Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay my respects to a great American, Carroll O'Connor, who died June 21, 2001 of a heart attack. Mr. O'Connor was a talented actor who is fondly remembered for his role as Archie Bunker in the television show ``All in the Family,'' which ran successfully from 1971-1979 and for which he won four Emmys. Everyone will agree that Mr. O'Connor's portrayal of Archie Bunker helped start a dialogue in this country about serious issues that had until then been avoided. Issues such as racism, bigotry, and religious and gender discrimination were tackled by the cast of ``All in the Family,'' and Mr. O'Connor led the discussion. His loyal fans will always remember the contributions he made to changing attitudes in America. As much as I admired Mr. O'Connor for his role in bringing social issues to the forefront of American thought, today I would like to talk about another important issue that Mr. O'Connor helped bring to the attention of the American public. Mr. O'Connor was a tireless advocate for preventing kids from using drugs. He spoke publicly about the importance of keeping illegal drugs away from our kids. He passionately pleaded for parents to get between drugs and their kids so as to avoid the heartache that he himself suffered while witnessing his son Hugh struggle with his own addiction to cocaine and ultimately, as a result of his addiction, commit suicide. At a time when many would retreat in their own sorrow and grief, Carroll O'Connor mustered the strength to speak out about the dangers of drug abuse. He was a true public servant who undoubtedly touched the hearts of millions through his public service announcements that intimately described how he lost his son to drug addiction. I truly believe that his moving announcements prompted many parents to talk to their children about drugs. I was fortunate to meet several times with Mr. O'Connor to discuss our country's drug control strategy. He had many interesting and innovative ideas as how to best solve the problem. In fact, just a few months ago he appeared via satellite at a Judiciary Committee hearing I held to testify in favor of S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001, which I introduced along with Senators Leahy, Biden, DeWine, Thurmond, and Feinstein. I want to quote a passage from his opening statement, which I believe exemplifies his dedication to the issue of drug abuse. We only know that there is hardly a family in America, on any level of life, that has not been wounded lightly or severely or fatally by the assault of the drug empire upon our country. The loved ones of insensate addicts, like my own poor son, write to me every day imploring my help, as if I, being well-known, might persuade our leaders to protect and defend them in this war, or at the very least help them care for their wounded and dying. This Committee, by this legislation, is now directing serious attention to the care for the wounded and dying. I deeply regret that Mr. O'Connor will not be here when the Senate passes S. 304, but importantly, his legacy is secure in the form of the contribution he has made to publicizing this issue and the tireless work toward the passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. O'Connor's March 14, 2001 opening statement before the Judiciary Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to consider today the confirmation of the Honorable James Ziglar for Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. While there is little doubt that Mr. Ziglar faces tremendous challenges as commissioner of the INS, I also believe that there is little doubt that Mr. Ziglar has the ability to take on those challenges. I therefore join my colleagues in support of his confirmation and look forward to great things from Mr. Ziglar and the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the future.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today with my co-sponsor, Senator Feinstein, to introduce legislation that will help a very special cadre of Americans, a group of Americans that, over 50 years ago, paid a very dear price on behalf of our country. The incredible sacrifice made by these Americans has never properly been acknowledged, and it is high time that they receive some measure of compensation for that sacrifice. On April 9, 1942, Allied forces in the Philippines surrendered the Bataan Peninsula to the Japanese. Ten to twelve thousand American soldiers were forced to march some 60 miles in broiling heat in a deadly trek known as the Bataan Death March. Following a lengthy internment under horrific conditions, thousands of POWs were shipped to Japan in the holds of freighters known as ``Hell Ships.'' Once in Japan, the survivors of the Bataan Death March were joined by hundreds of other American POWs, POWs who had been captured by the Japanese in actions throughout the Pacific theater of war, at Corregidor, at Guam, at Wake Islands, and at countless other battlegrounds. After arriving in Japan, many of the American POWs were forced into slave labor for private Japanese steel mills and other private companies until the end of the war. During their internment, the American POWs were subjected to torture, and to the withholding of food and medical treatment, in violation of international conventions relating to the protection of prisoners of war. More than 50 years have passed since the atrocities occurred, yet our veterans are still waiting for accountability and justice. Unfortunately, global political and security needs of the time often overshadowed their legitimate claims for justice, and these former POWs were once again asked to sacrifice for their country. Following the end of the war, for example, our government instructed many of the POWs held by Japan not to discuss their experiences and treatment. Some were even asked to sign non-disclosure agreements. Consequently, many Americans remain unaware of the atrocities that took place and the suffering our POWs endured. Finally, after more than 50 years, a new effort is underway to seek compensation for the POWs from the private Japanese companies which profited from their labor. Let me say at the outset, that this is not a dispute with the Japanese people and these are not claims against the Japanese government. Rather, these are private claims against the private Japanese companies that profited from the slave labor of our American soldiers who they held as prisoners. These are the same types of claims raised by survivors of the Holocaust against the private German corporations who forced them into labor. Here in the Senate, we have been doing what we can to help these former prisoners of war. In June of last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the claims being made by the former American POWs against the private Japanese companies, to determine whether the executive branch had been doing everything in its power to secure justice for these valiant men. In the fall of last year, with the invaluable assistance of Senator Feinstein, we were able to pass legislation declassifying thousands of Japanese Imperial Army records held by the U.S. government, to assist the POW's in the pursuit of their claims. We can do even more. Recently, the State of California passed legislation extending the statute of limitations, under state law, to allow the POWs to bring monetary claims against the Japanese corporations that unlawfully employed them. Other States are contemplating such legislation. The bill we are introducing today makes clear that any claims brought in state court, and subsequently removed to Federal court, will still have the benefit of the extended statute of limitations enacted by the state legislatures. The legislators in California, and other States, have recognized the fairness of the allowing these claims to proceed for a decision on the merits. In light of the tangled history of this issue, including the role played by the U.S. government in discouraging these valiant men from pursuing their just claims, it is simply unfair to deny these men their day in court because their claims have supposedly grown stale. These claims are not stale in their ability to inspire admiration for the men who survived this ordeal. These claims are not stale in their ability to inspire indignation against the corporations who flouted international standards of decency. The statute of limitations should not be permitted to cut off these claims before they can be heard on the merits. Today's bill does nothing more than ensure that these valiant men receive their fair day in court. I hope my fellow Senators will join with me, and with Senator Feinstein, on this important legislation. These heroes of World War II have waited too long for a just resolution of their claims.