Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is this the copyright bill?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I commend my colleague from Indiana who is in his closing days in this body, having made the decision not to seek reelection. A lot of Members, as they wind down, spend their last few days winding up work and not being actively involved in the legislative process. It is a tribute to Senator Coats that in his remaining days in this body, he is still very active and involved in issues he has cared deeply about. This is one such issue. I commend him for this amendment. I think it is a very creative way to advance this issue and provide some safety for young people who are being exposed today to an alarming amount of pornography on the Internet. I strongly support his amendment. Now, let me put my amendment in a framework for some people. My amendment is a second degree amendment, and really complements the Coats amendment. My amendment requires that Internet access providers either provide free of charge, or for a fee, screening software at the time they make sales to customers. Internet access providers that don't do this, as with the Coats amendment, would be denied the benefits of the tax breaks in the underlying bill. This amendment also relies on the Ginsberg definition that has been used in the Coats amendment. How big is this problem, people say? Let me just put it in perspective for you. According to Wired Magazine, there are 28,000 web sites worldwide that have soft- or hard-core pornography on them. And, fifty new web sites with such material are added to the Internet every single day--50 a day. My colleague from Indiana has some material he wisely decided not to show on the floor, but suffice to say, most Americans would find it highly offensive, to put it mildly. The idea that this material is available to children is something that ought to be a cause of alarm to all of us. Sadly, many of our children are unwittingly and accidentally exposed to such sites while surfing the web. They type in search terms as innocuous as ``toys''--pretty innocuous--only to find graphic images and language on their display terminals. Mr. President, the Internet is profoundly changing the way we learn and communicate with people. Today our children have unprecedented access to educational material through the Internet. It provides children with vast opportunities to learn about art and culture and history. The possibilities are endless. It is an incredibly valuable technology for children all across this country and across the globe. But as with any technology, Mr. President, this advanced technology also brings with it a dark side for our children. Many of these young people are browsing the net, often unaccompanied by an adult, and come across material that is unsuitable, to put it mildly. It is oftentimes very sexually explicit. Every parent worries about strangers approaching their children in their neighborhood or on a playground at school. And they teach their children how to avoid these strangers. But today, these strangers can literally enter our homes via the Internet. They are only a mouse click away from our children. In our libraries and bookstores, we store reading material that is harmful to minors in areas accessible only to adults. Yet, in cyberspace, these same materials are as accessible to a child as his or her favorite bedtime story. Pornographic images and sexual predators are now reaching our children, via the Internet, in the privacy and safety of their own homes and classrooms. This kind of access to our children is alarming, and this invasion of our children's privacy and innocence is unconscionable. Just a few weeks ago, law enforcement agents in a sting operation apprehended 200 members of an Internet pornography ring that possessed and distributed sexually explicit images of children. Members of this ring traded inappropriate images of children on the Internet. One of the sites raided was in my own State of Connecticut. As I noted a moment ago, there are 50 new sites a day added to the Web that contain pornography, these sites are added to the 28,000 that already exist. Despite this successful operation by law enforcement agents, their raid only represents the elimination of approximately four days of new sites. We, as a nation, have an obligation to ensure that surfing the web remains a safe and viable option for our children. We have a responsibility to make sure that they are able to learn and grow in an environment free of sexual predators and pornographic images. Clearly, there is no substitute for parental supervision; yet, I think we can all agree that many parents know less about the Internet than their children do. Parents are convinced of the Internet's educational value, but they also feel anxious about their ability to supervise their children while they use it. In my view, it is important that we encourage parents and children to use the Internet together. But clearly, it is difficult for any adult to monitor children on line all the time. Therefore, I believe we need to provide our parents with tools that will help them to protect and to guide their children on the Internet. The amendment I have offered here is a modest measure. It is not a cure-all by any stretch of the imagination. It is a modest idea and just requires that Internet access providers make screening software available to customers purchasing Internet access services. The amendment would allow customers to have the opportunity, as I said, to either buy or obtain free of charge, as determined by the provider, screening software that permits customers to limit access to material on the Internet that is harmful to minors. Like going to a pharmacy and being asked if you want to buy a childproof lid for prescription medication, my bill will require that Internet access providers ask parents whether they would like to obtain screening software to protect them from the very kind of dangers that we see on the 28,000 existing web sites and the 50 new ones that are added each day. This is a serious problem, and providing this kind of tool to parents is one way we can begin to combat the problem. At any rate, I hope my colleagues will see fit to support this amendment. It has been offered once before on the floor and passed the Senate overwhelmingly and, not unlike the Coats amendment, we need to have it included in this bill today. Again, I commend my colleague from Indiana for his fine work on many issues, but once again on this particular issue, and hope as well this second-degree amendment will be adopted.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the second degree to the desk.

Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and, further, that my colleague from Indiana proceed to speak on his amendment. Then when he completes his discussion, I will make some comments on the amendment that I am offering. Amendment No. 3780 to Amendment No. 3695, as modified (Purpose: To provide an exception to the moratorium with respect to Internet access providers who do not offer customers screening software)

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

Mr. DODD. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. There was no unanimous consent time agreement on this amendment?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise along with my colleague, Senator Jeffords, in introducing a critically important piece of legislation that will ensure fair treatment for individuals and families who provide invaluable care to foster children and adults. Presently, foster care providers are permitted to deduct expenditures made while caring for foster individuals if detailed expense records are maintained to support such deductions. However, section 131 of the Internal Revenue Code permits certain foster care providers to exclude, from taxable income, payments they receive to care for foster individuals. Who specifically is available for this exclusion depends upon a complicated analysis of three factors: the age of the individual receiving foster care services, the type of foster care placement agency, and the source of the foster care payments. Section 131 presently permits foster care providers to exclude payments from taxable income only when a state, or one of its political divisions, or a charitable tax exempt placement agency places the individual and makes the foster care payments for children under 19 years of age. However, for adults over the age of 19, section 131 permits foster providers to exclude payments from taxable income only when a State, or one of its divisisions, places the individual and provides the foster care payments. Mr. President, it is time that we remove the inequities and needless complexities of the current system. States and localities across the country are increasingly relying on private agencies to arrange for foster care services for both children and adults. However, some foster care providers are understandably reluctant to contract with private placement agencies because current law requires such providers to include foster care payments as taxable income. In contrast, current law permits providers who care for foster individuals placed in their homes by government agencies to exclude such payments from taxable income. Current law, therefore, discourages families from providing foster care on behalf of private placement agencies, thereby reducing badly-needed foster care opportunities for individuals requiring assistance. The bill Senator Jeffords and I introduce today will greatly simplify the outdated tax rules applicable to foster care payments. Under our legislation, foster care providers would be able to avoid onerous record keeping by excluding from income any foster care payment received regardless of the age of the individual receiving foster care services, the type of agency that placed the individual, or the source of foster care payments. To ensure appropriate oversight, this bill will require the placement agency to be licensed either by, or under contract with, a state or one or its political divisions. Mr. President, this legislation accomplishes what current law does not--consistent and fair treatment of families and individuals who open their homes and their hearts to foster children and adults.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise along with my colleague, Senator Jeffords, in introducing a critically important piece of legislation that will ensure fair treatment for individuals and families who provide invaluable care to foster children and adults. Presently, foster care providers are permitted to deduct expenditures made while caring for foster individuals if detailed expense records are maintained to support such deductions. However, section 131 of the Internal Revenue Code permits certain foster care providers to exclude, from taxable income, payments they receive to care for foster individuals. Who specifically is available for this exclusion depends upon a complicated analysis of three factors: the age of the individual receiving foster care services, the type of foster care placement agency, and the source of the foster care payments. Section 131 presently permits foster care providers to exclude payments from taxable income only when a state, or one of its political divisions, or a charitable tax exempt placement agency places the individual and makes the foster care payments for children under 19 years of age. However, for adults over the age of 19, section 131 permits foster providers to exclude payments from taxable income only when a State, or one of its divisisions, places the individual and provides the foster care payments. Mr. President, it is time that we remove the inequities and needless complexities of the current system. States and localities across the country are increasingly relying on private agencies to arrange for foster care services for both children and adults. However, some foster care providers are understandably reluctant to contract with private placement agencies because current law requires such providers to include foster care payments as taxable income. In contrast, current law permits providers who care for foster individuals placed in their homes by government agencies to exclude such payments from taxable income. Current law, therefore, discourages families from providing foster care on behalf of private placement agencies, thereby reducing badly-needed foster care opportunities for individuals requiring assistance. The bill Senator Jeffords and I introduce today will greatly simplify the outdated tax rules applicable to foster care payments. Under our legislation, foster care providers would be able to avoid onerous record keeping by excluding from income any foster care payment received regardless of the age of the individual receiving foster care services, the type of agency that placed the individual, or the source of foster care payments. To ensure appropriate oversight, this bill will require the placement agency to be licensed either by, or under contract with, a state or one or its political divisions. Mr. President, this legislation accomplishes what current law does not--consistent and fair treatment of families and individuals who open their homes and their hearts to foster children and adults.