Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. DODD. I object to that.

Mr. DODD. There are 13 minutes remaining. Why not take 6 of it.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senator from California requests how much time?

Mr. DODD. How much time remains on the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DODD. I yield 25 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin, coauthor of the bill.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. DODD. I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I think we have done some good work today. We had some good opening statements and considered an amendment. Obviously, the people involved could do a little work this evening. We will be prepared. At 9:30 tomorrow, we will have an amendment, and we will be ready to vote on it by 12:30, before the respective conferences meet.

Mr. DODD. I yielded 30 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin and yielded time to the Senator from Arizona. I am told the Senator from Arizona used about 15 minutes of that. I presumed----

Mr. DODD. I will withhold my time. Does the Senator want 7 minutes?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, today the Senate begins debate on a defining issue in American politics--the question of whether unlimited, unregulated contributions to political campaigns are forwarding democracy or undermining it. In this Senator's mind, the answer to that question is quite clear: no democracy can thrive--if indeed survive--if it is awash in massive quantities of money: Money that threatens to drown out the voice of the average voter of average means; money that creates the appearance that a wealthy few have a disproportionate say over public policy; and money that places extensive demands on the time of candidates--time that they and the voters believe is better spent discussing and debating the issues of the day. The McCain-Feingold legislation before the Senate today is a good first start toward reform of a campaign system that is broken, plain and simple. I, for one, would like to have public financing of our Federal Campaigns. I would like to see free or reduced-rate TV and radio time for candidates during the peak of the campaign season. I would like for any negative ad to display the face and voice of the candidate on whose behalf that ad is aired. The McCain-Feingold legislation is not as comprehensive as some of us would prefer. But it does address two of the most pressing deficiencies in our system of campaign finance: Undisclosed soft money contributions, and sham issue ads. I have consistently supported this legislation. Today I call on my colleagues, and President Bush, to work with us to restore accountability to our system of campaign finance and confidence in our system of representative democracy. Let me be absolutely clear on one essential point. Unlike previous debates, this time we have an opportunity to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. We can reclaim our system of financing campaigns by cutting off the flow of unregulated and unlimited soft-money. We must end it, and not just mend it. Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I feel strongly about the need for reform, and I am frustrated at this body's continued inability to move forward with legislation to address this problem. Time and again we have seen thoughtful, appropriate and, I must emphasize, bipartisan efforts to stop the spiraling money chase that afflicts our political system, only to see a minority of the Senate block further consideration of the issue. It is almost as if the opponents of reform are heeding the humorous advice of Mark Twain, who once said, ``Do not put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow.'' It is now long past the day after tomorrow, and we simply cannot afford to wait any longer to do something about the tidal wave of money that is drowning our system of government and eroding the public's confidence in the integrity of our democracy. With that said, I strongly support S. 27, known as the McCain- Feingold legislation. Why do I support it? Because it is ``real'' reform, not ``sham'' reform. And I congratulate my two colleagues for their persistence and tenacity in pursuing it. This bill accomplishes critically important goals. It closes the most serious loopholes in our current campaign finance system. The bill shuts down the system of unlimited, unregulated, and undisclosed soft money; bans direct or indirect contributions from foreign nationals; requires disclosure of electioneering communications mas- querading as issue ads; and prohibits fund-raising by Federal officials on Federal property. There are those of my colleagues who would argue that when it comes to political campaigns, money is speech and speech should be unlimited. Let me be clear--I cannot agree more that political speech should be unlimited. The free flow of information and ideas is the hallmark of a democracy. But to equate speech with money is not only a false equation, it is also a dangerous one to our democracy. When that speech and those ideas are paid for overwhelmingly by a few wealthy individuals or groups or foreign nationals or anonymous groups or by undisclosed contributors, the speech is neither free nor democratic. It is encumbered by the unknown special interests who have paid for it. And it minimizes or excludes the speech of those who lack substantial resources to counter it. This special interest speech--paid for with unlimited, undisclosed soft money--creates, at a minimum, the appearance of undue influence, if not an implied quid pro quo by the contributor. Does anyone seriously believe that corporations and associations contribute millions of dollars in soft money just because they are good citizens and want to encourage free speech? Let us be serious. It cannot be argued that such special interest soft money contributions were made to promote political speech and better public policy without any expectation of consideration in return. That expectation of special consideration, or an unspoken quid pro quo, is the very appearance of undue influence that the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld as a compelling reason for limiting campaign contributions. Unlimited contributions simply do not equate to free speech. Although the final statistics on the total amount of money contributed in the 2000 election cycle is not yet complete, we do know the overall estimate for expenditures on federal elections in the 1999-2000 election cycle is between $2.4 and $2.5 billion. That is a conservative total. Let me put that in perspective for my colleagues. The average expenditures necessary for a winning Senate candidate increased from $609,000 in 1976 to over $7 million in the 1999-2000 election cycle. At that amount, the average Senate candidate would have to raise the equivalent of $3,000 per day, seven days a week, for the entire six- year Senate term. It is past time to restore sanity, and accountability, to our system of financing elections. I welcome this debate and look forward to amendments offered to both improve the McCain-Feingold legislation and restore the integrity of the manner in which we finance elections. This debate is one of the most significant and important ones we will have, not only in this session of Congress but at any time in recent memory. I welcome the debate and look forward to the arguments. How much time have we consumed of that 30 minutes?