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Internet has dramatically changed the lives of the American people. The way in which we work, live, play, and learn has been forever changed. The benefits this new technology has brought to us are truly innumerable. Unfortunately, however, the technology has also created some fearful problems. In particular, the Internet is fast becoming an increasingly popular means by which criminals pursue their nefarious activities. Perhaps no criminal activity is as nefarious as sex crimes directed at children. And alarmingly, the Internet has proved to be a boon for these sexual predators. Before the Internet, these deranged individuals operated in the open, lurking near parks or schools in an effort to lure children. Now they are able, with almost absolute anonymity and from the security of their homes, to reach our children over the Internet. The result is frightening. According to State and local law enforcement officials, the Internet has brought an explosion in sexual predator and child pornography activity. Since 1995, the FBI alone has investigated more than 4,900 cases involving persons traveling interstate for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual relationships with minors and persons involved with the manufacture, dissemination and possession of child pornography. According to the Bureau, computers have rapidly become one of the most prevalent communications devices with which pedophiles and other sexual predators share sexually explicit photographic images of minors and identify and recruit children for sexually illicit relationships. This fact is not lost on the public. When asked about cyber-crime, a majority of Americans pointed to child pornography as their biggest concern. The Pew Internet & American Life Report Survey found that 92 percent of Americans are concerned about child pornography. Americans are rightly concerned that the Internet does not become a haven for those who would commit these horrific crimes. The Anti-Sexual Predator Act of 2001, which I am introducing today, provides much-needed tools to investigators tracking sexual predators and child pornographers. The legislation will be particularly useful to investigators tracking sexual predators. Although in many cases much of the initial relationship between these sexual predators and their child victims takes place online, the predators will ultimately seek to have personal contact with the child. Thus, the communications will move first to the telephone, and then to face to face meetings. The telephone calls between the perpetrators and the victims therefore represent a dangerous step in the luring of the child. And the more access the sexual predator is allowed to the child victim, the greater the chance that the predator will succeed in convincing the child to continue the ``relationship'' and agree to personal meetings. As the laws stand today, investigators do not have access to the Federal wiretap statutes to investigate these predators. Absent this authority, law enforcement officers, upon discovery of the on-line relationship, are left to attempt to gain information about the relationship from an often uncooperative or resentful child who believes that he or she is ``in love'' with the perpetrator. Providing wiretap authority not only will aid law enforcement's efforts to obtain evidence of these crimes, it will also help them stop these crimes before the predator makes physical contact with the child. The Anti-Sexual Predator Act of 2001 will add three predicate offenses to the Federal wiretap statute. This addition will enable law enforcement to intercept wire and oral communications relating to child pornography materials, the coercion and enticement of individuals to travel interstate to engage in sexual activity, the transportation of minors for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. To be sure, law enforcement will still need to obtain authority from a court in order to obtain a wiretap, and the court will authorize the wiretap only if the government meets the strict statutory guidelines laid out in Title III. Thus, this legislation does nothing to undermine the legitimate expectations of privacy of law-abiding American citizens. This legislation fills a gap in our arsenal against child pornographers and sexual predators. I know we all share this goal, and I urge my colleagues to join me in expeditiously acting on this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Robert D. Foreman who has served as a health advisor to me for the past 8 years. Rob came to my staff after distinguished service in the House of Representatives, in the Executive Branch, and in a national trade association. I suppose that Rob's experience staffing Medicaid and Medicare issues for me, and earlier for our colleagues on the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, now called the Energy and Commerce Committee, have prepared him well for his new assignment as President George W. Bush's Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. I am confident that he will be a great asset to Secretary Thompson, Administrator Scully, and the President as they work to preserve and strengthen Medicare, and confront the many challenges facing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. Rob is able to grasp complex issues and use his keen sense of humor to bring together parties with differing views on pending legislation. With his research and command of the legislative process, he has helped us make significant contributions during the past eight years on many key pieces of legislation including the defeat of the Health Security Act and enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the Balanced Budget Act amendments and subsequent revisions, and the Skilled Nursing Facility legislation. I also have been able to count on Rob to be a powerful advocate for the disabled, and the less fortunate, and to be my liaison with my Disability Advisory Committee in Utah. He also has been a tireless advocate for Native Americans and has enhanced my work on the Committee on Indian Affairs. For those who have been blessed to work with Rob, they understand that beneath the soft-spoken, dedicated work of this kind man is the caring heart of a true gentleman. He is a man you can genuinely trust, a man of his word, a man of integrity. He seeks not just to do his job, but to do it well. He came to his office each morning not to work, but to serve. His gentle nature is equaled only by his loyalty and work ethic. I am grateful to Rob for his efforts, for his personal sacrifices, and for the many nights and weekends he spent ensuring that work on these vital issues was complete. I want to publicly thank him for all of his many contributions. I wish him the best as he confronts this new challenge.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Internet has dramatically changed the lives of the American people. The way in which we work, live, play, and learn has been forever changed. The benefits this new technology has brought to us are truly innumerable. Unfortunately, however, the technology has also created some fearful problems. In particular, the Internet is fast becoming an increasingly popular means by which criminals pursue their nefarious activities. Perhaps no criminal activity is as nefarious as sex crimes directed at children. And alarmingly, the Internet has proved to be a boon for these sexual predators. Before the Internet, these deranged individuals operated in the open, lurking near parks or schools in an effort to lure children. Now they are able, with almost absolute anonymity and from the security of their homes, to reach our children over the Internet. The result is frightening. According to State and local law enforcement officials, the Internet has brought an explosion in sexual predator and child pornography activity. Since 1995, the FBI alone has investigated more than 4,900 cases involving persons traveling interstate for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual relationships with minors and persons involved