Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I agree, this is a difficult subject, but one we must tackle and I believe as policy-makers, Congress has an important role to play in making sure this balance is done properly. It is becoming increasingly more important as we see government using technology to become more efficient, more user friendly, and we need to be sure that the new ease of use of government resources do not compromise the citizenry's privacy expectations.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. I certainly share your concerns regarding the privacy implications of government actions. I should note that I understand the Judicial Conference is also looking at this issue, but it is clearly one that we must oversee as it raises important policy issues, as well as important First Amendment and Fourth Amendment concerns. In the bankruptcy context, I should state that I believe it is critical that a delicate balance be established between the privacy interest of the debtor who seeks to take the privilege afforded under our bankruptcy laws, and the need in the case of bankruptcies for creditors whose debts are being extinguished, as well as those who enforce against fraud in our bankruptcy system, to obtain information about the debtor and the bankruptcy case. A fair balancing of these competing concerns is critical, and one that the Congress, and particularly the Judiciary Committee, must take an active role. I think that there is no question that making sure the privacy policies and practices of the Federal Government is important. In addition, we should make sure that the privacy laws governing the Federal Government's use of personally identifiable information work effectively. This is an important issue that we can both work together to make happen, and if I remember correctly, it is one that Attorney General Ashcroft has similar concerns about.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. My distinguished colleague makes a good point, and one where we both agree on, and frankly, it is something on which there is bipartisan interest. The issue of privacy, both online and offline, is something that we have discussed together and both agree that the Committee should examine, and will be examining, the current legal framework for privacy protection and determine where improvements can and should be made. This is an important matter on which we have agreed to hold hearings and move forward with legislative proposals, where appropriate.

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 78

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the Dodd amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 75

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote On Amendment No. 25, as modified