Mr. DODD. My colleague from Wisconsin, I believe, yielded time to the Senator from Arizona. Of the 30 minutes that were yielded to the Senator from Wisconsin, 15 minutes remain.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, how much time remains of the original request?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address some of the glaring problems that occurred in the 2000 elections with regard to technology and election administration. The Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001, and companion legislation introduced in the House by Congressman John Conyers, will provided much needed guidance, and funds, to state and local election officials to ensure that Federal elections are conducted in a manner that encourages participation and facilitates voting by all Americans in a nondiscriminatory manner. The right to vote is the cornerstone right in a Democracy. In the words of Thomas Paine, it is ``the primary right by which other rights are protected.'' Thirty-six years ago last week, on March 15, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson convened a Joint Session of Congress to call for passage of what ultimately became the Voting Rights Act. President Johnson spoke plainly and forcefully that evening. ``All Americans,'' he said, ``must have the right to vote. And we are going to give them that right. All Americans must have the privileges of citizenship regardless of race. And they are going to have those privileges of citizenship regardless of race.'' Yet the sad message of this last election is that the privileges of citizenship have yet to be fully guaranteed to all Americans. Nor are the barriers to exercising this fundamental right limited to race. Inaccessible polling places and visual ballots disenfranchised the disabled and blind across this country. Complicated instructions and a lack of trained personnel discouraged language minorities and the elderly from fully exercising their right to vote. And even if voters wee able to get to the polling place, read the ballot and cast it, antiquated technology and insufficient machinery denied Americans of all races, languages, and physical abilities the right to have their vote counted. In short, what happened last November set off alarms across this Nation that threaten to undermine the integrity of our system of Democracy. The fact is, there is a fundamental flaw in our Federal elections system--and that flaw is the lack of federal direction, leadership, and resources provided to the States and localities to meet their responsibility as the administrators of Federal elections. What we learned last November is that it is not good enough to guarantee the right to vote, if procedures and technology prevent individuals from exercising that right. And it will take more than just the latest technology, or a new ``mouse-trap'' to fix the problem. The legislation Congressman Conyers and I are introducing--The Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001--is intended to secure the rights of all Americans to participate in our Democracy, by establishing 3 simple national requirements for Federal elections: (1) that voting systems and technology meet national standards; (2) that states provide for provisional voting; and (3) that states provide sample ballots and voting instructions to voters prior to election day. These requirements must be implemented by the 2004 federal elections, and this legislation provides funding to States and localities to fund the costs of implementing these requirements. This legislation also creates a temporary Commission to study numerous electin reform issues such election systems and ballot designs, access for the disabled, voter intimidation, access for absent military and overseas voters, the feasibility of a national holiday, and alternative methods of voting to facilitate participation. Within 1 year of enactment, the Commission will adopt a final report, along with recommendations for best practices in the areas of convenient, accessible, nondiscriminatory election systems that accommodate voters with disabilities, the blind, and the limited-English speaking. The Commission will also make recommendations for how the Federal government, on an ongoing basis, can best provide assistance to State and local governments. Finally, the Commission will issue recommendations for best practices which will increase voter registration, the accuracy of voter rolls, and will improve voter education and the training of election personnel and volunteers. Finally, my legislation provides grant money, administered by the Department of Justice, to states and localities to implement the 3 national requirements for the 2004 and subsequent elections. In order to encourage the States and localities to act to improve voting systems and election administration procedures prior to the 2004 elections, the bill allows States and localities to apply for grants to replace voting equipment and technology and make it accessible to those with disabilities, the blind, and those with limited-English proficiency, to implement new administrative procedures to increase participation and reduce disenfranchisement of minorities; to educate voters and train election personnel and volunteers; and to implement recommendations of the Commission. To be eligible for grant funds, a State must submit a plan providing for uniform, nondiscriminatory voting systems that ensure accessibility for all voters; provides for the accuracy of voting records; and provides for voter education and personnel training. The Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001 is endorsed by the following organizations: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); the AFL-CIO; The National Federation of the Blind; the National Council of La Raza; the American Civil Liberties Union; and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The issues highlighted in the last election are not a Democratic or a Republican problem. They are an American problem and the solutions to these problems must be, appropriately, nonpartisan to succeed. The Committee on Rules and Administration, on which I serve as Ranking Member, has already held one day of hearings on the topic of Election Reform. What became clear from those hearings is that there is a bipartisan recognition that States and localities need assistance to enable them to efficiently, and effectively, administer Federal elections on a nondiscriminatory basis. I would submit that such assistance needs to take the form of both Federal election requirements for nondiscriminatory, inclusive voting systems, provisional voting, and sample ballot and voting instructions, as well as the financial resources to implement such requirements. I stand ready to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fashion bipartisan legislation to ensure that all citizens can participate in this Democracy. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and look forward to additional hearings in the Rules Committee on this and other election reform proposals. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the bill be included in the Record following my written remarks.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address some of the glaring problems that occurred in the 2000 elections with regard to technology and election administration. The Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001, and companion legislation introduced in the House by Congressman John Conyers, will provided much needed guidance, and funds, to state and local election officials to ensure that Federal elections are conducted in a manner that encourages participation and facilitates voting by all Americans in a nondiscriminatory manner. The right to vote is the cornerstone right in a Democracy. In the words of Thomas Paine, it is ``the primary right by which other rights are protected.'' Thirty-six years ago last week, on March 15, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson convened a Joint Session of Congress to call for passage of what ultimately became the Voting Rights Act. President Johnson spoke plainly and forcefully that evening. ``All Americans,'' he said, ``must have the right to vote. And we are going to give them that right. All Americans must have the privileges of citizenship regardless of race. And they are going to have those privileges of citizenship regardless of race.'' Yet the sad message of this last election is that the privileges of citizenship have yet to be fully guaranteed to all Americans. Nor are the barriers to exercising this fundamental right limited to race. Inaccessible polling places and visual ballots disenfranchised the disabled and blind across this country. Complicated instructions and a lack of trained personnel discouraged language minorities and the elderly from fully exercising their right to vote. And even if voters wee able to get to the polling place, read the ballot and cast it, antiquated technology and insufficient machinery denied Americans of all races, languages, and physical abilities the right to have their vote counted. In short, what happened last November set off alarms across this Nation that threaten to undermine the integrity of our system of Democracy. The fact is, there is a fundamental flaw in our Federal elections system--and that flaw is the lack of federal direction, leadership, and resources provided to the States and localities to meet their responsibility as the administrators of Federal elections. What we learned last November is that it is not good enough to guarantee the right to vote, if procedures and technology prevent individuals from exercising that right. And it will take more than just the latest technology, or a new ``mouse-trap'' to fix the problem. The legislation Congressman Conyers and I are introducing--The Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001--is intended to secure the rights of all Americans to participate in our Democracy, by establishing 3 simple national requirements for Federal elections: (1) that voting systems and technology meet national standards; (2) that states provide for provisional voting; and (3) that states provide sample ballots and voting instructions to voters prior to election day. These requirements must be implemented by the 2004 federal elections, and this legislation provides funding to States and localities to fund the costs of implementing these requirements. This legislation also creates a temporary Commission to study numerous electin reform issues such election systems and ballot designs, access for the disabled, voter intimidation, access for absent military and overseas voters, the feasibility of a national holiday, and alternative methods of voting to facilitate participation. Within 1 year of enactment, the Commission will adopt a final report, along with recommendations for best practices in the areas of convenient, accessible, nondiscriminatory election systems that accommodate voters with disabilities, the blind, and the limited-English speaking. The Commission will also make recommendations for how the Federal government, on an ongoing basis, can best provide assistance to State and local governments. Finally, the Commission will issue recommendations for best practices which will increase voter registration, the accuracy of voter rolls, and will improve voter education and the training of election personnel and volunteers. Finally, my legislation provides grant money, administered by the Department of Justice, to states and localities to implement the 3 national requirements for the 2004 and subsequent elections. In order to encourage the States and localities to act to improve voting systems and election administration procedures prior to the 2004 elections, the bill allows States and localities to apply for grants to replace voting equipment and technology and make it accessible to those with disabilities, the blind, and those with limited-English proficiency, to implement new administrative procedures to increase participation and reduce disenfranchisement of minorities; to educate voters and train election personnel and volunteers; and to implement recommendations of the Commission. To be eligible for grant funds, a State must submit a plan providing for uniform, nondiscriminatory voting systems that ensure accessibility for