with the manufacture, dissemination and possession of child pornography. According to the Bureau, computers have rapidly become one of the most prevalent communications devices with which pedophiles and other sexual predators share sexually explicit photographic images of minors and identify and recruit children for sexually illicit relationships. This fact is not lost on the public. When asked about cyber-crime, a majority of Americans pointed to child pornography as their biggest concern. The Pew Internet & American Life Report Survey found that 92 percent of Americans are concerned about child pornography. Americans are rightly concerned that the Internet does not become a haven for those who would commit these horrific crimes. The Anti-Sexual Predator Act of 2001, which I am introducing today, provides much-needed tools to investigators tracking sexual predators and child pornographers. The legislation will be particularly useful to investigators tracking sexual predators. Although in many cases much of the initial relationship between these sexual predators and their child victims takes place online, the predators will ultimately seek to have personal contact with the child. Thus, the communications will move first to the telephone, and then to face to face meetings. The telephone calls between the perpetrators and the victims therefore represent a dangerous step in the luring of the child. And the more access the sexual predator is allowed to the child victim, the greater the chance that the predator will succeed in convincing the child to continue the ``relationship'' and agree to personal meetings. As the laws stand today, investigators do not have access to the Federal wiretap statutes to investigate these predators. Absent this authority, law enforcement officers, upon discovery of the on-line relationship, are left to attempt to gain information about the relationship from an often uncooperative or resentful child who believes that he or she is ``in love'' with the perpetrator. Providing wiretap authority not only will aid law enforcement's efforts to obtain evidence of these crimes, it will also help them stop these crimes before the predator makes physical contact with the child. The Anti-Sexual Predator Act of 2001 will add three predicate offenses to the Federal wiretap statute. This addition will enable law enforcement to intercept wire and oral communications relating to child pornography materials, the coercion and enticement of individuals to travel interstate to engage in sexual activity, the transportation of minors for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. To be sure, law enforcement will still need to obtain authority from a court in order to obtain a wiretap, and the court will authorize the wiretap only if the government meets the strict statutory guidelines laid out in Title III. Thus, this legislation does nothing to undermine the legitimate expectations of privacy of law-abiding American citizens. This legislation fills a gap in our arsenal against child pornographers and sexual predators. I know we all share this goal, and I urge my colleagues to join me in expeditiously acting on this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor, along with my good friend and esteemed colleague, Senator Kohl, the Product Packaging Protection Act of 2001. Other cosponsors include Senator DeWine and the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. This bipartisan legislation addresses a troubling development that has been increasingly reported over the last several years--the discovery by consumers of unauthorized pamphlets placed inside the packaging of everyday consumer products, such as breakfast cereal and frozen foods. In many cases, unsuspecting consumers, including young children, have found offensive messages inserted into the products they have purchased, including pamphlets explicitly advocating violence against particular racial, ethnic, and religious groups. While Federal law currently prohibits tampering with consumer products that taints the product, or renders the labeling materially false, the law does not currently prohibit someone placing writings in or on the product after the product has left the manufacturer's control. The legislation being introduced today will close this loophole--providing the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction to investigate these incidents and bring the perpetrators to justice. With all the recent focus on protecting our children from corrupting influences on the Internet, we should not ignore old-fashioned ``low tech'' avenues by which harmful and often hateful messages may be disseminated. It is intolerable for the distributors of our foodstuffs and other consumer products to become the unwitting carriers of offensive harmful messages. I look forward to working with Senator Kohl to ensure passage of this important legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues today in paying tribute to a great woman, Katharine Meyer Graham, whose untimely passing saddens those of us who had the pleasure, indeed the privilege, of knowing her. Her courage, determination and style are an inspiration to all of us in public service. There are far too many cynics in this town, and unfortunately, there is far too much to be cynical about. But, at the end of the day, it is people like Kay Graham who have inspired and mentored a new generation of idealism, of American youths who strive to be the very best in all their chosen fields of endeavor. And that is the true story behind her unflagging support of two young, obscure, city-desk reporters who broke a story that changed our Nation forever. There is much I will miss about Kay Graham. I could talk for hours about her many outstanding accomplishments, as a wife, a mother, and a publisher. But she was also a true and loyal friend to many, an incredible force for good. Kay was one of the most powerful women in our world, but what I remember most about her is that she was genuinely a nice person. And so, today, let us pay tribute to Kay Graham's greatness and goodness, in public and in private. I hope the world will also learn a little more about her kindness, her humility, and the sense of charity that never left her. Mr. President, one of the most touching tributes I can recall vividly describes the cycle of life and our profound transition. It likens our passage to the journey of a magnificent sailing ship, gliding through deep blue water, growing smaller and smaller as the sea meets the sky. And when the ship fades silently from sight, just as we think she is gone, we are reassured to know that on the opposite shore . . . she awaits.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor, along with my good friend and esteemed colleague, Senator Kohl, the Product Packaging Protection Act of 2001. Other cosponsors include Senator DeWine and the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. This bipartisan legislation addresses a troubling development that has been increasingly reported over the last several years--the discovery by consumers of unauthorized pamphlets placed inside the packaging of everyday consumer products, such as breakfast cereal and frozen foods. In many cases, unsuspecting consumers, including young children, have found offensive messages inserted into the products they have purchased, including pamphlets explicitly advocating violence against particular racial, ethnic, and religious groups. While Federal law currently prohibits tampering with consumer products that taints the product, or renders the labeling materially false, the law does not currently prohibit someone placing writings in or on the product after the product has left the manufacturer's control. The legislation being introduced today will close this loophole--providing the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction to investigate these incidents and bring the perpetrators to justice. With all the recent focus on protecting our children from corrupting influences on the Internet, we should not ignore old-fashioned ``low tech'' avenues by which harmful and often hateful messages may be disseminated. It is intolerable for the distributors of our foodstuffs and other consumer products to become the unwitting carriers of offensive harmful messages. I look forward to working with Senator Kohl to ensure passage of this important legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time. I know we are committed to a vote.