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last week, close to 400,000 older Americans and individuals with disabilities, representing some 300 counties and 18 States across this Nation, were notified by their Medicare health maintenance organizations that as of January 1, 1999, their insurers would be terminating their health coverage. In my State of Connecticut, we were notified on Friday around 6 o'clock that 6,000 seniors would see their HMO, Oxford Health Plan, leave their communities. When added to earlier withdrawals from the market by other HMOs in Connecticut, this announcement means that more than 12,000 Connecticut Medicare beneficiaries will lose their present HMO providers. One can only imagine the anxiety of seniors reading of the announcement in their newspapers or hearing on television that their HMO would not be there for them on January 1 and having no one to turn to, no one to ask questions of, with offices closed for the weekend. Even the Health Care Financing Administration, which regulates these HMOs, had not yet received the news. Only three weeks earlier, two other HMOs in Connecticut notified their customers that they would be backing out of New London, Windham, and Tolland Counties, jeopardizing affordable Medicare coverage for about 6,000 seniors. The precipitous withdrawal of managed care organizations from Medicare is a growing problem. Unless action is taken, on January 1, 1999 thousands of seniors will find themselves at forced to leave established relationships with their doctors and without affordable health care coverage. I am fearful that with Congress adjourning later this week or early next week, and being out of session for the bulk of October, November, December, it may not be until January that we will again have the opportunity to do something about this. I am going to be calling on the leadership today to enact an emergency piece of legislation, which I will be introducing today, to put a moratorium on HMOs leaving the Medicare market while we are not in session. This legislation will give us some time to see if we can't sort out this mess and prevent thousands more seniors from finding themselves without HMO coverage on January 1, 1999, a matter of weeks. My hope is that the leadership will find some time to consider this and adopt it before we leave, hopefully on a bipartisan basis, to stop this serious problem we are seeing in my State and 17 other States around the country. Mr. President, last Friday I also introduced legislation that deals with the broader issues underlying the recent withdrawals of Medicare HMOs from certain communities. Because it takes a comprehensive approach, I do not expect that this bill would be adopted before we leave. However, I would hope that for now we can at least agree on a narrowly defined moratorium which would at least give us time to find solutions to the larger problem. Mr. President, I would like to briefly outline for my colleagues the provisions of the legislation I introduced last week. Specifically, the legislation would not allow a flat termination of coverage if there are other less drastic options available. In the case of the withdrawals of two HMOs in eastern Connecticut, after causing considerable distress to seniors with an announcement that they were leaving, the companies re- evaluated their positions in the face of strong pressure from the community, and said ``Well, maybe there are some other options we hadn't considered.'' This legislation will require they consider those other options first--before creating anxiety among our seniors. Secondly, the legislation will stipulate that if a company maintains there are no other options but ending coverage, they must demonstrate that. In addition, the HMO would then be responsible for notifying consumers of what alternative coverage is available. The legislation also requires that HMOs commit to serving seniors for more than just a year. Right now, HMOs are only required to contract on an annual basis. We would require them to make a 3-year commitment. It is important to keep in mind that we are talking about companies that have made the careful determination that it is in their financial interest to enter the Medicare market. These are companies that have extensively recruited seniors and convinced them to leave long-standing relationships with their health care providers to join their HMO and then, with very precipitous announcements, as we have seen in the last several weeks, they have left those communities. Mr. President, this is a serious, serious problem that is going to get worse, in my view, if we don't take some steps. We passed similar legislation a number of years ago dealing with plant closings. We finally decided that having a company announce precipitously it is leaving, disrupting communities, disrupting the lives of their employees, is unwise and that we ought to adopt legislation that requires at least some advance notice so that communities and people can try to rearrange their lives. I am suggesting parallel legislation to deal with Medicare HMOs. Here it is so important, particularly for our older Americans or disabled Americans, many of them living alone, who don't have the financial resources to hire lawyers and read through all of the morass of paperwork when it comes to finding a new HMO, that they be given adequate notice and provided with clear information about their options. We are hopeful we can build some support for the idea of considering all options, having more advanced notice, and extending the contract term. If you are going to go out and try to entice people to sign up, it seems to me you have an obligation to stick with them for a while. Certainly just to make a decision that you are going to pull out of the area, with minimal notice, I think is wrong.