TRADITION OF PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN AND OUR FAMILIES, WHICH IS
           SO IMPORTANT. I WANT TO THANK THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT FOR
           HIS GREAT LEADERSHIP AND HIS -- THE WAY HE'S ARTICULATED THIS
           ISSUE SO WELL. NEITHER ONE OF US ARE ON THE COMMITTEE THAT
           CONSIDER THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE MANY
           GOOD SENATORS FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE AND MANY GOOD SENATORS
           FROM THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE THAT HAVE COME AT THIS WITH THE RIGHT

           INTENTIONS, TO ELIMINATE THE FRAUD AND ABUSE THAT IS GOING ON.
           BUT I WANT TO THANK HIM FOR HIS LEADERSHIP, BECAUSE, FRANKLY,
           WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT, THIS BILL FALLS VERY SHORT OF THOSE
           GOOD INTENTIONS. NOW WE IN LOUISIANA -- I KNOW THE PEOPLE IN
           KANSAS ARE LIKE THIS TOO, AND I KNOW PEOPLE IN CONNECTICUT ARE
           LIKE THIS, BUT PEOPLE IN LOUISIANA BELIEVE IN PAYING OUR DEBTS.
           WE DON'T LIKE FREELOADERS. WE DON'T LIKE PEOPLE WHO ARE
           RECKLESS WITH THEIR FINANCES, ALTHOUGH EVERY NOW AND THEN

           SOMETIMES WE MIGHT BE IN SMALL INSTANCES OR LARGE. WE DON'T
           LIKE THAT. IT'S NOT A VALUE THAT WE HOLD. WE BELIEVE IN BEING
           FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. WE BELIEVE IN TAKING CARE OF YOUR OWN. WE
           BELIEVE IN PAYING OUR DEBTS. AND SO I MOST CERTAINLY WOULD WANT
           TO SUPPORT A BILL THAT WOULD CLAMP DOWN ON ANY FRAUD AND ABUSE
           BY ANYONE. IF IT WAS A POOR PERSON THAT WAS USING FRAUD AND
           BEING ABUSIVE OF THE SYSTEM, THEY WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE TO
           FOLLOW THE SAME RULES AS A MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILY OR AS THE

           WEALTHIEST PERSON IN MY STATE. I AM NOT ASKING, AND NEITHER IS
           SENATOR DODD, ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR ANY MAN, ANY WOMAN. WE
           WOULD ASK FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR CHILDREN. THEY ARE NOT
           THE ONES THAT ARE -- QUOTE -- "GUILTY," BUT WE WOULD ASK NO
           SPECIAL PROVISION. BUT THIS BILL, AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN,
           GOES MUCH TOO FAR. AND I WOULD ALSO JOIN SENATOR DODD IN ASKING
           THE PRESIDENT IF THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED -- AND I DON'T
           KNOW, IT MAY BE, BUT IF IT IS NOT, I WILL JOIN HIM IN ASKING

           THE PRESIDENT TO VETO THIS BILL. BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE A
           TERRIBLE BLOW TO FAMILIES, TO CHILDREN, AND PARTICULARLY SINGLE
           PARENTS, MANY OF WHOM ARE WOMEN, BUT NOT ALL. THERE ARE SOME
           FATHERS WHO HAVE CUSS TOAD OF -- CUSTODY OF THEIR CHILDREN,
           ONE, TWO, THREE OR FOUR, THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE SAME TERMS,
           DRACONIAN TERMS OF THIS BILL. THERE IS NO DENYING, AS I SAID,
           THAT THERE IS NEED FOR REFORM OF THE CURRENT BANKRUPTCY LAW AND
           PRACTICE. HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE FINAL BILL
           ACCURATELY REFLECT THE NEEDS OF THOSE MOST AFFECTED BY

           BANKRUPTCY. AND THIS AMENDMENT THAT WE OFFER DOES JUST THAT. IT
           HAS FOUR PARTS. I'M GOING TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT ONLY ONE. BUT
           LET ME FIRST SAY THAT OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES, WE HAVE
           WITNESSED A 400% INCREASE IN THE USE OF BANKRUPTCY COURTS IN
           THIS COUNTRY. THAT FIGURE IS ALARMING, AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE
           TRYING TO SEE WHAT IS CAUSING THAT AND HELPING -- TRYING TO
           OFFER SOME SOLUTIONS. THE FIGURES SHOW THAT A RISING NUMBER OF
           THOSE CLAIMING BANKRUPTCY, HOWEVER, ARE SINGLE WOMEN. IN FACT,

