THIS MAGNITUDE AND COMPLEXITY. THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
           DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE HEARING ON BANKRUPTCY REFORM OR S. 625.
           NOT ONE. NOW, TO BE FAIR, THERE WAS ONE JOINT HEARING THAT WAS
           HELD OVER AT THE HOUSE WITH THE TWO SUBCOMMITTEES OF
           JURISDICTION. ONE HEARING. AND IT OCCURRED ON A DAY THAT
           SENATORS HAPPENED TO BE INVOLVED IN A VERY LONG SERIES OF
           VOTES, I BELIEVE IT WAS ONE OF OUR SO-CALLED VOTE A RA MA
           SESSIONS WHICH MEANT NONE OF THE SENATORS ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE

           COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LOAN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC
           DISCUSSION OF THIS BILL. OTHER THAN THAT ONE HEARING. THE
           SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES HAD NO HEARINGS, WHATSOEVER, ON
           BANKRUPTCY REFORM THIS YEAR. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE RUSH TO
           REPORT THIS BILL FROM COMMITTEE WITHOUT HEARINGS. AND I STILL
           DON'T. WHY DIDN'T WE HEAR FROM THE BANKRUPTCY JUDGES AND THE
           TRUSTEES AND THE DISINTERESTED ACADEMICS AND THE PRACTICAL

           NATION TIGS NERS ABOUT HOW AND WHETHER -- THE PRACTITIONERS
           ABOUT HOW AND WHETHER THIS BILL WILL WORK?
           WHY DIDN'T WE GET THEIR VIEWS IN A FORMAL AND CONSIDERED WAY
           AND TRY TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS?
           TO SAY THAT THIS BILL IS JUST A REPEAT OF LAST YEAR'S
           BANKRUPTCY DISTA, IS ALSO NOT RIGHT. THIS LEGISLATION IS FAR
           TOO COMPLICATED AND FAR TOO REACHING TO MAKE THAT FA SILL
           CLAIM. THIS BILL IS ACTUALLY DIFFERENT FROM LAST YEAR'S SENATE
           BILL IN MORE WAYS THAN IT IS SIMILAR. IN MANY WAYS IT IS A
           BRAND-NEW PIECE OF LEGISLATION FOR THIS BODY. LAST YEAR'S

           SENATE BILL WAS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY
           ORIENTED. THIS BILL NOT ONLY TAKES A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO
           CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY, MR. PRESIDENT, BUT IT HAS DOZENS OF
           PROVISIONS AFFECTING A VARIETY OF TAX ISSUES, MUNICIPAL
           BANKRUPTCY CASES, SINGLE ASSET REAL ESTATE CASES, SMALL
           BUSINESS CASES, AND HEALTH CARE CASES IN ADDITION TO A HOST OF
           CHANGES TO GENERAL CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY THAT MAY DRAMATICALLY
           CHANGE THE RULES GOVERNING THE REORGANIZATION OF OUR NATION'S
           LARGEST BUSINESSES. MR. PRESIDENT, WE NEVER DISCUSD MOST OF

           THESE ISSUES AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL. WE HAVE RECEIVED MANY
           WARNING SIGNS FROM THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND THE BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM
           FAR BETTER THAN ANY OF US DO. AND I'M AFRAID TO SAY WHAT IS
           BEING DONE HERE IS ACTUALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. WHY IS THIS
           HAPPENING?
           WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, THE SAD TRUTH IS THAT ALL OF US KNOW WHY.
           A VERY WEALTHY AND POWERFUL INDUSTRY HAS PUSHED AND PUSHED AND
           PUSHED FOR THIS BILL AND SO FAR THE CONGRESS HAS IGNORED THE
           EXPERTS AND DONE THE INDUSTRY'S BIDDING. CREDIT CARD INDUSTRY

           WANTS THIS REFORM, MR. PRESIDENT, BECAUSE IT WANTS PROTECTION
           FROM ITS OWN EXCESSES. YOU SEE THE INDUSTRY HAS FLOODED THE
           MAILBOX HE IS AND PHONES AND E-MAIL AND INBOXES OF AMERICA WITH
           OFFERS OF EASY CREDIT. AMERICANS RECEIVED OVER 3.45 BILLION
           CREDIT CARD SOLICITATIONS IN 1998. ANYONE CAN GET A CREDIT
           CARD. EVEN CHILDREN. EVEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE JUST FILED FOR
           BANKRUPTCY. I FAVOR EMPOWERING CITIZENS AND BROADENING THEIR