all voters; provides for the accuracy of voting records; and provides for voter education and personnel training. The Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001 is endorsed by the following organizations: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); the AFL-CIO; The National Federation of the Blind; the National Council of La Raza; the American Civil Liberties Union; and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The issues highlighted in the last election are not a Democratic or a Republican problem. They are an American problem and the solutions to these problems must be, appropriately, nonpartisan to succeed. The Committee on Rules and Administration, on which I serve as Ranking Member, has already held one day of hearings on the topic of Election Reform. What became clear from those hearings is that there is a bipartisan recognition that States and localities need assistance to enable them to efficiently, and effectively, administer Federal elections on a nondiscriminatory basis. I would submit that such assistance needs to take the form of both Federal election requirements for nondiscriminatory, inclusive voting systems, provisional voting, and sample ballot and voting instructions, as well as the financial resources to implement such requirements. I stand ready to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fashion bipartisan legislation to ensure that all citizens can participate in this Democracy. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and look forward to additional hearings in the Rules Committee on this and other election reform proposals. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the bill be included in the Record following my written remarks.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would make a simple correction to our Harmonized Tariff Schedule creating a separate subheading for hair clippers used for animals. The United States has been engaged in an on-going dispute with the European Union, EU, over the EU's refusal to import hormone-treated beef from the U.S. In reaction to the EU's failure to comply with a WTO ruling that found that this ban on treated beef has been harmful to the U.S. economy, the United States Trade Representative issued a list of products on which retaliatory duties of 100 percent would be levied. Pursuant to Section 407 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, the products designated for retaliatory duties must be related to the industries that are affected by the EU's non-compliance with the WTO decision. One of the many products included on the Trade Representative's list is hair clippers. However, no distinction is made between those clippers used for animals and those used for humans, specifically, beard trimmers. Since both types of clippers are grouped within the same subheading under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, human beard trimmers could potentially be subject to 100 percent duties. Yet, the personal care industry and beard trimmers have no relationship to the current beef-hormone dispute as is required by Section 407. In an effort to prevent this inadvertent application of duties on beard trimmers, the bill I am introducing would provide a separate subheading for clippers used by animals. I believe that this simple clarification will ensure the fair application of our trade laws and provide safeguards to U.S. companies and consumers from the unintended consequences resulting from these types of trade disputes. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would make a simple correction to our Harmonized Tariff Schedule creating a separate subheading for hair clippers used for animals. The United States has been engaged in an on-going dispute with the European Union, EU, over the EU's refusal to import hormone-treated beef from the U.S. In reaction to the EU's failure to comply with a WTO ruling that found that this ban on treated beef has been harmful to the U.S. economy, the United States Trade Representative issued a list of products on which retaliatory duties of 100 percent would be levied. Pursuant to Section 407 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, the products designated for retaliatory duties must be related to the industries that are affected by the EU's non-compliance with the WTO decision. One of the many products included on the Trade Representative's list is hair clippers. However, no distinction is made between those clippers used for animals and those used for humans, specifically, beard trimmers. Since both types of clippers are grouped within the same subheading under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, human beard trimmers could potentially be subject to 100 percent duties. Yet, the personal care industry and beard trimmers have no relationship to the current beef-hormone dispute as is required by Section 407. In an effort to prevent this inadvertent application of duties on beard trimmers, the bill I am introducing would provide a separate subheading for clippers used by animals. I believe that this simple clarification will ensure the fair application of our trade laws and provide safeguards to U.S. companies and consumers from the unintended consequences resulting from these types of trade disputes. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. If the Senator will yield 5 minutes of his time for one Member who would like to be heard on the amendment? I have no time.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I believe that most people, including most of my colleagues, will understand the purpose and intent behind this amendment. It attempts to inject a sense of responsibility not only among those who have received credit, which this legislation purports to accomplish, but it also asks those who are extending credit to assume some responsibility as well. That is truly what the underlying legislation fails to accomplish. In my view, the underlying legislation fails to recognize that while creditors will gain much from this legislation, while young people in our country, those under the age of 21, remain unprotected from the barrage of unsolicited credit card applications. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that the mere signature of a student and the presentation of an identification card, indicating they are a student at that institution, is all they need to sign up for $3,000, $5,000, $20,000 worth of credit. This amendment merely attempts to inject some responsibility into a process that is out of control in this country. I will show you in a moment the statistics which bear this claim out. This is not a small problem. It is a growing problem. We must demand that the credit card industry bear some responsibility before they go on college campuses and accept applications from these young people, enticing them with the offer of a free baseball cap, or a free T-shirt without anything more than a signature and an ID. This is the growing problem across our nation that this amendment attempts to address. Mr. President, I strongly support the purported goal of the underlying bill: to curb bankruptcy abuses. My fear is in our zeal to prevent abuses, we have cast the net too broadly, and snared some very honest and hard-working parents and young people. Of equal concern is that this legislation does little to focus on an issue of fundamental importance, and that is trying to help consumers avoid declaring bankruptcy in the first place. That ought to be our first line of defense: to minimize or offer a means by which people would not have to seek bankruptcy protection. There is precious little in this legislation, which is heavily slanted toward creditors, to provide consumers with the tools they need to understand the causes and effects of filing for bankruptcy protection. If those who incur debt must meet their responsibilities, so, too, must creditors who extend credit with no reasonable expectation that those debts will be repaid. My amendment simply requires that any credit card issuer, prior to granting credit to persons under the age of 21, obtain one of three things: That they have a co-signature by a parent, guardian, or other responsible party; or the applicant demonstrates an independent means of financial support for paying off the amount of credit that is offered; or the completion of a certified credit counseling course, which is currently outlined in the underlying legislation. This is not an onerous obligation. Federal laws in this country already put limitations on what people under the age of 21 can do. You can't drink alcohol anywhere in America if you are under age 21. The Tax Code makes the presumption that if someone is a full-time student under the age of 23, they are financially dependent on parents or guardians. I ask a simple rhetorical question, if you will: Is it so much to ask that credit card issuers find out if someone under the age of 21 is financially capable of paying back the debt? Or that their parents or guardians are willing to assume financial responsibility? Or if they don't want to meet either of those two conditions, that they understand the nature and conditions of the debt they are incurring? It is my understanding that there are responsible credit card issuers already requiring this information in one form or another. Is it too much to ask that the entire credit card industry strive to meet their own best practices when it comes to the most vulnerable in our society? Providing fair access to credit is something I have fought for throughout my entire tenure in the Senate. Credit cards can play a very valuable role in assisting millions of people to pursue the American dream. They have been a wonderful asset for millions of people. This amendment would not result in the denial of credit to worthy young people. However, it would help to protect financially unsophisticated young consumers from falling into a financial trap even before beginning their adult lives. Mr. President, I don't believe this amendment is unduly burdensome on the credit card industry, nor is it unfair to people under the age of 21. It is the responsible thing to do. The fact is, these abusive creditors assume that if the young adult is unable to pay, they will be bailed out by their parents. Many times this means parents must sacrifice other things in order to make sure their child does not start out their adult life in a financial hole, with an ugly black mark on their credit history. By adopting this straightforward amendment, the Senate would send a very clear message to those aggressive credit card companies that we will no longer countenance their abusive behavior. This amendment corrects that behavior by making those overly aggressive credit card companies exercise their best judgment when it comes to the people who are obtaining their own credit cards for the very first time. Additionally, the legislation before us offers no protection for the most vulnerable in our society, who ironically are the primary targets of many credit card issuers--college students. This amendment, which I am offering with my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, is very simple. It makes a modest attempt to help educate young people, as well as help credit card issuers help themselves by making sure that those persons applying for credit cards have the reasonable ability to repay those debts, or that someone will cosign with them, or that they will take at least a course on understanding what their credit responsibilities would be. In the context of the bankruptcy debate, I think it is important to understand that an estimated 150,000 young Americans declared bankruptcy in the year 2000. I will repeat that. 150,000 young Americans, last year alone, filed for bankruptcy protection. That is a staggering number. According to Houston University professor, Robert Manning, the fastest growing group of bankruptcy filers are those people who are 25 years of age or younger. In fact, the number of bankruptcies among those under the age of 25 is more than 6 times that of what it was 5 years ago. One of the most troubling developments in the hotly contested battle between the credit card issuers to sign up new customers has been the aggressive way in which they have targeted people under age 21, particularly on college campuses across