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that the Senate today will consider the first of President Bush's nominees for the federal judiciary. The three nominees are Judge Roger Gregory for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and Judge Richard Cebull and Mr. Sam Haddon for the United States District Court for the District of Montana. My review of these nominees has convinced me that they will serve the judiciary with competence, fairness, and honor. Judge Gregory's extensive legal experience, character, and good judgment make him an excellent choice for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. His nomination by President Bush--with the hard work and support of Senators Warner and Allen--is well deserved. It is also, by the way, a clear gesture of bipartisanship by President Bush, which is unprecedented in modern times. The two nominees for the District of Montana also demonstrate the rewards of bipartisanship. Judge Cebull and Mr. Haddon enjoy the support of both Montana senators--Republican Senator Burns and Democrat Senator Baucus. And it's easy to see why. Judge Cebull has an outstanding record as a lawyer with 28 years of experience in private practice and as a federal magistrate judge. Mr. Haddon has also developed considerable expertise in a broad range of litigation topics--both at the trial and appellate levels. These judges will not only perform their duties with distinction, but also will help ease the excessive caseload currently being handled by Montana's single full- time federal district judge. So, Mr. President, we have three solid nominees before the Senate, and I hope and expect that all of them will be confirmed today. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Leahy for moving these nominees. I must note, however, that there are ten other judicial nominees who have been pending before the committee for more than two months without even a hearing. I urge Senator Leahy to move forward expeditiously on these and the remaining 26 judicial nominees pending before the committee. I ask unanimous consent the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia be permitted to speak for 5 minutes, and then the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen, be permitted to speak for 5 minutes, and the remaining time be given to the distinguished Senator from Montana.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to applaud the committee for including the $5 million grant for the Eighth Paralympiad for the Disabled cited in this bill. This funding is for the 2002 Paralympic Games not the 2002 Olympic Games. It is important to remember that while the Paralympics are being held in conjunction with the Olympics in Salt Lake City, all the funding for the Paralympic Games has been very carefully and very clearly separated from that for the Olympics. This funding will be spent only for Paralympic costs and includes both Federal and private sources of funding. This funding supports the disabled athletes who compete at Olympic levels. These elite disabled athletes deliver amazing performances that are wonderful to behold. For example, they ski with one leg or they ski blind. We ask them to perform on Olympic courses, at Olympic levels, and finish in times within Olympic ranges. The Paralympics and Special Olympics are events our country traditionally recognizes as important priorities. That is, to encourage the development of sports among special populations. Moreover, it has been an advantage to have the Olympic Committee, for the first time, host the Paralympic Games. This ensures that the Paralympic athletes are recognized as Olympic level competitors and ensures they are treated as Olympians. It also allows for synergy in developing operational plans thus making the Paralympics far more efficient. Note that the Paralympic's association with the Olympic Committee has brought yet another benefit. The Federal funding for these Paralympic games is far less than ever before. For the benefit of my colleagues, let me put this issue in perspective. These games will cost approximately $80 million. The Atlanta Paralympics were also about $80 million. But there the comparison ends. In Atlanta, $32 million were funded by the Federal Government. In the Salt Lake Paralympics, Federal funding will only be $10 million. Why are the Salt Lake City Paralympics requesting far less Federal funding than the Atlanta Paralympics? The Salt Lake Olympic Committee is paying $40 million of the costs and raising another $30 million from private sources. The Atlanta Olympic Committee paid $15 million and raised $33 million for the Paralympics. Because the Salt Lake Olympic Committee is contributing more to the Paralympics, the amount of Federal funding has been reduced from $32 million for the Atlanta games to $10 million for the Salt Lake games. And, this bill only asks for $5 million for transportation while the Atlanta transportation cost to the Federal Government was $5.6 million. This is a wise use of Federal funds. The $5 million requested for the Paralympics are well justified. Additionally, these costs are most reasonable when compared to the Atlanta games and given the careful financial management on the part of the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic Committee. Thank you.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, just prior to the vote on the nomination of Roger Gregory, Chairman Leahy made a couple of comments that require a response. Let me make it clear that I agree with President Bush's judgment that Judge Gregory is well qualified to serve as a judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I commend Senators Warner and Allen for their recommendation of Judge Gregory to President Bush. The controversy over his nomination by President Clinton, and his recess appointment in December 2000, had nothing to do with his qualifications. Rather, the controversy was over President Clinton's decision in late June of 2000--in the last 6 months of his Presidency--to nominate a Virginia resident for a Fourth Circuit seat that has been regarded as belonging to North Carolina. In doing so, the President could not have doubted that his action would cause a great deal of discord in the Senate-- especially because it was done without consultation with both home- state senators. I worked very hard to resolve the conflicts created by that nomination among the various interested parties. Unfortunately, the discord was only amplified by President Clinton's recess appointment that occurred after George Bush's election as President. In my view, all these facts are now in the past. President Bush, in a very significant gesture aimed at changing the tone in Washington, focused on Judge Gregory's qualifications and, with the support of Senators Warner and Allen, nominated Judge Gregory to a lifetime appointment. This was a clear gesture of bipartisanship by President Bush which is unprecedented in modern times. In the past 50 years, there has never been a case of which I am aware where a new President of one party has re-nominated a circuit judge originally nominated by the previous President of the other party. Chairman Leahy also made some remarks about how quickly he scheduled Judge Gregory's confirmation hearing. Indeed, he did so very soon after the Senate's organizational resolution was passed on June 29. However, this fact does not accurately describe the entirety of the Judiciary Committee's record on judicial nominees. Prior to the organizational resolution, Chairman Leahy did not hold a single hearing on any of President Bush's executive or judicial nominees. He implies that he could not have held such hearings without the organizational resolution. But that is not true. Between June 5 and June 29, at least seven other Senate committees under Democratic chairmen held a total of 16 confirmation hearings on 44 nominees. One committee--Veterans' Affairs--even held a markup on a nomination. Further, the lack of an organizational resolution did not stop Chairman Leahy from holding hearings on such topics as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, racial disparities of capital punishment, and counsel competency requirements for death penalty cases. We also had a subcommittee hearing on injecting political ideology into the committee's process of reviewing judicial nominations. From this record, it appears that the decision not to hold hearings on nominees was simply a calculated tactic to delay President Bush's nominees. The Judiciary Committee's comparative lack of progress continues to this day. Since the reorganization was completed, other committees have considered nominees at a much faster pace. For example, the Foreign Relations Committee on July 10 held a markup on 16 nominees. In contrast, the Judiciary Committee has considered only three of the pending Bush judicial nominees and only three Department of Justice nominees. As of this morning, we have 111 vacancies in the Federal district and circuit courts, including a number on the Fourth Circuit. I encourage Chairman Leahy to start scheduling frequent hearings and markups for these nominees. I look forward to working closely with him to review and confirm President Bush's nominees in a timely fashion. If Chairman Leahy believes that I, as Chairman, did not move Clinton nominees and was unfair--which the facts and the record clearly show otherwise--then I would hope he would do the right thing and move nominees at a faster pace than I did.