           OPTIONS USING CREDIT TO BRING MORE CONVENIENCE TO THEIR LIVE AS
           CONSUMERS. BUT THE INDUSTRY HAS BEEN IRRESPONSIBLE IN EXTENDING
           CREDIT TO THOSE WHO CANNOT HANDLE IT. AND NOW THE INDUSTRY
           COMES TO CONGRESS FOR HELP. NOW THE INDUSTRY WANTS THE
           BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM TO PROTECT IT. I SAY TO YOU, MR. PRESIDENT,
           THAT'S NOT RIGHT. THE INDUSTRY HASN'T COME TO US HAT IN HAND,
           HOWEVER. IT HAS COME WITH AN OPEN CHECKBOOK. AS YOU KNOW, MR.
           PRESIDENT, FROM TIME TO TIME ON THE FLOOR IN RECENT MONTHS, I
           HAVE NOTED THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF DIFFERENT PLAYERS IN THE
           LEGISLATIVE PROCESS THAT SEEK TO INFLUENCE OUR WORK HERE WITH

           CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. MR. PRESIDENT, THIS BILL IS A POSTER
           CHILD FOR THE CALLING OF THE BANKROLL. LIKE SO MANY ISSUES,
           BANKRUPTCY REFORM HAS BEEN TRANSFORMED FROM A POLICY DEBATE TO
           A VEHICLE FOR A SPECIAL INTEREST AGENDA. THE KEY INGREDIENT IN
           THAT TRANSFORMATION IS MONEY, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IN THE LAST
           ELECTION CYCLE ACCORDING TO THE CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE
           APPLICATION THE MEMBERS OF THE CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY COALITION,
           AN INDUSTRY LOBBYING GROUP MADE UP OF THE OF MAJOR CREDIT CARD

           COMPANIES, VISA, MASSACRE R TER CARD AND ASSOCIATIONS
           REPRESENTING BIG BANKS AND RETAILERS GAVE NEAR $4.5 MILLION TO
           CONTRIBUTIONS TO PARTIES AND CANDIDATES. HOW, MR. PRESIDENT,
           CAN A SINGLE MOTHER LIVING IN WEST ALLIS, WISCONN, WHO FACES
           OVERWHELMING DEBT FOR MEDICAL BILLS AND THE LOSS OF CHILD
           SUPPORT, COMPETE WITH THE MIGHT AND FINANCE POWER OF THIS
           INDUSTRY?
           HER FAMILY AND HER FUTURE WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS BILL EVERY
           BIT AS MUCH AS THE CREDIT INDUSTRY, YET SHE IS NOT REPRESENTED

           IN THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE GAME. I AM AFRAID, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT
           THE BILL IN ITS CURRENT FORM, VERY MUCH REFLECTS HER LACK OF
           POWER. SOME OF THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THESE COMPANIES
           SEEM TO BE CAREFULLY TIMED TO HAVE A MAXIMUM EFFECT. IT IS HARD
           TO RG U THE FINANCE LARGESS OF THIS INDUSTRY HAS NOTHING TO DO
           WITH ITS INTEREST IN OUR CONSIDERATION OF BANKRUPTCY
           LEGISLATION. FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE VERY DAY THAT THE HOUSE PASSED
           THE SKON FOR INSTANCE REPORT LAST YEAR AND SENT IT TO THE

           SENATE, MBNA CORPORATION GAVE A $200,000 SOFT MONEY
           CONTRIBUTION TO THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE.
           IN CONNECTION WITH THE JOINT HEARING THAT WAS HELD EARLIER IN
           YEAR THAT I MENTIONED I SUBMITTED A WRITTEN QUESTION TO BRUCE
           HAS MOND, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF MBNA. I ASKED HIM ABOUT
           THE $200,000 CONTRIBUTION TO THE NRSC ON OCTOBER 1998 JUST DAYS
           AFTER THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE GREED ON A VERSION OF THIS BILL
           THAT EVERYONE AGREED WAS MORE FAVORABLE TO THE CREDIT CARD
           COMPANIES THAN THE BILL THAT THE SENATE HAD PASSED. THIS IS