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to take a minute to talk about an individual in my State whom I only met for about 10 minutes, but who had a profound impact on my view of this situation. He is a man by the name of Fred Kral. He is a person who led, in many ways, I suppose, an ordinary life, but I think became sort of an extraordinary figure. He recently died at the age of 72. Mr. Kral lived in Niantic, CT, for the last 48 years. He served in World War II. After the war, he attended the Rhode Island School of Design. He later went to the University of Connecticut. He earned a degree in agricultural engineering. He worked at Electric Boat Company, a builder of submarines, for 38 years and retired in 1989 as manager of materials for the Kessel Ring site in Ballston Spa, NY. He was a member of the Masons. He was also a member of the East Lyme Water and Sewer Commission. An avid golfer and a track letterman back in college, he was a founding and life member of the Niantic Sportsman's Club where he served in various offices. Most important, Mr. Kral was a loving husband and parent, survived by his wife, his son Frederick, his three daughters Joyce, Freda, and Heidi, his sister Betty Lavelle, and his 11 grandchildren. Fred Kral was a fine man. A lot of people would say Fred Kral was an average guy, an average American. In many respects he was, but this average man also was a very passionate man, a man who always fought for what he believed. Earlier this month, Fred Kral and an estimated 6,000 other seniors in eastern Connecticut were notified through the mail that two Medicare HMOs were discontinuing service in their communities, effectively canceling these seniors' health care plans as of January 1, 1999. Three Saturdays ago, Mr. President, I organized a forum at the Rose City Senior Center in Norwich where more than 400 people gathered to discussed these insurance companies' actions and what steps might be taken to preserve their health care. At that meeting, Fred Kral spoke eloquently--eloquently--not only on behalf of himself and his wife who, 2 weeks earlier, had a stroke, but on behalf of all the seniors in eastern Connecticut who were worried about their health care and what was going to happen to them when these HMOs left. Fred Kral expressed anger and disappointment with his HMO's decision. He specifically voiced his concern for his wife, who recently suffered a stroke, and his fears he might be rejected when he tried to join another plan. He wondered how he could be dropped from the same health care plan that he and his wife were enticed to join only 2 years ago. He also said he would be willing to pay higher premiums to keep his health care if that was the only choice. But at the time he wasn't given that option. He and thousands of others were simply told they were being dropped by the same plan that had actively recruited them just 2 years earlier. He summed up the debate best when he said, ``It's a moral issue.'' As he returned to his seat from speaking, Fred Kral suffered cardiac arrest. After efforts to revive him at the scene, he was rushed back to his hospital in Norwich and died shortly before noon on that day. This is a tragic incident and an unfortunate way for this honorable man to die. But it is no accident that Fred Kral was at that meeting delivering his speech from the front row of that audience that day. As I said earlier, he was a passionate man about everything he did. He was particularly passionate about this issue. His daughter told me that he was up at 2:30 in the morning the day of the meeting preparing questions. Of the hundreds of people attending the forum, Fred Kral had approached me before the event and struck up a conversation. He told me he came to that forum to have his opinions heard. I told him I would recognize him when the forum began. I want my colleagues to know about Fred Kral. I want them to know that this debate is not about nameless, faceless beneficiaries. It is about individuals like Fred Kral. He was not a member of some consumer advocacy group, he was just a normal citizen who cared very deeply about health care and HMOs because no other issue had a more direct impact on his life and his family. There are a lot of people out in this country who feel the same way about this issue as Fred Kral did. Just look at my own State. In a small community in this small State, there were 400 people who cared enough about this issue to spend their Saturday morning at a health care forum. I guarantee each and every one of my colleagues that there are persons in their home States who have similar worries about their health care, and they want Congress to do something about it. Before any of my colleagues say that the health care system in this country doesn't need changing, I urge them, again, to think about Fred Kral of Niantic, CT. Here is a man who lived nearly half a century in the same small town. He served our Nation in World War II. He spent 38 years