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Subchapter S Modernization Act of 2001. I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Breaux, Lincoln, Thompson, Allard, and Gramm. The bill we are introducing today is a continuation of a bipartisan effort that began in the Senate nearly a decade ago when former Senators Pryor and Danforth, along with myself and six other senators, introduced the S Corporation Reform Act of 1993. We recognized then, as the sponsors of today's bill do now, that S corporations are a vital and growing part of our economy and that our tax law should reflect the importance of these entities and provide tax rules that allow them to grow and compete with a minimum of complexity and a maximum of flexibility. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, there were nearly 2.6 million S corporations in the United States in 1998, up from about 500,000 in 1980. In fact, S corporations now outnumber both C corporations and partnerships. These are predominantly small businesses in the retail and service sectors. Over 92 percent of all S corporations in 1998 reported less than $1 million in assets. Many of these businesses, however, are growing rapidly. These are the kinds of businesses that make up ``Main Street USA.'' In my home state of Utah, over half the corporations have elected Subchapter S treatment. Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code was enacted in 1958 to help remove tax considerations from small business owners' decisions to incorporate. This elective tax treatment has been helpful to millions of small businesses over the years, particularly to those just starting out. Subchapter S provides entrepreneurs the advantage of corporate protection from liability along with the single level of tax enjoyed by partnerships and limited liability companies. However, Subchapter S as enacted and modified over the years contains a variety of limitations, restrictions, and pitfalls for the unwary. And, even though some very important improvements have been made over the years, including many first introduced in the 1993 S Corporation Reform Act I mentioned earlier, more needs to be done to bring the tax treatment of these important businesses into the 21st Century. This is what our bill today is all about. A May 2001 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City highlights the importance of small businesses to our economy and points out why Congress should do everything possible to make it easier for these entities to get started and grow. The study points out that more than 75 percent of the net new jobs created from 1990 to 1995 occurred in small firms, defined as those with fewer than 500 employees. Moreover, seven of the ten fastest growing industries have been dominated by small businesses in recent years, including the high technology sector, where small firms employ 38 percent of that industry's workers. In the rural parts of America, the role of small enterprises is even more important. Small businesses account for 90 percent of all rural establishments. In 1998, small companies employed 60 percent of rural workers and provided half of rural payrolls. What do these small businesses, especially those in small-town America, most need to grow, to thrive, and even to survive? According to the White House Conference on Small Business, two of the most important issue areas for these enterprises is easier access to capital and an easing of the tax burden. The bill we are introducing today addresses both of these vital issues. Perhaps the biggest challenge facing all kinds of businesses, but especially smaller ones, is attracting adequate capital. Unfortunately, Subchapter S is currently a hindrance, rather than a help, for many corporations facing this challenge. For example, current law allows for only one class of stock for S corporations. Further, S corporations are not allowed currently to issue convertible debt. Nor are they allowed to have a non-resident alien as a shareholder. These restrictions all limit the ability of S corporations in attracting capital, which is very often the lifeblood of growing a business. Several of the provisions of the Subchapter S Modernization Act are designed to alleviate these restrictions on the ways S corporations can attract capital. This will help make them more competitive with other small enterprises doing business in other forms, such as partnerships or limited liability companies, that do not face such barriers. Even though electing Subchapter S currently offers much to a small corporation in the way of tax relief, principally because such an election eliminates the corporate level of taxation, S corporations still face some significant tax burdens in the way of potential pitfalls and tax traps for the unwary. Some of these impediments exist in the requirements of elective S corporation status, and others are in the rules governing the day-to-day operations of the entities. In either case, these provisions stifle growth and impede job creation. Most of the sections of the bill we introduce today are dedicated to eliminating many of these barriers and making it easier for companies to elect Subchapter S and to operate in this status once the election is made. The Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 made many important changes to Subchapter S. One of the most significant was the ability for small banks to elect to be S corporations for the first time. This opened the door for many small community banks to become more competitive with other financial institutions operating in their towns and neighborhoods. So far, more than 1,400 banks in the U.S. have made the election, which represents about 18 percent of the more than 8,000 community banks in the United States. According to a survey taken earlier this year by the accounting firm Grant Thornton, 3 percent of the remaining community banks plan to elect Subchapter S status in 2001, and another 14 percent are considering the election after this year. The availability of Subchapter S has been a positive development in increasing profitability and competitiveness of many community banks. However, two problems currently exist. The first is that current law includes several significant hurdles to many small banks in converting to S corporation status. These include restrictions on the types and number of shareholders allowed. The second problem is that some of the operating rules under Subchapter S are unduly inflexible, complex, and harsh. The bill we introduce today attempts to address many of these challenges by easing the restrictions on the kinds of shareholders who can own S corporation stock and the number of shareholders allowed, as well as relaxing some of the operational rules. These changes are designed to make it significantly easier for community banks to take advantage of the benefits of Subchapter S. Small businesses are key to the continued growth of our economy and to future job creation. The way I see it, it is the job of government to see that unnecessary restrictions and barriers to the success of these businesses are removed so that these small enterprises can attract capital and function with the maximum of efficiency. Some would argue that S corporations are a relic of the past and that newer, more flexible forms of doing business, such as limited liability companies, are the business entities of the future. Such a view is a great distortion of reality. S corporations are a large and growing part of our economy. They have served a vital function in our communities for the past 43 years and will continue to do so. Our tax laws should be overhauled to streamline these rules and make them as flexible and easy to work in as possible. The S Corporation Modernization Act enjoys the support of a broad range of associations and trade groups, many of which have worked with us in crafting the bill. I want to especially acknowledge the assistance of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Taxation Section of the American Bar Association, the Independent Bankers Association of America, and the Utah Bankers Association. These organizations contributed time and talent in making recommendations for many of the improvements in this bill. I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this bill, and to support it. Thousands of small and growing businesses in every State will benefit from the improvements included therein. Its enactment will lead to an increased ability of these enterprises to attract capital, expand, and create new jobs. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section description of the bill and a letter of support from a group of organizations that endorse it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Subchapter S Modernization Act of 2001. I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Breaux, Lincoln, Thompson, Allard, and Gramm. The bill we are introducing today is a continuation of a bipartisan effort that began in the Senate nearly a decade ago when former Senators Pryor and Danforth, along with myself and six other senators, introduced the S Corporation Reform Act of 1993. We recognized then, as the sponsors of today's bill do now, that S corporations are a vital and growing part of our economy and that our tax law should reflect the importance of these entities and provide tax rules that allow them to grow and compete with a minimum of complexity and a maximum of flexibility. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, there were nearly 2.6 million S corporations in the United States in 1998, up from about 500,000 in 1980. In fact, S corporations now outnumber both C corporations and partnerships. These are predominantly small businesses in the retail and service sectors. Over 92 percent of all S corporations in 1998 reported less than $1 million in assets. Many of these businesses, however, are growing rapidly. These are the kinds of businesses that make up ``Main Street USA.'' In my home state of Utah, over half the corporations have elected Subchapter S treatment. Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code was enacted in 1958 to help remove tax considerations from small business owners' decisions to incorporate. This elective tax treatment has been helpful to millions of small businesses over the years, particularly to those just starting out. Subchapter S provides entrepreneurs the advantage of corporate protection from liability along with the single level of tax enjoyed by partnerships and limited liability companies. However, Subchapter S as enacted and modified over the years contains a variety of limitations, restrictions, and pitfalls for the unwary. And, even though some very important improvements have been made over the years, including many first introduced in the 1993 S Corporation Reform Act I mentioned earlier, more needs to be done to bring the tax treatment of these important businesses into the 21st Century. This is what our bill today is all about. A May 2001 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City highlights the importance of small businesses to our economy and points out why Congress should do everything possible to make it easier for these entities to get started and grow. The study points out that more than 75 percent of the net new jobs created from 1990 to 1995 occurred in small firms, defined as those with fewer than 500 employees. Moreover, seven of the ten fastest growing industries have been dominated by small businesses in recent years, including the high technology sector, where small firms employ 38 percent of that industry's workers. In the rural parts of America, the role of small enterprises is even more important. Small businesses account for 90 percent of all rural establishments. In 1998, small companies employed 60 percent of rural workers and provided half of rural payrolls. What do these small businesses, especially those in small-town America, most need to grow, to thrive, and even to survive? According to the White House Conference on Small Business, two of the most important issue areas for these enterprises is easier access to capital and an easing of the tax burden. The bill we are introducing today addresses both of these vital issues. Perhaps the biggest challenge facing all kinds of businesses, but especially smaller ones, is attracting adequate capital. Unfortunately, Subchapter S is currently a hindrance, rather than a help, for many corporations facing this challenge. For example, current law allows for only one class of stock for S corporations. Further, S corporations are not allowed currently to issue convertible debt. Nor are they allowed to have a non-resident alien as a shareholder. These restrictions all limit the ability of S corporations in attracting capital, which is very often the lifeblood of growing a business. Several of the provisions of the Subchapter S Modernization Act are designed to alleviate these restrictions on the ways S corporations can attract capital. This will help make them more competitive with other small enterprises doing business in other forms, such as partnerships or limited liability companies, that do not face such barriers. Even though electing Subchapter S currently offers much to a small corporation in the way of tax relief, principally because such an election eliminates the corporate level of taxation, S corporations still face some significant tax burdens in the way of potential pitfalls and tax traps for the unwary. Some of these impediments exist in the requirements of elective S corporation status, and others are in the rules governing the day-to-day operations of the entities. In either case, these provisions stifle growth and impede job creation. Most of the sections of the bill we introduce today are dedicated to eliminating many of these barriers and making it easier for companies to elect Subchapter S and to operate in this status once the election is made. The Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 made many important changes to Subchapter S. One of the most significant was the ability for small banks to elect to be S corporations for the first time. This opened the door for many small community banks to become more competitive with other financial institutions operating in their towns and neighborhoods. So far, more than 1,400 banks in the U.S. have made the election, which represents about 18 percent of the more than 8,000 community banks in the United States. According to a survey taken earlier this year by the accounting firm Grant Thornton, 3 percent of the remaining community banks plan to elect Subchapter S status in 2001, and another 14 percent are considering the election after this year. The availability of Subchapter S has been a positive development in increasing profitability and competitiveness of many community banks. However, two problems currently exist. The first is that current law includes several significant hurdles to many small banks in converting to S corporation status. These include restrictions on the types and number of shareholders allowed. The second problem is that some of the operating rules under Subchapter S are unduly inflexible, complex, and harsh. The bill we introduce today attempts to address many of these challenges by easing the restrictions on the kinds of shareholders who can own S corporation stock and the number of shareholders allowed, as well as relaxing some of the operational rules. These changes are designed to make it significantly easier for community banks to take advantage of the benefits of Subchapter S. Small businesses are key to the continued growth of our economy and to future job creation. The way I see it, it is the job of government to see that unnecessary restrictions and barriers to the success of these businesses