America. Solicitations of this group have become more intense for a variety of reasons. First, it is one of the few market segments in which there are always new customers to go after. Every year, 25 to 30 percent of undergraduates are fresh faces entering their first year of college. It is also an age group in which brand loyalty can be established. In the words of one major credit card issuer, ``We are in the relationship business, and we want to build relationships early on.'' Recent press stories have reported that people hold on to their first credit card for up to 15 years, but in my view, some credit card issuers have gone just too far. They irresponsibly, target the most vulnerable in society and extend large amounts of credit with absolutely no regard to whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of repayment. Although college students are one of the primary targets for credit card marketeers, they are not alone. One does not have to be in college to receive a credit card. In fact, one does not have to be old enough to read to qualify for one. I am sure there are people who may be listening to this debate who can offer their own anecdotes. I bring the attention of my colleagues a heartwarming story that was reported in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. The article relates the story of a 3-year-old child who received a platinum credit card with a credit limit of $5,000. Her mother filled in the application. I quote what she said: I would like a credit card to buy some toys, but I'm only 3 and my mommy says no. This child's credit line is greater than the number of days she has been alive. The pitfalls of giving 3-year-olds platinum credit cards is self-evident, and this is happening with increasing frequency. Let me take a moment to refocusing on the efforts of credit card companies on young people in our academic institutions. Credit card issuers are deeply involved in the business of enlisting colleges and universities to help promote their products. I find this shameful, and I hope they are listening: It is shameful what you are doing to these young people on your campuses. According to Professor Robert Manning, banks pay the largest 250 universities nearly $1 billion annually for exclusive marketing rights to sell their credit cards on college campuses. Other colleges receive as much as 1 percent of all student charges from the credit card issuers in return for marketing or affinity agreements. Even those colleges that do not enter into such agreements are making money. Robert Bugai, the president of College Marketing Intelligence, told the American Banker that colleges charge up to $400 per day for each credit card company that sets up a table on their campuses. That can run into tens of thousands of dollars by the end of just one semester. A recent ``60 Minutes II'' piece that ran a few weeks ago vividly illustrated the impact that credit card debt can have on college students. A crew from the show ``60 Minutes II'' went to a major public university campus in this country and, with the use of hidden cameras, filmed vendors pushing free T-shirts, hats, and other enticements with credit card applications: Just sign on the dotted line, show me your ID, and you get $5,000 to $10,000 worth of credit. That is all you need. A signature, an ID, you get a hat, a T-shirt, and you incur $5,000 worth of debt. ``60 Minutes II'' revealed that the university, a well-known university in this country, was being paid $13 million over 10 years by a credit card company for the right to have a presence on their campus and to use the university logo on its credit cards. This public university is actually making money off its students who use these cards. As part of the agreement, the university receives four-tenths of a percent of each purchase made with the cards. Unbelievable. This university has a vested interest in getting their students in as much debt as possible. We have a chance to do something about that. Look, if you are going to sign up a student under 21, and they do not have the independent means to repay, then a parent, guardian or other responsible party should co-sign or at least mandate that the student will take a course to understand what credit obligations are. If you are in the military, you have a paycheck. This amendment has no effect on persons who have a source of income. I am not referring to those people. I am talking about kids who have no independent means of financial support, who are being given these cards without any consideration for what it is going to do to them or their families. The ``60 minutes II'' piece also told the story of one student's circumstances, Sean Moyer. He made desperate attempts to handle the massive credit card debt he incurred. Sean Moyer's life began to spin out of control as a result of the huge debts racked up in 3 years in college. He could not get loans to go to law school like he dreamed. His parents could not afford to pay his way. So in 1998, Sean Moyer took his own life. ``It is obscene that the universities are making money off the suffering of their students,'' said Sean Moyer's mother. Sean Moyer had 12 credit cards and more than $10,000 in debts when he committed suicide nearly 3 years ago. He had two jobs, one at the library and another as a security guard at a Holiday Inn, but he still could not pay his collectors. Three years after his son's death, his mother still gets pre-approved credit card offers in Sean's name from some of the same companies to whom he owed thousands of dollars. One company pre-approved Sean for a $100,000 credit line, according to his mother. Do not misunderstand me. People have to take responsibility for their actions. If you are going to apply for a credit card, you have to understand your responsibilities. All that I ask is that there be a commensurate responsibility on those soliciting these individuals. That is all I am asking for: some sense of balance in this bill. In the last Congress, I went to the main campus of the University of Connecticut in my home State to meet with student leaders about this issue. I was surprised at the amount of solicitations occurring at the student