working to strengthen our national infrastructure, our defense infrastructure. He supported and raised a family, and in his retirement he enjoyed a good round of golf every now and then--in many ways he was your average, solid citizen that we so often talk about. But despite playing by the rules his whole life, he got a letter in the mail from his HMO telling him that they no longer wished to take care of him, just weeks after his wife had suffered a stroke. I say to you, my colleagues here, any health care system that allows something like this to happen to someone such as Fred Kral, and 12,000 other Connecticut citizens, is in need of serious examination and review. Therefore, Mr. President, in the small amount of time we have left in this legislative session, I would hope that we in this Congress would do what is right and have a full and open debate on the issues of Medicare HMOs. Four hundred thousand people in the last 2 or 3 weeks who have been dumped by their HMOs deserve better than just silence on this issue. I know the hours are waning. I know there is other business to do. But I cannot think of anything that could be more important than helping thousands and thousands of older Americans who, while we are out of session, may find themselves losing affordable health care coverage because their HMO has decided some communities aren t quite as profitable as they thought they d be. We must act in the next few days. To be out of session for October and November and December and January while we know there are thousands of people who are worried about whether or not they are going to have HMO coverage, I think is terribly, terribly wrong. In closing, Mr. President, Fred Kral's death is certainly a tragedy. It is a tragedy for his family and for the people who knew him and loved him, but it did not come in vain. In southeastern Connecticut, the insurance companies are reconsidering their decision. They announced the Monday following the forum that they will try to come up with some solutions. I hope they do. I am not confident they are going to be terribly comprehensive, but obviously they were mortified, as they should have been, about what occurred. So my hope is, Mr. President, that we might be able to at least pass an emergency piece of legislation that would place for the next 6 months a moratorium on HMOs leaving these areas to give us time to work with the Health Care Financing Administration to try and renegotiate some of the contracts and prevent these companies from just packing up and leaving. So in the midst of dealing with all these other lofty bills we have before us, a simple moratorium. I wish that we would get into a full-blown debate of HMOs, but I do fear it is not going to happen. I hoped we would be able to adopt a Patient Protection Act this Congress to allow patients and doctors to decide what medical procedures are necessary and to allow patients to choose their doctors. But for now, I am asking that we consider a simple moratorium on Medicare HMOs leaving the market to give us all time to consider more comprehensive solutions. This is the very least, I think, we can do. So, Mr. President, later today I will introduce the moratorium bill and make it retroactive to protect the seniors who have been so adversely affected. I urge our colleagues and the leadership to consider this bill and to adopt it before this 105th Congress adjourns sine die. Mr. President, I see no other colleague here on the floor, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise in support of the Reading Excellence Act. I am very pleased that, working with the House committee and Secretary Riley, we have been able to work out a final bill that will improve reading skills. This effort once again demonstrates that when we focus on what really matters to America's families and work together, we can accomplish a great deal of good. And today, we are taking a substantial step in improving the teaching of reading in our schools. There are few skills that are more important than literacy. It is what makes us good workers, good parents, and good citizens. Imagine not being able to read. Bus schedules, children's homework assignments, and local newspapers--all beyond your grasp. From start to finish, each day would be nearly impossible. Yet, too many of our children leave school lacking this basic skill which is essential to their livelihood and their quality of life. But, for the child who cannot read, the problem begins much earlier than graduation. Research has shown that children who fall behind as early as the second and third grade do not catch up or become fluent readers unless expensive, intensive help is available to them. If such help is not available, these children become increasingly frustrated and are at substantial risk of dropping out of school altogether. Our goal must be to help all children to read well, to read independently, and, importantly, to enjoy reading. We have a tremendous advantage today in reaching this goal in that we know so much more about the physiological process of learning to read. We also know what works and what does not. This bill makes sure that this new base of knowledge gets out beyond academia and its scholarly journals and into classrooms across the country where it can make a real difference in the lives of our children. Beyond the classroom, this legislation will also help empower the first and most important teacher of all children--their parents. Children's literacy levels are directly related to the literacy ability and interest of their parents, especially their mothers. The values, attitudes and expectations held by parents and other care givers with respect to literacy will have a lasting effect on a child's attitude about learning to read. This bill will encourage parents to read to