are removed so that these small enterprises can attract capital and function with the maximum of efficiency. Some would argue that S corporations are a relic of the past and that newer, more flexible forms of doing business, such as limited liability companies, are the business entities of the future. Such a view is a great distortion of reality. S corporations are a large and growing part of our economy. They have served a vital function in our communities for the past 43 years and will continue to do so. Our tax laws should be overhauled to streamline these rules and make them as flexible and easy to work in as possible. The S Corporation Modernization Act enjoys the support of a broad range of associations and trade groups, many of which have worked with us in crafting the bill. I want to especially acknowledge the assistance of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Taxation Section of the American Bar Association, the Independent Bankers Association of America, and the Utah Bankers Association. These organizations contributed time and talent in making recommendations for many of the improvements in this bill. I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this bill, and to support it. Thousands of small and growing businesses in every State will benefit from the improvements included therein. Its enactment will lead to an increased ability of these enterprises to attract capital, expand, and create new jobs. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section description of the bill and a letter of support from a group of organizations that endorse it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, the yeas and nays are ordered.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I think we are ready to go to a vote on the Wellstone amendment. So I raise a point of order that the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota is not germane.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest we move to a vote.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it calls for more than that. It calls for data collection and other matters. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I will be very short, and we can go to the vote. Senator Wellstone's amendment, which I am sure is well intended, is both dilatory and duplicative. Section 205 of the Senate bill also includes a GAO study on the reaffirmation process. This amendment was offered by Senators Leahy and Reid and agreed to by unanimous consent just before final passage of the bankruptcy bill on March 15. At this point, this boils down to a question of both process and substance. Again, final passage should mean final passage. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment for these simple reasons. I am prepared to go to the vote.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am pleased to rise today to support the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment to H.R. 333. The substitute language is the text of S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act, which passed this Chamber with a bipartisan vote of 83 to 15 on March 15. As you may recall, the conference report to last year's bill, H.R. 833, passed the Senate by a similarly wide margin just last December, but was pocket-vetoed by President Clinton at the end of the legislative session. Today, we are another step closer to getting this bill to conference and heading down the home stretch of this legislative marathon. It is time to wrap up this debate and appoint conferees who will present a good bill to the President for his signature so American consumers can reap the benefits. As my colleagues well know, we have cooperated and compromised at every step along the way in order to produce a fair piece of legislation that provides new consumer protections, helps children in need of child support, and makes other necessary reforms to a system that is open to abuse. Contrary to the views of the bill's opponents, this legislation does not make it more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy, but it does eliminate some of the opportunities for abuse that exist under the current system. Right now, certain debtors with the demonstrated ability to pay continue to abuse the system at the expense of everyone else. Current law perpetuates a system in which people with high incomes can run up massive debts, and then use bankruptcy to get out of honoring them. In the end, all of us pay the price for those who abuse the system in the form of higher interest rates and rising consumer prices. I am optimistic that this much needed bankruptcy reform legislation will be signed into law this year once the procedural roadblocks put down by the narrow opposition have been removed. It is beyond time to appoint conferees and to enact meaningful bankruptcy reform. As I have said many times here on the floor, and just as lately as last week, the American people have waited long enough. I also oppose amendments that may be offered at this stage after we invoke cloture. I take very seriously the role of the Senate as a deliberative body, but with respect to this reform bill, I am beginning to feel like the passenger on the Titanic who said, ``I asked for ice, but this is ridiculous.'' The offering of any additional amendments on this bill at this stage will set a dangerous precedent for reopening bills that have already been fully considered here on the Senate floor. I urge any and all of the 83 Senators who voted for this bill in March to vote to defeat these amendments to send a clear message that ``final passage'' means just that. Resolving remaining issues is the job of a conference committee. It is simply fortunate, and, in my opinion bad faith, to reopen issues after holding a hearing and mark-up in committee followed by a prolonged debate on the floor, with almost one hundred amendments considered at that time. No one can say that the Senate has not already adequately considered bankruptcy reform. The Senate has literally been engaged in the process of deliberating on this issue for years, with numerous hearings, markups, and votes. Back in 1997, a comprehensive bankruptcy reform bill was developed by Senators Grassley and Durbin which we marked up and reported out of committee in May of 1998. In September of that year, the Senate passed bankruptcy reform by a vote of 97 to 1. This overwhelming Senate vote in favor of bankruptcy reform was followed by the appointment of conferees, negotiations with the House, and in October of 1998, an overwhelming House vote in favor of the conference report. Although the motion to proceed to consideration of the conference report was agreed to in the Senate by a strong vote of 94 to 2, the Senate ran out of time for a vote on final passage before the end of the Congress. In February of 1999, Representative George Gekas introduced bankruptcy reform again, which passed out of the House in May of 1999 by another overwhelming vote of 313 to 108. Then, the Senate Judiciary Committee once again marked up Senator Grassley's bill and in May of 1999, we reported it out of committee. Then, in February of last year, the reform legislation passed the Senate by another impressive margin of 83 to 14. The Senate requested a conference, but the objection of a single member from the other side of the aisle blocked the appointment of conferees. As a result, we had to turn to an informal conference process with the House. With a great deal of effort by members on both sides of the aisle, we reached a compromise agreement on over 400 pages of legislation, and on all but one issue. In October of 2000, the House passed the bankruptcy reform conference report, and in December, the Senate passed it by yet another vote of 70 to 28. And, as my colleagues know, later that month, the President pocket-vetoed the legislation. The issue of bankruptcy reform is not a new one. We have studied it, held hearings on it, compromised on it, and come to resolution on it with veto-proof margins, in both houses time and again. An elaborate record that sets out the issues, documents the debate and makes the compelling case for reform is available to anyone who cares to give it their attention. At some point, the process of deliberation needs to come to a close, and the will of the Congress needs to be exercised Only those who want to use delay to kill bankruptcy reform altogether could possibly argue for more process. Now is our opportunity to enact into law the legislation that the Congress supports and that the American people want. Let's get on with the Nation's business. I would hope that we defeat any obstructionist amendments at this stage, or we may never see the end to any legislation already passed by this body ever again. I yield the floor:

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am pleased to be here today to support the motion to proceed to H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001. As my colleagues may remember, the Senate counterpart to this legislation, S. 420, passed this Chamber in a bipartisan vote of 83-15 on March 15. Additionally, the conference report to last year's bill, H.R. 833, passed the Senate by a similarly wide margin just last December, but was pocket-vetoed by President Clinton at the very end of the legislative session. Today, we are beginning what I hope will be the final leg of a legislative marathon, a leg I hope we can complete soon. This bill has passed both bodies in the 105th, 106th, and now the 107th Congress. It is time to wrap up this debate, reach consensus and present a good bill to the President for his signature so American consumers can reap the benefits. I would like to briefly recount the legislative history of S. 420 during this Congress. S. 220, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001 was introduced by Senator Grassley in January and contained the same language as last year's conference report. That bill was given a hearing and amended in mark-up by the Judiciary Committee. After that the committee's bill was reintroduced as S. 420 by Senator Grassley and others, and, after extensive floor debate and the adoption of several important amendments, it passed the Senate in an overwhelming vote. As you can tell, many compromises and agreements have already been reached on this bill. I look forward to working with members of the conference to reconcile the few remaining differences between the two bills. Let me just take a minute at this point to talk about the highlights of this legislation. First, it includes new consumer protections under the Truth in Lending Act, such as new required disclosures regarding minimum monthly payments and introductory rates for credit cards. It also protects consumers from unscrupulous creditors with new penalties for creditors who refuse to negotiate reasonable payment schedules outside of bankruptcy. This bankruptcy reform act also requires credit counseling to help people avoid the cycle of the indebtedness. It provides for protection of educational savings accounts, and gives equal protection to retirement savings in bankruptcy. The legislation would also put a stop to letting deadbeat parents use bankruptcy to avoid paying child support. It will also put an end to paying the lawyers ahead of children who rely on child support. It gives child support and other domestic support obligations first priority status. I am proud to have worked with Senators Torricelli and Dodd on these important reforms. I am also proud to have cosponsored Senator Clinton's amendment that further improved these provisions. Current bankruptcy law simply is not adequate, and frankly I was outraged to learn of the many ways deadbeat parents are manipulating and abusing the current bankruptcy system in order to get out of paying their domestic support obligations. The bill is a tremendous improvement for children and families over current law. That is why there is such overwhelming support for this legislation from the child support professionals across the country--the very people who go after deadbeats to get children the support they need. In fact, this bill includes a key provision that makes the full payment of past due child support and alimony a condition of getting a discharge in bankruptcy. I also am pleased to have worked with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, to include for the first time, privacy protections in bankruptcy. That language protects personally identifiable information given by a consumer to a business debtor by adding new privacy protections to the bankruptcy code and by creating a consumer privacy ombudsman to appear before the bankruptcy court. Now, I am the first to acknowledge that there are things I would like to see changed in the bill, but I recognize that we all have cooperated and compromised in order to enact this legislation that provides new consumer protections, helps children in need of child support, and makes other necessary reforms to a system that is open to abuse. I want to emphasize emphatically that his legislation does not make it more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy, but it does eliminate some of the opportunities for abuse that exist under the current system. Our current system allows certain people with the ability to pay to continue to abuse the system at the expense of everyone else. People with high incomes can run up massive debts, and then use bankruptcy to get out of honoring them. In the end, all of us pay for the unscrupulous who abuse the system. In fact, it has been estimated that every American family pays as much as $550 a year in a hidden tax for these abusers. The bankruptcy reform legislation will help eliminate this hidden tax, by implementing a means test to make wealthy people who can repay their debts honor them. I support we could call this a tax cut for the responsible person. There are numerous examples of people who take advantage of loopholes today at the expense of everyone else. A few months ago, I heard from the president of a credit union in Wisconsin, who told me about a young couple who wanted a ``clean financial slate'' before they got married. What did they do? They ran up their credit card purchases. One of them prepaid on a car loan with the credit union to have the other cosigner released. Then, although they were both employed full time, they filed for bankruptcy to wipe out all their debt. The credit union--and its members--had to eat the $3,000 in credit card debt and another couple of hundred dollars on the car. Bankruptcy relief was never meant to allow this kind of abuse. Hardworking Americans, including the members of credit unions nationwide, have been victimized by abusers of the current bankruptcy system long enough. Bankruptcy abuse also hurts our nation's small businesses. Without reforms from this bill, losses from bankruptcy abuse will continue to break the backs of the Nation's small businesses and retailers, which work with slim profit margins and have even smaller margins for error. Make no mistake: Misrepresentations about this legislation are still running rampant by those who oppose any meaningful bankruptcy reform. Yet despite the allegations of opponents of reform,the poor are not affected by the means test. The legislation provides a ``safe harbor'' for those who fall below the median income, so they are not subjected to the means test at all. Another misrepresentation I have heard again and again is that this legislation won't let people file for bankruptcy relief when they need it. The fact is, this legislation does not deny anyone access to bankruptcy relief, it just requires those who have the means to repay their debts based on their income to do so. It is that simple. Opponents of this legislation have also waged the claim that it somehow hurts women and children. This falsehood is a particularly disturbing for me to hear, because I have had a long history of advocating for children and families on Congress, and I have worked tirelessly, provision by provision, to make this legislation dramatically improve the position of children and ex-spouses who are entitled to domestic support. It can be difficult to get the word out, when misrepresentations abound, about what bankruptcy reform legislation really does. I am optimistic that this much needed bankruptcy reform legislation will be signed into law this year. We have a no-nonsense President in the White House, who understands the importance of personal responsibility. Let's get through these necessary housekeeping votes and move to enact meaningful bankruptcy reform. I said many times during the debates on bankruptcy that the American people have waited long enough to have these improvements in the bankruptcy code that are fair to everybody and that basically require people to be responsible instead of irresponsible. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.