union at the University of Connecticut. I was surprised at the degree to which the students themselves were concerned about the constant barrage of offers they were receiving. The offers seemed very attractive. One student intern in my office received four solicitations in 2 weeks: One promised ``eight cheap flights while you still have 18 weeks of vacation.'' Another promised a platinum card with what appeared to be a low interest rate until you read the fine print that it applied only to balance transfers, not to the account overall. Only one of four, the Discover card, offered a brochure about credit terms, but in doing so also offered a spring break sweepstakes. In fact, last year the Chicago Tribune reported that the average college freshman will receive 50 solicitations during their first few months at college--50 solicitations from credit card companies. All you have to do is sign up and show your ID. You get five grand of credit. Is it too much to ask that the student show they can repay these debts? Or have an independent source of income? Or, in the absence of that, mom and dad or guardian are going will cosign the application? Or the student will complete a credit education course to understand what credit obligations are? It can be any one of these three options. That is all this amendment does. College students can get green-lighted for a line of credit that can reach more than $10,000 on a signature and an ID, according to the Chicago Tribune. There is a serious public policy question about whether people in this age bracket can be presumed to be able to make the sensible financial choices that are being forced on them from this barrage of marketing. It is very difficult to get reliable information from the credit card issuers about their marketing practices to people under the age of 21. However, the statistics that are available are deeply troubling. I refer to chart #2, titled ``Undergraduates pile on credit cards and debt.'' Nellie Mae, a major student loan provider in New England, conducted a recent survey of students who applied for student loans. It termed the results ``alarming''. The study found the following: 78 percent of all undergraduate students have at least one credit card. That is up in 2 years from 67 percent to 78 percent. Of those students, the average credit card balance is $2,748. That is up from $1,879, 2 years ago. In 1998, 67 percent of these students with credit cards, and in 2 years it jumped 11 percent. In the same 2-year period, the obligations have gone up nearly $1,000, with every indication that student credit card debt is on the rise. We can do something now or wait until the problem is more severe. Ten percent of the college students have over $7,000 in credit card debt; 32 percent of the undergraduates had four or more credit cards in the survey. Some college administrators are bucking the trend of using credit card issuers as a source of income. Some have become so concerned they have banned credit card companies from their campuses. I applaud them. Some have even gone so far as to ban credit card advertisements in the campus bookstores. Roger Witherspoon, the vice president of student development at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, banned credit card solicitors, saying indebtedness was causing students to drop out. Middle-class parents can bail out their kids when this happens, but lower income parents can't. I don't completely agree with Mr. Witherspoon on that statement. I don't think middle-class parents can afford it, either. Middle-class parents trying to make ends meet can hardly assume this kind of burden. Only the most affluent of people can assume these obligations. Mr. Witherspoon also said, ``kids only find out later how much it messes up their lives.'' An important component of this amendment is requiring credit counseling. Let me explain how this works. Much like we encourage our children who reach driving age to take driver's education courses to prevent automobile accidents, I think we should teach young people, young consumers, the basics of credit to avoid financial wrecks. Educating our Nation's youth about responsibilities of financial management is critical. Currently, we hardly do a very good job. There is overwhelming evidence student debt is skyrocketing. Most surveys also show the same group of consumers is woefully uninformed about basic credit card terms and issues. According to the Jump Start Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, a nonprofit group which conducts its annual national survey of high school seniors' knowledge of personal finance, financial skills are poorer today than 3 years ago. I will not go into all of the data they provided, but a startling number, well over a majority of students, have little or no understanding how credit works. Without any question in my mind, some credit counseling requirement is needed before you can sign on for the kind of debt being offered by the credit card issuers. The amendment I offer does not take any draconian action against the credit card industry. I agree with those who argue there are many millions of people under the age of 21 who hold full-time jobs, are deserving of credit. I also agree students should continue to have access to credit, that we should not try to prohibit the market from making credit available to them. Again, this amendment does nothing to affect these persons. However, you ought to be required to have more than just a student ID to qualify for credit. That is all that is currently required. I don't think asking for a co-signature, or proof that you have a job id too onerous. Barring the absence of those two qualifications, you need only take a course in credit responsibility. I think parents across the country would applaud the passage of this amendment. How many parents with kids who are currently in college are incurring more debt than they can afford. Are they perhaps affecting the ability of another sibling to go to school because of the debt they have accumulated? I think every mother and father in America would applaud a Senate that said: When you tighten the bankruptcy laws for debtors, make the credit card companies more responsible, too. This is a modest amendment. Can't we adopt this amendment, include this sort of simple proposal, to add some basic sense of responsibility for creditors? This bill should help families, not hurt them. If I have to choose between the credit card companies versus the parents, I believe that we should side with the parents. On this issue, parents should get our vote. I hope my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, whatever else their views may be on this bill, will decide tonight, as parents and children gather around the dinner table, we will vote for this amendment, and cast a ballot tonight on behalf of families.