           SINGLE WOMEN COMPRISE THE FASTEST-GROWING GROUP TO FILE
           BANKRUPTCY, SURPASSING MEN AND MARRIED COUPLES. IN 1999 MORE
           THAN HALF A MILLION SINGLE WOMEN WILL FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY, TEN
           TIMES THE NUMBER WHO FILED IN 1981. DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING
           NUMBER OF WOMEN WHO FIND THEMSELVES IN THIS UNTENABLE STATE OF
           ECONOMIC INSTABILITY, SENATE BILL 625 AS WRITTEN DOES NOT AT
           ALL REFLECT THE NEEDS OF THIS POPULATION OF DEBTORS. THIS

           AMENDMENT SIMPLY REVISES NECESSARY SECTIONS OF THE BILL SO THAT
           IT IS MORE REALISTIC, MORE FLEXIBLE AND MORE REASONABLE IN
           DEALING WITH WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN. SINGLE WOMEN AND THEIR
           CHILDREN CHILDREN. SOMETIMES ONE CHILD, SOMETIMES TWO,
           SOMETIMES THREE. AND IN A FEW CASES MORE THAN THAT. OUR
           AMENDMENT DOES NOT ASK THAT WOMEN WITH CHILDREN BE TREATED ANY
           DIFFERENTLY UNDER THE LAW. IT SIMPLY ENSURES THAT THE STANDARDS
           WHICH APPLY TO ALL DEBTORS BE SENSITIVE TO THE VERY DIFFERENT

           SITUATIONS WHICH CAUSE A PERSON TO FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY. SO IN
           OUR ZEST TO CURB THE ABUSE OF SOME, THE RIGHTS AND NEEDS OF
           OTHERS SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED. S. 25 AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN MAKES
           IT SIGNIFICANTLY EASIER FOR CREDIT CARD DEBT TO BE CONSIDERED
           NONDISCHARGEABLE, WHICH IS NECESSARYN ENDING FRAUD AND ABUSE.
           HOWEVER, THIS BILL INADVERTENTLY, I THINK, PUTS THE CLAIM OF
           CREDIT CARD COMPANIES AT A DISTINCT ADVANTAGE OVER SINGLE

           MOTHERS OR SINGLE FATHERS WHO ARE TRYING TO CLAIM THEIR CHILD
           AND CHILD SUPPORT. IN MOST CASES THAT GO -- IN MOST CASES THAT
           IS GOING TO BE A SINGLE MOTHER. WHILE I CONCEDE THAT THE
           LANGUAGE CLEARLY IS WRITTEN IN THE BILL THAT STATES WOMEN AND
           CHILDREN -- QUOTE -- "ARE THE FIRST IN PRIORITY," THE PRACTICAL
           REALITY, AS THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT HAS POINTED OUT, AS
           IT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED IS THEY ARE FIRST IN LINE FOR NOTHING.
           AND GIVEN THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES OF BANKRUPTCY AND THEIR LACK OF

           RESOURCES, HOW WOULD THEY EVER FIND THE MONEY TO HIRE A LAWYER
           OR TO GET THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO
           COMPETE IN THIS LEGAL, CUMBERSOME, COMPLICATED, TIME-CONSUMING
           AND ACTUALLY SPIRIT-BREAKING SYSTEM THAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO
           CREATE HERE?
           LET ME DEMONSTRATE WITH AN EXAMPLE, BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE NEED
           -- IF THEY COULD SEE AN EXAMPLE, THEY MIGHT COULD UNDERSTAND
           THIS. SO FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARGUMENT, LET'S TAKE DORIS,

           WHO IS A DIVORCED MOTHER OF THREE CHILDREN, RANGING IN AGE FROM
           3 TO 13 YEARS OLD. SHE WORKS AT A JOB EARNING MORE THAN MINIMUM
           WAGE, BUT NOT MUCH. HER EX-HUSBAND IS FIVE MONTHS BEHIND IN
           CHILD SUPPORT. NOT UNTYPICAL GIVEN THE MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF
           DOLLARS THAT ARE OWED. AND THIS BILL PASSES. THIS IS WHAT WILL
           HAPPEN. IN SEPTEMBER 6 THIS YEAR SHE GOES TO K-MART WHERE SHE
           PURCHASES FOOD, CLOTHING AND OTHER ESSENTIAL ITEMS FOR HER
           FAMILY, TOTALING $260. I GO TO K-MART AND WAL-MART. THAT IS NOT