their children at an early age and foster the budding literacy skills of their children. I am particularly pleased the bill also reaches out to Head Start and other local pre-school programs to bring them into these efforts to ensure that young children have the necessary foundation for literacy. In addition, the bill does not overlook the important contribution trained volunteers and mentors can have in improving a child's reading fluency and comprehension. This bill encourages local communities to tap into these efforts and coordinate volunteers to bring their talents and time into the schools to read with children one on one. Finally, Mr. President, this bill does not overlook the most basic tool in any literacy effort--Books. Good, engaging, age-appropriate books are critical to any successful effort to improve literacy. In too many homes, books are a rarity. And yet any parent will tell you how books capture the imagination and attention of toddlers and, even babies, better than any television show. I think we need to do much more when it comes to books. Our tax laws have set up very perverse incentives that make it more profitable to destroy unsold books rather than donate them to schools or literacy organizations. I am hopeful that, when the Senate next revisits tax law, we can take a look at this issue and reverse these incentives to get more books into the hands of children. In the meantime, this legislation is a good first step in ensuring that children will have increased exposure and involvement with high-quality books. Mr. President, this is a good thoughtful bill and I am very pleased that we will complete action on it this year and begin this important effort to improve our children's literacy skills.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all let me commend our colleague from Ohio. At some point today or tomorrow I also want to address this issue of Kosovo. I will tell you that the expressions given by our colleague from Ohio are certainly appreciated by all. I think for most of our colleagues it is our sincere hope that we will not once again play this game with Mr. Milosevic as he has played it so effectively over the last few years with Bosnia, and now Kosovo, where the threat of retaliation causes some warm statements to be made, and once again we back off, and once again more people suffer terribly as a result of it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 11:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each. That is on behalf of the majority leader.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. Let me quickly join with those who will commend our colleagues from Vermont and Massachusetts, the chair and the ranking member of the full committee, for their terrific work. I also want to thank our colleague from Indiana, Senator Coats, and others, whom the chairman of the committee put together to work on this bill as sort of a working group on higher education. Certainly without their efforts we would not be at the point we are today in proposing what I think is a good bill. You can ask families all over this country what concerns them the most. And the answer, time and time again, is education--particularly higher education. Families know that there is little as important to their children's lifelong success as achievement in post-secondary education. And families today are worried about higher education. They worry about its cost--which is growing in many instances at outrageous levels. They worry that too many students give up the dream of college long before graduation from high school. And they worry that colleges are not keeping up and educating their children for the next century. These are fundamental concerns and they have been the driving force behind this strong legislation. For two years, I have been working with Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Coats and the other members of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, and, in the past few months with the House Education and Workforce Committee, to complete this important bill. And I think our bipartisan efforts have helped produce a bill that will help America's students and families. It is a bill that, frankly, I think could have been better--but I believe that we have done a good job with the realities that we face. This bill does four things that I think are commendable. One, it addresses the issues of college costs head-on--really for the first time in my memory here that we address this issue. Many of my colleagues may not be aware that over the past 20 years the cost of college has gone up 304 percent as compared to every other area of our economy where inflation has risen about 165 percent. So we are looking at a tremendous increase in college costs for families all across this Nation. For the first time, this bill will ensure that families have access to comprehensive, comparable information on cost. I am particularly pleased that these disclosure provisions will be enforced by the Secretary with the strong fine that I authored in the Senate bill. We also authorize a follow-up study on why costs are escalating, as recommended by the Cost of College Commission, and we direct the Bureau of Labor Statistics to develop a market-basket for higher education so that we finally have a workable yardstick with which to judge college costs. I think that is a critical issue. Every year we see these costs go up, parents legitimately ask the question why. And while individual institutions can give some reasons, I think we need to get a better handle on that. The provisions in this bill are simply a first step and a warning to colleges: We are serious about this effort and will no longer sit idly by while costs increase far faster than inflation. Second, the bill goes right to the heart of