           WHAT I ASKED HIM, A, AS C.E.O, ARE YOU INVOLVED GENERALLY IN
           DECISIONS TO MAKE SOFT MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL
           PARTIES. B, WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE DECISION TO MAKE THIS
           PARTICULAR DONATION. C, HOW ARE THE DECISIONS ON SOFT MONEY
           CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN YOUR COMPANY. WHO PARTICIPATES IN SUCH
           DECISIONS WHAT CRITERIA ARE FOLLOWED IN MAKING SUCH DECISIONS
           AND D, WHY DID MBNA MAKE A $200,000 DONATION TO THE NRSC IN
           OCTOBER OF 1998. MR. PRESIDENT, MR. HAS MOND'S WRITTEN RESPONSE

           TO THE QUESTIONS WAS VERY I WILL LUME FIGHTING. BASICALLY HE
           DECIDED TO IGNORE THE DIRECT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SOFT MONEY
           DONATIONS OF HIS MPANY AND INSTEAD WROTE THE FOLLOWING. "I FIND
           THE PREMISE FOR THIS QUESTION TROUBLING, HE SAID. I HOPE THERE
           IS NO INTENDS TO PLACE BANKRUPTCY REFORM IN A PARTISAN
           POLITICAL CONTEXT OF ALL OF US THAT WORKED IN SUPPORT OF THESE
           REFORMS HAVE BEEN PLEASED BY THE SUPPORT, COOPERATION AND
           ENCOURAGEMENT WE HAVE RECEIVED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL
           AISLE. IT IS PARTICULARLY PLEASING TO NOTE IN THIS CONGRESS
           BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS HAD AS ORIGINAL COSPONSORS

           PROMINENT AND RESPECTED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FROM BOTH POLITICAL
           PARTIES." MR. PRESIDENT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MR. HAMMOND HAS
           MADE MY POINT FOR ME. AS I NOTED THE SOFT MONEY IN THIS AND
           HAVE GONE TO BOTH PARTIES. ACTUALLY MBNA KOREPE ONLY GAVE TO
           REPUBLICANS IN THE LAST FEW CYCLES, BUT BANK AMERICA CORRESPOND
           AND CITI GROUP IS GIVING TO BOTH PARTIES. THAT'S WHAT'S

           INSIDIOUS ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTIONS. IT IS NOT ABOUT APPLICATION.
           IT IS ABOUT POLL SIMILAR. THEY DOT WANT TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS
           THEY WANT TO INFLUENCE LEGISLATION DIRECTLY. SO THE PREMISE OF
           MY QUESTIONS TO THE C.E.O OF M.B. MFMT BNA WAS THAT THIS IS
           PARTISAN AT ALL IT WAS TO GET AT THE BIPARTISAN PROBLEM OF SOFT
           MONEY AND ITS INSIDIOUS RELATIONSHIP TO THE LEGISLATIVE
           PROCESS. I AM SORRY MR. HAMMOND DECIDED NOT TO ANSWER MY
           QUESTIONS DIRECTLY. I US SUSPECT ONE OF THE REASONS IS DIRECT

           HONEST ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING HE
           WOULD WANT IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS. HE CHOSE TO
           IGNORE THE QUESTIONS. THAT'S UP FOR NATIONAL. THE CURRENT
           CONGRESS WE ARE SEEING AN INFLUX OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
           BANKS AND LENDERS SEEKING TO INFLUENCE THIS BILL. UNABLE
           CREDIBLY, PAC'S CONTRIBUTIONS FROM NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY
           COALITION MEMBERS TOTALED $227,000 IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR ALONE.
           NOW THAT'S A FULL 20 MONTHS BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION. BUT GUESS WHAT?

           MARCH 1999 WAS A MONTH DURING WHICH THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES OF
           BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE WERE CONSIDERING THIS BILL. MEMBERS
           OF COALITION GAVE NEARLY $1.2 MILLION IN PAC AND SOFT MONEY
           CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1999. DURING THAT TIME
           PERIOD, MBNA KOREPE GAVE MONEY SOFT MONEY AND VIA USA IVEN GAVE
           $30,000. I WANT TO BE CLEAR HERE. REPUBLICANS ARE NOT A ALONE
           IN TAKING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FROM BANKS AND
           LENDERS IN THIS CYCLE. DURING THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1999 THE