           AN UNREASONABLE BILL. IT IS HARD TO SUPPORT A FAMILY IN FOOD
           AND CLOTHING AND ESSENTIALS FOR MUCH LESS THAN THAT AND
           ACTUALLY SPEND MORE THAN THAT, IN A MONTH. SHE SPENDS ONLY $260
           TRYING TO BE FRUGAL. IN NOVEMBER SHE COMES TO GRIP WITH THE
           REALITY THAT HER INCOME WILL NOT GET HER THROUGH THE WINTER.
           SHE FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY. UNDER THE BILL THAT THIS SENATE IS
           ABOUT READY TO PASS, SHE IS GOING TO HAVE TO HIRE A LAWYER AND
           GO TO COURT TO PROVE THAT HER K-MART PURCHASES WERE NECESSARY

           FOR HER FAMILY AND WERE NOT MADE IN ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD THE
           SYSTEM. MR. PRESIDENT, I COULD NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES VOTE
           FOR A BILL THAT WOULD ASK ANY OF MY CONSTITUENTS THAT LIVE IN
           LOUISIANA OR ANY THAT MAY LIVE IN CONNECTICUT ARREST ANYPLACE
           TO HIRE A LAWYER -- IN CONNECTICUT OR ANYPLACE TO HIRE A LAWYER
           TO CLAIM THAT THE ORANGE JUICE, MILK, DIAPERS, COOKIES, SOME
           SNACKS FOR SCHOOL, MAYBE PART OF A SCHOOL UNIFORM IS A LUXURY
           ITEM. I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT WHEN THEY COME KNOCKING AT

           MY DOOR AND SAY, SENATOR, WHY DOES THE LAW SAY THIS?
           I'M GOING TO SAY, WE MADE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE. BUT I DIDN'T MAKE
           THE MISTAKE BECAUSE WE WERE ON THE FLOOR TRYING TO EXPLAIN THIS
           TO PEOPLE. HOPEFULLY, THEY'RE LISTENING. SO OUR AMENDMENT MAKES
           A SIMPLE CHANGE TO THIS PROCESS. RATHER THAN PUTTING THE BURDEN
           ON PROVING THE NECESSITY OF THE PURCHASE ON THE SINGLE MOTHER,
           WHO HAS NO MONEY, 5 LOT OF HEARTACHE, A LOT OF CHILDREN TO TAKE
           CARE OF, IT JUST PUTS THE ONUS ON THE CREDIT CARD COMPANIES TO
           PROVE THAT THESE PURCHASES WERE UNNECESSARY. AS THE SENATOR HAS

           POINTED OUT, THEY ALREADY HAVE LAWYERS. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE A
           CREDIT CARD COMPANY. THEY HAVE ACCOUNTANTS AND LAWYERS TO SEE.
           AND PERHAPS IF SOMETHING DOES LOOK AMISS, PERHAPS IF THE
           CHARGES ARE QUITE LARGE, THEY MOST CERTAINLY SHOULD BE ABLE TO
           PULL THEM INTO COURT AND MAKE SURE THAT THE JUDGE WOULD TAKE
           THE PROPER ACTION. CREDIT CARD COMPANIES, AS I SAID, HAVE THESE
           INVESTIGATORS TO CHECK FRAUD. THE PEOPLE IN MY STATE OF
           LOUISIANA IN THIS SITUATION, I PROMISE YOU, THEY DON'T. UNDER
           OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, A PERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN

           GUILTY. UNDER S. 25, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, A WOMAN IS GUILTY
           OF FRAUD UNLESS SHE CAN PROVE HER INNOCENCE. MR. PRESIDENT,
           THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO. I AM POSITIVE THIS IS NOT WHAT
           THIS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WANTS TO SUPPORT. SO IT IS
           UNACCEPTABLE. AND IF OUR AMENDMENT DOES NOT GET ON THIS BILL,
           I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT. THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER
           AMENDMENTS THAT NEED TO PUT ON, BUT THIS CLEARLY IS ONE. SO I
           THANK SENATOR DODD FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS PIECE OF
           LEGISLATION AND WILL ONLY ADD THIS TO THIS DISCUSSION. ONE OF