the student aid issue. We provide students with significantly improved loan rates, with a reduction in interest of nearly one percent. As a result of lowering the loan rates, students in my State could save as much as $650 a year. That may not seem like a lot to some, but to middle-income families in my State that kind of a savings can make a huge, huge difference. I would also point out this bill, of course, raises the maximum amount that can be received under a Pell grant to $4,500. That makes a huge difference, again, for families that fall within the category of receiving that kind of assistance. So we really reach right out to those families with this bill and make a difference for them. We also afford students with the largest loans new repayment options that will allow them to extend the time of repayment. And we provide new teachers serving in needy districts with loan forgiveness. Third, we finally really understand the role here of the nontraditional student, which is critically important. The nontraditional student, candidly, is becoming the traditional student. The traditional student is the one who goes to college for 3 or 4 years without interruption. Today, more and more students are ones who work, who take a year off from studies while they work to save money to pay for the next year of education. People need education throughout their lives, so they go back to school. This bill really reaches into that community and provides some wonderful opportunities, including things like distance learning. Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts has for years talked about the importance of providing educational opportunity for people who do not have the time or the resources to go to a traditional setting but can, through distance learning, acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to improve not only the quality of their lives, but the quality of all of our lives through enhanced educational opportunity. This bill would also help the non-traditional student through the high-quality, affordable campus-based child care programs for low- income students which I offered. Last, beyond meeting the fundamental concerns of students, this bill will strengthen our educational institutions themselves. This bill fundamentally restructures federal support for teacher training and focuses support on high quality reforms that bring and keep excellent teachers in our classrooms. Plus, we restructured and improved federal support for developing institutions, like community colleges and colleges serving at-risk minority populations. I am disappointed we did not include the Wellstone amendment on TANF eligibility for those pursuing post-secondary education. It is clear that education is the best long term solution to ending welfare dependency, but we were frankly unable to move the House conferees on this issue. I want to continue to work to move this initiative forward and pledge to work with Senator Wellstone to identify other legislative vehicles for this important reform. I was also disappointed that we were forced to adopt two provisions--eliminating the bankruptcy discharge of student loans after seven years of repayment and increasing the fee on Ginnie Mae loans--outside of our committee's jurisdiction to ensure that this bill was budget neutral. Again, I admit that this legislation is not perfect. But on the whole, I think that this is a very good bill that will help American students and families, and it is evidence of what we are capable of doing when we all work together. I ask unanimous consent the list of staff, key staff people who worked on this bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I voted in favor of the Consumer Bankruptcy Act of 1998, but I did so with some reservations. I commend the efforts of the members of the Judiciary Committee, especially Senators Durbin and Grassley and Senators Hatch and Leahy in taking on the challenge of reforming this important and highly complex area of our laws. They have made an important effort to bring about some badly needed reforms and hopefully reduce the number of bankruptcies in our country. As many of you know, the most recent statistics from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts state that more than 1.4 million people filed for bankruptcy during the 12-month period ending June 30, 1998, an all-time high. This represents an 8.5% increase from the same period last year. Statistics also show that there has been a 400 percent increase in personal bankruptcies since 1980. Clearly we need to reform our bankruptcy laws. This bill will provide enhanced procedural protections for consumers, and enhanced penalties for creditors who fail to obey the requirements of the bankruptcy code. It also will crack down on abusive and repeat Chapter 13 filings, discourage predatory home lending practices, and provide for the appointment of new bankruptcy judges. Perhaps most importantly, this bill, as opposed to prior versions, provides stronger safeguards for children and families involved in bankruptcy proceedings. Several months ago, I and 30 of my colleagues wrote to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee about the need for this legislation to include stronger safeguards for the children of people involved in bankruptcy proceedings. In simple terms, we voiced our concern that children should come before creditors, which essentially has been the law for the last 95 years. Under current law, outstanding spouse and child support, in addition to back taxes and educational loans, are debts that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy like other debts. This sound policy is premised on the belief that our laws should minimize the risk of impoverishment of our children and families. In response to that letter, and my