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, just so we understand the order of things here, as I understand it, my friend from Utah has a brief statement he wants to make, and then my colleague and friend from New York has a request to make, and then I would ask unanimous consent, at the conclusion of both of these, the statement and request, that the Senator from Connecticut be recognized to offer an amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Connecticut State Representative Jim O'Rourke on being named the Irishman of the Year by the Portland-Middletown Ancient Order of Hibernians, an Irish-American organization with a tradition of service to the community. Jim O'Rourke, born in Boston, MA, has served the people of Connecticut for most of his adult life. He is a graduate of Manchester High School and earned a Bachelors Degree in Political Science at the University of Connecticut. While at the University of Connecticut, Jim developed a deep passion for issues affecting the environment, consumer protection, and education, serving as Chairman of the statewide Connecticut Public Interest Research Group and later as Chairman of the Connecticut Environmental Caucus. For the past 11 years, as a member of the Connecticut State House of Representatives, Representative O'Rourke has been a champion of initiatives aimed at providing cleaner air and water for the people of Cromwell, Portland, and Middletown. Last month, he hosted the Connecticut Coalition for Clean Air, CCCA, a partnership of private, State, and local government officials committed to educating the public while providing solutions to pollution concerns throughout the State. Jim believes that pollution of our air and waterways is more than just an environmental problem, it is a public health concern. Representative O'Rourke's leadership on these vital issues has earned him wide respect among his colleagues. In fact, one indication of the high regard Jim's colleagues have for him is that he was chosen to serve as Assistant Majority Leader of the Connecticut House of Representatives earlier this year. Jim O'Rourke has made numerous contributions to his community. His tireless work on behalf of children and families there and throughout Connecticut is never-ending. He works as Assistant Development Director of The Connection, a non-profit service and community development organization which provides counsel to low and moderate-income families seeking to purchase their first home. It also provides important treatment services for underprivileged families and persons in need of counseling. Mr. O'Rourke is an active member of the Portland-Middletown division of the Connecticut Ancient Order of Hibernians, having been granted the third degree prior to his latest achievement. The Order has been an integral part of Irish-American life since its North American branch was founded in 1836 in New York City, it is now the largest of all Irish Social Societies in the United States. Jim O'Rourke is also a member of the Cromwell Kiwanis Club and the DeSoto Council Cromwell Knights of Columbus. He serves as president of the statewide People's Action for Clean Energy, an organization committed to energy conservation and a clean and healthy environment. As a result of his endeavors, Jim has been the recipient of numerous awards, including being recently named the Legislator of the Year by the Connecticut Council of Small Towns and Champion of Youth by the Connecticut Coalition of Youth Advocates. As you are aware, this week is a special one for all Irish-Americans, for Saturday we celebrate Saint Patrick's Day. Let us take this opportunity not only to recognize the rich legacy of the Irish in America, but also to honor a man who has worked so hard within his community to preserve this heritage, and to promote the well being of all citizens, as well. I can think of no finer illustration of the contributions that Americans of Irish descent continue to make to our Nation than the good deeds that Jim O'Rourke performs each and every day as an outstanding public servant.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was happy to yield to my colleague for the purpose of making this statement, although I had no idea what the subject matter was going to be. I feel fortunate to have been on the floor when I discovered it was going to be about Kris Iverson, with whom I have worked now for some 15 or 16 years, going back to the mid- 1980s when Senator Hatch and I authored the child care development block grant. Kris Iverson did the initial work for Senator Hatch on that legislation, working with a fellow from my office who has been at the Department of Health and Human Services over the last number of years. I thank Kris. Coming from the other side of the aisle here, I didn't have the privilege of working with her every day, but on the days that I did, I came to know her as a highly competent, serious individual of deep convictions, who understands issues very, very well, appreciates the role of government, and that bright and talented people can make a contribution. We are going to miss you, I say to Kris Iverson, here in the Senate, although we are not going to lose you entirely from public service. So on behalf of those of us on this side of the aisle--we don't want to ruin your reputation in Republican circles--but we thank you as well for a job very well done on behalf of all Americans. We are lucky to have had you serve the Senate and certainly the interests of the American people.