           DEMOCRATIC PARTY COMMITTEES TO BE IN MORE THAN FOUR TIMES THE
           SOFT MONEY FROM BANGS AND LENDERS THAN THEY DID DURING THE
           FIRST SIX MONTHS OF THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CYCLE IN
           1995. SOFT MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL ARE UP ABOUT 80%, BUT
           THE BANKS AND CREDIT CARD COMPANIES HAVE QUADRUPLED THEIR
           CONTRIBUTIONS TO MY PARTY. MR. PRESIDENT, WE NEED TO KEEP IN
           MIND AS WE DEBATE THIS BILL AND THE MANY AMENDMENTS TO BE
           OFFERED, THE EXTENT TO WHICH BANKRUPTCY REFORM HAS COME TO BE
           SEEN AS A GIFT TO SPECIAL INTEREST INTERESTS, PARTICULARLY

           CREDIT CARD COMPANIES. IN LIGHT OF THAT WE BEAR AN EVEN HEAVIER
           BURDEN TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE ARE SERVING -- THAT WE ARE
           SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST WITH THIS KIND OF FAR-REACHING
           LEGISLATION. WE MUST OPEN OUR MINDS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF
           NONPARTISAN EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD. WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET.
           ALTHOUGH SOME PROGRESS CERTAINLY HAS BEEN MADE BETWEEN THE TIME
           THE BILL LEFT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND TODAY. I AM PLEASED,
           FOR EXAMPLE, THE REQUIREMENT THAT DEBTORS' ATTORNEYS BEAR
           PERSONAL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRUSTEE COSTS AND FEES IF

           THEY LOSE A MOTION TO CONVERT A 7 FILING TO 13 HAS BEEN
           ELIMINATED. THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA AND I FOUGHT THIS OUT IN
           COMMITTEE AND I APPRECIATE HIS AND OTHERS LISTENING. WE HAD A
           TIE VOTE IN COMMITTEE AND I DO RECOGNIZE THAT CHANGE. THAT
           PROVISION WOULD HAVE HAD THE RESULT OF DENYING MANY MONDAY
           EVIDENT AMERICAN PEOPLE ADEQUATE LEGAL REPUTATION MAKING THEM
           EVEN MORE SUBJECT TO ABUSIVE AND PREDATORY PRACTICES BY
           CREDITORS. BUT WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO TO MAKE THIS A BALANCED
           BILL RATHER THAN A WISH LIST FOR CREDIT CARD COMPANIES. IF WE
           DON'T DO THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, WE WILL HAVE FAILED IN OUR DUTY

           TO THE PUBLIC AND WILL COME TO REGRET OUR ACTIONS. I SINCERELY
           HOPE THAT ONCE AGAIN WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO TELL A PRODUCT
           THAT WOULD WIN A NEAR UNANIMOUS VOTE IN THE SENATE AS DID LAST
           YEAR'S BILL AND WHICH I SUPPORTED. A BANKRUPTCY REFORM BILL
           SHOULD BE THE PRODUCT OF A CONSIDERED AND WELL-INFORMED DEBATE,
           NOT A POLITICAL DANCE WHERE MONEY CALLS THE TUNE. MR.
           PRESIDENT, IN A MOMENT, I AM GOING TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO
           ADDRESS ONE OF THE MANY ISSUES AND MANY OF THE UNFAIRNESSS IN

           THE MEANS TEST IN THIS THIS BILL. THIS AMENDMENT FOCUSES
           PARTICULARLY ON EXPENSES A FAMILY MIGHT INCUR BECAUSE IT IS
           PAYING FOR MEDICAL CARE FOR A NONDEPENDENT FAMILY MEMBER. THESE
           KINDS OF EXPENSES ARE REFERRED TO AS EXPENSES FOR LONG-TERM
           CARE. LONG TER CARE AND PARTICULARLY FUNDAMENTAL LONG-TERM CARE
           HAS BEEN A SPECIAL FOCUS OF MINE ALL THE WAY BACK TO WHEN I WAS
           FIRST ELECTED TO THE WISCONSIN STATE SENATE IN 1982. AS I
           SCOFFED WHEN WORKING ON THIS MANY YEARS AGO, LONG-TERM CARE IS