conversation with the Committee Chairman, the Committee Chairman acknowledged the potential adverse consequences the legislation could have upon child support recipients, and he offered an amendment at the full committee mark-up which addressed these problems. The amendment, which passed by a unanimous vote, would raise the legal priority of child support from number 7 to number 1; permit the conditioning of a Chapter 13 confirmation upon the payment of child support payments; allow the conditioning of a Chapter 13 discharge upon the payment of all post-petition child support obligations; and add other provisions that should help children and families collect child support debts. I offered and had accepted 3 amendments on the Floor that, in my view, further strengthen this bill. The first amendment would: (1) protect income from sources legitimately dedicated to the welfare of children from being dissipated and misdirected to pay debts and expenses unrelated to the care and maintenance of these same children. Child support payments, foster care payments, or disability payments for a dependent child should go to that child and not to a creditor; and (2) ensure that in bankruptcy, children and families are able to keep certain household goods which typically have no resale value. I am speaking about items such as toys, swings sets, video cassette recorders or other items used to help them raise their children. The second amendment would protect duly established college savings accounts which were set up for the benefit of children from being distributed to creditors. Just because a child's family has gone through a bankruptcy does not mean a child should not be able to go to college. Lastly, the third amendment, which I co-authored with Senators Sarbanes and Durbin, contains an important new consumer protection regarding credit card debt. Today, many consumers are unaware of the implications of carrying credit card debt and making only the minimum monthly payment on that debt. For instance, assume a consumer has $3000 in credit card debt. Then assume the interest rate that the consumer is paying on that debt is 17\1/2\%, which is roughly the industry average. If the consumer makes only the monthly minimum payment on that debt, it will take 396 months or 33 years to pay it off. And with interest, the consumer will have paid a total of 9,658 dollars. This amendment, which I worked on with Senators Sarbanes, Durbin, Grassley and Hatch will require credit card issuers to inform consumers on their monthly billing statement not only how long it will take them to pay off a debt at the minimum monthly rate, but also how much money they will have paid in interest and principal on that debt. I thank Senators Grassley and Durbin and Senators Hatch and Leahy who have worked with me to assure that these protections for children, families and consumers were included in the bill. I am disappointed that my amendment regarding the extension of credit to young people under the age of 21 was tabled. This amendment was designed to curtail the most aggressive and abusive credit card marketing to people under the age of 21 by requiring that the credit card issuer obtain an application that either contained the signature of a parent or guardian willing to take financial responsibility for the debt, or information indicating an independent means of repaying any credit extended. Most responsible credit card issuers already obtain this information from their applicants. This amendment would have merely required that the less responsible credit card issuers follow the ``best practices'' already in place for much of the industry. I am, at the same time, concerned that this legislation will force more debtors into Chapter 13 bankruptcy while eliminating several of the provisions that enabled debtors to meet the terms of their Chapter 13 payment plan considering the fact that two-thirds of the repayment plans under current law are not completed, this calls into question whether Chapter 13 really results in the repayment of debts, as advertised. Moreover, I'm concerned, not withstanding strong objections by the National Partnership for Women and Families, more than 20 women's groups, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and a variety of other organizations, that new provisions regarding the non- dischargeability of certain types of unsecured debt remain in the bill. These groups expressed their concern that these provisions will impede the ability of debtors to pay both for their post-bankruptcy expenses and to care for their dependents. I hope the Conference looks into these issues more carefully so that we can truly accomplish balanced and effective bankruptcy reform.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, we want to wrap this bill up, I gather, fairly quickly. I want to extend my congratulations to Senator Grassley of Iowa, Senator Hatch, my colleague from Utah, and Senator Durbin, the manager for this side of the aisle on this legislation. It has been a long journey for them, I know, in committee in trying to deal with this legislation. I am particularly grateful for the courtesies which they have extended to me, and for the various ideas we have had for inclusion in this legislation. Amendment No. 3614 to Amendment No. 3559 (Purpose: To improve certain bankruptcy procedures relating to dependent children)

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, with that in mind, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. About 5 minutes.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak as in morning business. It is not on this subject matter.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me briefly say as well, I support what the Democratic leader is doing on this HMO issue. Hopefully, that matter can be resolved.