           THE WONDERFUL THINGS I LIKE ABOUT BEING SENATOR IS I LEARN
           SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY. AND I HOPE THE SENATORS FEEL THAT WAY
           AND I HOPE THE STAFF THAT WORKS HERE BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THE
           MOST INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT THIS JOB. IP JUST GOT TODAY THE
           GROSS MONTHLY INCOME SCHEDULE FOR THE I.R.S. NOW, I'VE NEVER
           HAD TO FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY, AND I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER OWED
           ANY TAXES THAT I HAD TO GO ACCORDING TO THIS SCHEDULE. SO THIS
           WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME I WOULD HAVE SEEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS,
           AND I'M NOT A LAWYER. BUT I WANT TO SAY HOW JUST SO SURPRISED I

           AM THAT OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE A SCHEDULE THAT BASICALLY
           SAYS THAT IF YOU MAKE $830 OR LESS A MONTH AND YOU OWE TAXES TO
           THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THAT YOU GET TO EAT $170 WORTH OF FOOD.
           BUT IF YOU'RE WEALTHY AND YOU OWE TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENT, YOU
           GET TO EAT $456 WORTH OF FOOD EVERY MONTH. NOW IF YOU HAVE
           CHILDREN -- YOU HAVE ONE CHILD WHO, LET'S SAY, HAPPENS TO BE IN

           DIAPERS, YOU GET TO BUY $71 A MONTH AT THE STORE. BUT IF YOU'RE
           WEALTHY AND YOU HAVE A CHILD -- NOT WEALTHY, BUT YOU MAKE
           $5,000 A MONTH, WHICH WOULD BE FAIRLY WEGTY, AND HAVE ONE
           CHILD, YOU GET TO BUY $335 WORTH OF DIAPERS AND APPAREL AND
           SERVICES AT THE STORE. I HAVE -- MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE A
           TWO-YEAR-OLD. I SPEND MORE THAN $40 A MONTH ON DIAPERS ALONE.
           DIAPERS. I DON'T WANT ANYONE IN MY STATE TO HAVE TO HIRE A

           LAWYER TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES THAT THEY HAVE ON THEIR
           CREDIT CARD TO PURCHASE FOOD OR CLOTHING OR DIAPERS OR MILK OR
           FORMULA FOR THEIR CHILDREN IS A LUXURY. SO I WOULD URGE THE
           MEMBERS WHO MIGHT NOT HAVE EVER LOOKED AT THIS SCHEDULE THAT
           HAS TO DO WITH WHEN YOU OWE TAXES, HOW MUCH YOU GET TO KEEP --
           AND IT HAS NO MENTION OF CHILDREN, NO EDUCATION EXPENSES. I
           GUESS THE I.R.S. JUST ASSUMES THAT CHILDREN SHOULD STOP GOING
           TO SCHOOL WHILE THEIR PARENTS PAY THEIR TAXES BACK. BUT THIS IS

           THE SAME SCHEDULE, I THINK, THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT HAS
           POINTED OUT. I WISH I HAD IT BLOWN UP BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE IN
           AMERICA WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME BELIEVING THIS.
           

           MR. DODD: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD ON THIS?
           
           

           MS. LANDRIEU: YES, I WOULD.
           

           MR. DODD: I THINK, MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MY
           COLLEAGUE. THE RELEVANCY OF THIS IS UNDER THE BILL AS PRESENTLY
           WRITTEN, THIS IS THE SCHEDULE. THIS IS NOT JUST -- THIS IS NOT
           INTERESTING SUBJECT MATTER, BECAUSE IT'S AN I.R.S. SCHEDULE FOR
           TAX PURPOSES. THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED AS PART OF THE
           BANKRUPTCY BILL, SO THAT THIS IS YOUR SCHEDULE. THIS IS WHAT
           YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO BE LIMITED TO.
           

           MS. LANDRIEU: CORRECT. MR. DODD: IS THAT CORRECT?
           IT'S A QUESTION.
           

