased filings are being used as an excuse to harshly restrict bankruptcy protection, but the filings have abruptly fallen in the last 2 years. Additionally, the bill is based on the myth that the stigma of bankruptcy has declined. There is not a shred of evidence for that. In fact, that is part of the reason that 116 law professors who teach bankruptcy law in the country have said this bill is a mistake, and they point out that it is hardly the case that people just abuse it and feel no stigma. No. 2, abusive filers are not the majority; they are a tiny minority. Let's write a good bill that goes after them. But let's not have some sweeping bill that turns the clock back and basically removes a major safety net not just for low-income families but middle-income families. Bill proponents cite the need to curb ``abusive'' filings as the reason to harshly restrict bankruptcy protection. But the American Bankruptcy Institute found that only 3 percent of chapter 7 filers could have paid back more of their debt. Even the bill's supporters acknowledge that the highest percentage you could get would be 10 to 13 percent. No. 3, the conference report falls heaviest on the most vulnerable. The harsh restrictions in this bill will make bankruptcy less protective, more complicated and expensive to file, and this will make it much harder for low- and moderate-income people to effectively file and get any protection. Unfortunately, the means test and safe harbor will not shield any debtor from the majority of these harsh provisions and have been written in such a way that they will capture many debtors who truly have no ability to pay off significant debt. They won't make it with chapter 13. The only way they will have a chance to rebuild their lives is to be able to file chapter 7. They won't be able to do it under this legislation. No. 4, 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'' which is provided by bankruptcy protection. This bill will make it much harder for them to get out from under the burden of crushing debt. Colleagues, this is a very harsh piece of legislation that is going to most dramatically hurt the most vulnerable people in this country-- women and children, working income, low- and moderate-income families put under. About 50 percent of the bankruptcy cases are because of a major medical bill. Now, I have no doubt that the credit card industry has pumped unbelievable amounts of money into getting this passed. They are everywhere. This is a pretty one-sided debate because the people who get the protection are the people without the money. They are not the big contributors. They are not the heavy hitters. They are not the well connected. They are not the players. But why don't we get it right and pass a decent bill, not one that hurts those people who are most vulnerable? No. 5, the banking and credit card industry--is anybody surprised?-- gets a free ride. 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 standards. Lenders can pump those credit cards and they can be involved in all the reckless lending--and I will have more to say about that later--and now we bail them out. This is a bailout for the big credit card companies and the big lenders. No. 6, this legislation may cause increased bankruptcies and defaults. Another bitter irony. 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 in bankruptcy filings began immediately after the last major ``pro-creditor reforms'' were passed by the Congress in 1984. You make it easy for them to do this, to be involved in reckless lending, and they know they will be able to collect. They know people won't be able to file chapter 7, and this will lead to more reckless lending and more bankruptcy. No. 7, this conference report is worse than the Senate bill. I opposed the Senate bill. However, even that flawed legislation was far superior to this conference report. The sham bankruptcy ``conference'' report has taken big steps backward when it comes to balancing fairness. No. 8, again, I am going to emphasize this over and over again to Democrats and Republicans because we are 50-50; or, we may be 50-50. We may be 51-49. But we could be the majority someday. We could very well be the majority someday. This conference report mocks the legislative process. This is a larger issue than bankruptcy reform. It is a question of the fundamental integrity of the Senate as a legislative body. Not one provision in the original State Department authorization bill--aside from the bill number itself--remains a part of this legislation. To replace in totality a piece of legislation with a wholly new and unrelated bill in conference takes the Congress one step forward to a virtual tricameral legislature--House, Senate, and conference committee. I will tell you something. Again, if there is one thing we had better agree to over the next couple of weeks when it comes to shared power, it better be that we are going to put an end to the abusive use of these conference committees. We never should have moved away from rule XXVIII. We should not let unrelated amendments or basically whole new bills be put into conference reports and then brought back to this Chamber this way. It is an outrageous abuse of the legislative process. I think the Senate should vote against this for that reason alone. I say to the majority that we could be a majority in the Senate. You wouldn't want it done to you either. I want to observe that in July my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, referred to the opposition to this bill as ``radical fringe.'' I think he is one of the best Senators in the Senate. But, again, I will repeat this. I am in the company of every consumer organization that I know of--every labor union, every civil rights organization, every women's organization, and almost every children's organization that I know of. It is one of the broadest coalitions I have ever seen. I say to my colleagues that it is said you can tell a lot about a person by who his or her friends are. You can also tell a lot about a piece of legislation by who the enemies are. I don't see a lot of working families, a lot of hard-pressed families, a lot of ordinary citizens around this country, from Minnesota to Arkansas to New York to California, clamoring for this piece of legislation for which the credit card companies are so gung- ho. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a bad bill. It punishes the most vulnerable and rewards the big banks and credit card companies for their own poor practices. I am for a more balanced bill. I think we can do it the next time. We can go after the tiny minority that abuses it. We ought to have some standards that these credit card companies have to live up to as well. Earlier, I used the word ``injustice'' to describe this bill. That is exactly right. It would be a bitter irony if the creditors were able to use a crisis--largely their own marking--to encourage Congress to decrease more borrowing access. We should have a major safety net program for the vast majority in this country. This is sham reform. Real bankruptcy reform would address the concentration of financial markets, which is increasing the power and clout of the big banks and credit card companies to unprecedented levels. Real bankruptcy reform would address the predatory and abusive lending. Real bankruptcy reform would make working families more economically secure. Real reform would address skyrocketing and unaffordable medical expenses. Real economic reform would confront the increasing chasm between the wealthy and the rest of America. But instead of lifting up working families, and instead of lifting up the majority, the standard of living of the majority living in this country, this bill punishes them. And I urge its rejection. I reserve the remainder of my time for debate tomorrow. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I submit for the Record the names of those Americans who exactly 1 year ago were killed by gunfire. It has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today: December 6, 1999: Shyheem Abraham, 17, Philadelphia, PA; Godofredo Carmenate, 70, Miami-Dade County, FL; Mike D'Alessandro, 32, Philadelphia, PA; John Davis, 18, Gary, IN; Norman Dotson, 33, Detroit, MI; Bernie Graham, 29, Fort Worth, TX; Latnaia Jefferies, 27, Gary, IN; James Jones III, 24, Baltimore, MD; Lorraine Lawhorn, 45, Knoxville, TN; Tavares Lavor McNeil, 22, Baltimore, MD; Emmett Outlaw, 76, Memphis, TN; Chester Roscoe, 28, Rochester, NY; Tavrise Tate, 20, Chicago, IL; and Antonio Thompson, 21, Charlotte, NC. One of the victims of gun violence I mentioned, 45-year-old Lorraine Lawhorn of Knoxville, was shot and killed by one of her coworkers who recently had been fired. The gunman shot Lorraine in the back of the head. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now. Mr. President, am I correct that we have 5 minutes left in morning business, and then we will be going to the bankruptcy bill?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, being able to file chapter 7 bankruptcy is a major safety net for middle-class, low-income families. I have heard my colleagues on the other side speak, but the truth is that every single civil rights organization, labor organization, consumer organization, and women's organization opposes this piece of legislation. It goes too far. It is too harsh. It is significantly worse from a bill that we once passed that indeed was much better. I have a letter signed by 116 law professors who have said this bill is too harsh and should be defeated. Finally, colleagues, this bill came to the Senate in a State Department embassy conference report which was gutted. This whole process is absolutely outrageous, and Senators who care about this legislative process and this institution should vote against cloture. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to Senator Schumer and 1 minute to Senator Durbin.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to new data with respect to older Americans and mental illnesses that support swift consideration by the Senate of the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act, S. 3233, a bill that I introduced on October 25, 2000. Throughout my Senate career, I have been concerned about mental illness and the unfair discrimination faced by those with this serious illness. We now know from Surgeon General David Satcher, in his recent report, ``Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General,'' that the rate of major clinical depression and the incidence of suicide among senior citizens is alarmingly high. This report cites that about one-half of patients relocated to nursing homes from the community are at greater risk for depression. Moreover, up to 37% of older adults treated in primary care settings experience symptoms of depression. At the same time, the Surgeon General emphasizes that depression ``is not well-recognized or treated in primary care settings,'' and calls attention to the alarming fact that older people have the highest rates of suicide in the U.S. population. Contrary to what is widely believed, suicide rates actually increase with age, and, as the Surgeon General points out, ``depression is a foremost risk factor for suicide in older adults.'' Clearly, Mr. President, our nation must take steps to ensure that mental health care is easily and readily available under the Medicare program. S. 3233, the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act, takes an important first step in that direction. It is time to take this potential fatal illness seriously. I believe we must do everything we can to make effective treatments available in a timely manner for older adults and others covered by Medicare, and help prevent relapse and recurrence once mental illness is diagnosed. The mental health community is very aware of the problems in the Medicare system and is fighting to improve it. I want to thank those groups that have supported this initial effort to improve mental health care in the Medicare program, particularly the American Mental Health Counselors Association (AMHCA) for their leadership role in fighting for improved mental health care coverage for seniors under Medicare. Their support joins that of the other major mental health groups mentioned in my earlier statement, as well as the Association for the Advancement of Psychology, the Clinical Social Work Federation, the Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, the International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services, and the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare. I want to applaud the determination of these groups for stepping forward to fight for the rights of those with mental illnesses, and their commitment to improving mental health services funded by the Medicare program.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Some of us had amendments we wanted to offer. That is part of the legislative process. I want to have 10 minutes to speak on an amendment I wanted to offer on this bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will not object.