           GREATLY MISUNDERSTOOD. EVEN TODAY, WHEN PEOPLE HEAR LONG-TERM
           CARE, MANY PEOPLE THINK OF NURSING HOMES AND THE ELDERLY. BUT
           THAT'S NOT THE WHOLE STORY. ACCORDING TO THE LONG TERM CARE
           CAMPAIGN, WHILE THE MAJORITY OF THE 11 MILLION SEVERELY
           DISABLED AMERICANS NEEDING LONG-TERM CARE SERVICES ARE ELDERLY,
           NEARLY HALF ARE ACTUALLY EITHER WORKING AGE ADULTS OR CHILDREN.
           AND WHILE MANY DO RECEIVE THEIR LONG TERM CARE SERVICES IN A
           NURSING HOME, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE NEEDING LONG-TERM CARE
           RECEIVE THAT CARE AT HOME MR. PRESIDENT, LONG-TERM CARE TOUCHES

           MANY MORE THAN JUST THOSE NEEDING SERVICES. NEARLY SIX IN EVERY
           TEN AMERICANS HAVE ALREADY EXPERIENCED A LONG TERM CARE PROBLEM
           IN THEIR OWN FAMILY OR THROUGH A FRIEND. AND MORE THAN HALF OF
           THESE HAVE PROVIDED CARE TO SOMEONE WHO NEEDS SERVICES. THE
           NATIONAL FAMILY CARE GIVERS ASSOCIATION ESTIMATES THAT BETWEEN
           80% AND 90% OF ALL LONG-TERM CARE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY
           FAMILIES. MR. PRESIDENT, CARE GIVING AS I AM SURE YOU KNOW, CAN
           BE AN ENORMOUS BURDEN ON FAMILIES, PHYSICALLY, EMOTIONALLY AND
           FINANCIALLY. AS WE FOUND IN WISCONSIN TWO DECADES AGO, THAT

           BURDEN NOT ONLY TAKES ITS TOLL ON FAMILIES BUT ON GOVERNMENT
           BUDGETS AND TAXPAYERS SINCE ALL TOO OFTEN THE REASON A PERSON
           ENTERS A NURSING HOME IS NOT DUE SO MUCH TO THEIR CONDITION,
           BUT BECAUSE THE FAMILY MEMBER CARE GIVER IS SIMPLY NO LONGER
           ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THEM. THOUGH I WILL NOT SPEAK AT LENGTH
           TODAY ABOUT THE REFORMS WE NEED TO MAKE TO OUR LONG-TERM CARE
           SYSTEM I DO WANT TO NOTE THIS CRITICAL POINT. WE NEED TO BUILD
           ON THE INFORMAL LONG-TERM CARE THAT FAMILIES ALREADY PROVIDE.
           NOT ONLY TO ALLOW THOSE NEEDY LONG-TERM CARE SERVICES TO REMAIN

           WHERE THEY PREFER AT HOME WITH THEIR FAMILY, BUT ALSO BECAUSE
           THE ALTERNATIVE PLACES A HUGE BURDEN ON BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL
           BUDGETS. MR. PRESIDENT, FAMILIES THAT PROVIDE PERSONAL
           ASSISTANCE AND OTHER FORMS OF CARE TO LOVED ONES NOT ONLY HELP
           THAT LOVED ONE, THEY HOPE THE TAXPAYER. FAMILIES PROVIDE AN
           ESTIMATED $200 BILLION IN LONG-TERM CARE SERVICES EVERY YEAR.
           SERVICES THAT KEEP LOVED ONES AT HOME AND OUT OF EXPENSIVE
           INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGINGS. BUT WHEN FAMILIES ARE NO LONGER ABLE

           FOR PHYSICAL KALT, EMOTIONAL OR FINANCIAL REASONS TO CARE TORE
           THAT LOVED ONE, CHANCES ARE THAT INDIVIDUAL WILL END UP IN A
           NURSING HOME ON JOINT STATE FEDERAL PROGRAM MEDICAID. WHEN
           TAXPAYERS PICK UP THE MEDICAID TAB FOR NURSING HOME CARE IT
           ISN'T CHEAP. ACCORDING TO THE LONG TERM CAMPAIGN, THIS IS U.
           NURSING HOME COSTS $36,000 A YEAR AND WITH THOSE WITH SEVERE
           DISABILITIES OR DID I MEN SHAH THE COSTS CAN BE GREATER. AS
           MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO WE CAN'T USE THIS BANKRUPTCY BILL TO

           REFORM OUR LONG-TERM CARE SYSTEM BUT AT THE VERY LEAST
{END: 1999/11/05 TIME: 12-30 , Fri.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}