           MS. LANDRIEU: THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT UNDER THE CURRENT
           BILL WE ARE NOW ADOPTING AN I.R.S. SCHEDULE THAT IN MY OPINION,
           AND I WOULD IMAGINE IN THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE -- I WOULD
           IMAGINE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN LOUISIANA WOULD FEEL THAT
           WAY, THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE SCHEDULE FOR THAT PURPOSE. IT
           MOST CERTAINLY IS AN INAPPROPRIATE SCHEDULE FOR BANKRUPTCY
           SINCE NOWHERE ON THIS SCHEDULE DOES IT EVEN MENTION THE WORD
           "CHILD" OR CHILDREN'S NEEDS. IT DOESN'T MENTION MEDICINE. IT
           DOESN'T MENTION SOME OF THE ESSENTIAL THINGS, AS THE SENATOR
           FROM CONNECTICUT HAS POINTED OUT.
           

           MR. DODD: IF THE SENATOR WOULD FURTHER YIELD, NOR DOES IT
           MENTION ANY GEOGRAPHY DISTINCTION HERE. SO WHERE THE COST OF
           LIVING IN ONE PART OF THE COUNTRY IS ONE LEVEL -- THIS IS A
           STANDARD PRICE WHETHER YOU LIVE IN LOUISIANA, CALIFORNIA, NEW
           YORK CITY, WASHINGTON, D.C. THIS IS THE SAME SCHEDULE FOR EVERY
           PERSON REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY LIVE IN THE COUNTRY, NO
           DISCRETION FOR A JUDGE. IS THAT CORRECT?
           
           

           MS. LANDRIEU: THAT IS CORRECT. AS WE KNOW, THOSE CHARGES OR
           THOSE COST OF LIVING ESCALATE AND ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM PLACE
           TO PLACE AND REGION TO REGION. AND SO THIS CHART IS QUITE
           DEFICIENT. AND AFTER THIS DEBATE, I'M GOING TO BE LOOKING INTO
           WAYS THE I.R.S. SHOULD IMPROVE THEIR OWN SCHEDULE. BUT FOR THE
           PURPOSES OF THIS DEBATE, WE MOST CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO TAKE A
           SCHEDULE THAT IS FLAWED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTING TAXES
           AND THEN APPLY IT TO A BANKRUPTCY WHICH IS AN EQUALLY DIFFICULT
           SITUATION THAT OUR FAMILIES FIND THEM. SO IN CLOSING, LET ME

           SAY I REALIZE THERE'S FRAUD AND ABUSE, AND I'D BE THE FIRST ONE
           TO STEP UP AND VOTE FOR A BILL THAT WOULD CLAMP DOWN. NO ONE
           DESERVES SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, WHETHER THEY ARE POOR OR
           MIDDLE-INCOME OR WEALTHY. THIS BILL AS WRITTEN GOES TOO FAR,
           MR. PRESIDENT. AND WE WILL BE SORRY IF WE DON'T ADOPT SOME
           AMENDMENTS TO FIX IT AND MAKE MORE FAIR. LET US FIGHT HARD FOR
           OUR FAMILIES. MANY OF THEM ARE HAVING A TOUGH TIME ALREADY. AND
           LETSDS NOT HAVE THE CHILDREN -- LET'S NOT HAVE THE CHILDREN PAY
           THE PRICE FOR US TRYING TO EXPEDITE A BILL THAT DOESN'T WORK
           FOR THEM OR FOR THEIR PARENTS. THANK YOU, AND I YIELD BACK THE

           REMAINDER OF MY TIME. MR. DODD: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT.
           

           MR. DODD: IF I MAY, AND THE SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA MAY WANT TO
           DO THIS, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY WORTHWHILE TO INCLUDE
           THIS SCHEDULE. AND I'D ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THIS I.R.S.
           SCHEDULE BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD SO OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE THE
           BENEFIT OF LOOKING AT THE RIGIDITY OF THIS SCHEDULE AND THE
           PAUCITY OF INFORMATION AND ITEMS THAT, ONE, I THINK WOULD
           NORMALLY, REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT A FAMILY MIGHT NEED IN ORDER
           TO SUSTAIN THAT FAMILY DURING A PERIOD OF BANKRUPTCY SUCH AS
           WE'VE SUGGESTED.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. DODD: LASTLY,
{END: 1999/11/09 TIME: 19-15 , Tue.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}