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will just take a minute. I understand this amendment is well intentioned. Think about it. We are talking about taking away the rights of people who have to go to work, people who have a driver's license, people who can enter into legal contracts. That is paternalism at its worst. According to a national survey by the Educational Resources Institute, a majority of students use credit cards responsibly and do not accumulate large amounts of credit card debt. The majority of students, 59 percent, typically pay off their monthly balances right away. Of the 41 percent who carry over their balances each month, 81 percent pay more than the minimum amount due. In addition, the overwhelming majority of students pay their own credit card bills. The 14 percent of students who do not pay their own bills receive assistance mostly from parents or spouses. The average monthly balances reported by students also appear to be manageable. Eighty-two percent of students with credit cards who know their balance report average balances of $1,000 or less, and 9 percent have average balances between $1,001 and $2,000. In addition, slightly more than half of student credit card users report combined limits of $3,000 or less. All of these factors indicate the majority of students use credit cards responsibly. A significant portion of students with credit cards use them to pay for education-related expenses. This amendment is much more restrictive than the prior amendment by the distinguished Senator from California, which was voted down. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time, having said that. Vote on Amendment No. 25, as modified On the Schumer amendment, I move to table and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, one of my very dear staffers is about to leave the Senate, a wonderful woman who has given a great deal of her time and love--indeed, a great deal of her life--to me, my office, the citizens of Utah, the county, and indeed, to this grand and honored institution, the Senate of the United States. It is almost impossible for me to believe, but, after nearly a quarter of a century, Kristine Iverson's last working day in my office has now come upon us. I can still remember that day in 1976, when a young Illinois native-- just two years out of DePauw University--when that young lady came to my office, resume in hand, seeking a position as a legislative correspondent. Kris got that job, and it was one of the best moves I made. Kris joined my staff in 1977 as a legislative correspondent. But her intelligence, dedication, warm heart and incredible ability to grasp all the intricacies of the legislative process quickly propelled her to a series of top positions in my office and on the Labor Committee. And for the past 24 years, day in and day out, we have always been able to count on Kris Iverson. Night after night, year after year, she was the first one in and the last one to leave. In short, we have grown gray together. Over the years, Kris has worn many hats: Legislative Assistant, Labor Committee Policy Director, Labor Committee Minority Staff Director, and now Legislative Director. In every position she served admirably and won the utmost respect from her colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Most recently, Kris has served without peer in one of the most difficult and challenging positions in the office of any Senator-- legislative director. In that position, she has served with an unmatchable commitment to the Senate and indeed the very Congress of the United States. We all know how important it is to have a Legislative Director who we can trust to take our legislative priorities and help us direct them through the Byzantine maze of the legislative process. Kris has been responsible for shepherding every piece of legislation that I sponsored. Beyond that, she was also responsible for helping to direct the legislative activities of both my personal staff and the Judiciary Committee staff. Not only has Kris--or ``Ivo'' as we endearingly refer to her--earned my undying respect and admiration, but she is also highly admired by many in this body for her honesty, her work-ethic and her analytical skills. When I think of many of the great laws in this nation the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, the Women in Science Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Job Training Partnership Act or JTPA, the Children's Health Insurance Program or CHIP all of these great laws reflect Kris Iverson's substantial mark. Kris was there--in fact, Ivo was the lead staffer--on my first law, the National Ski Patrol Federal Charter, signed by Carter in 1980. We often joke that she has files older than many of our staffers, and I'm sorry to say, it's true! Unfortunately for us, her reputation has carried all the way to the White House where President George W. Bush has announced his intent to nominate her to one of the highest positions in the Department of Labor. If all goes as planned--and I know it will--very shortly Kris will become the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Her only obstacle is confirmation by this august body . . . and I am counting on my colleagues to give her their support. Unanimous support! I know that in that very important office, she will serve Secretary Chao with the same dedication and spirit. Clearly, being appointed by the President of our great nation to such a position is a tremendous honor and a tribute to her. A great writer once said: Give us an individual of integrity, on whom we know we can thoroughly depend; who will stand firm when others fail; the friend, faithful and true; the advisor, honest and fearless; the adversary, just and chivalrous: such an one is the fragment of the Rock of Ages.--J.P. Stanley Ivo has been such a faithful and true ``rock'' of our office. I cannot put into words how much she will be missed, not only by my staff but also by the Senate as a whole. And of course, she will be greatly missed by me. I have considered her my right-hand counselor and advisor. I have relied on her on a daily, if not hourly basis. We have come to count on Kris to do it all. From proper placement of commas . . . to strategy on the most important legislative initiatives . . . Kris does it, and does it well. Dozens, if not hundreds, of people throughout Washington and the nation were mentored by Kris Iverson, and under her gentle tutelage have gone on to lead successful careers. When the times were hard or the seas were rough, Kris was there with a steady and unbending hand to guide us on the proper course. She was our captain, our Mother Superior, our eye in the storm, our calm center in a sea of chaos. I must say that I am very saddened by her departure. But I am very, very happy and proud of her accomplishments and most importantly, of this tremendous appointment to a place where I know that she will continue to honor and serve her country with dignity and respect. So, I hope my colleagues will join me in wishing Kris well, in expressing our love and gratitude for her service to us. There is no doubt in our minds that she will move on to even greater heights as she continues to serve our government and our President. Mr. President, I have had a lot of people serve with me throughout the years, a lot of really good people I love, adore, appreciate, and honor. I have had no one serve with me who did a better job or gave more to this institution and to our country than Kris Iverson. I felt very much like I had to make this statement at this time before Kris leaves. She is sitting right beside me, and I am very, very proud of her. I yield to my friend from Connecticut.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks because he knows how hard we worked together on the child care development block grant, and a whole raft of other issues. Kris has done such a great job, and I am honored to have her sit beside me for the last time in the Senate. We are very proud of her.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to take a few more minutes to respond to some of the comments of my friend and colleague from North Dakota. The Senator from North Dakota keeps talking about a Bush tax cut of more than $1.6 trillion. He can talk about any number he wants, but the President has made it clear that he is committed to a budget that would reduce Federal revenue collections by $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Budget Committee Chairmen Domenici and Nussle have committed to producing a budget that reduces tax collections by $1.6 trillion over 10 years. The House and Senate Republican leadership are determined to allow taxpayers to keep more of their own money--$1.6 trillion--over the next 10 years. All the above have agreed that any changes to the President's tax relief proposal--adding provisions, removing provisions, changing provisions--would have to be accommodated within a budget that reduces Federal revenues by $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Let's now look at why the number is not $2.4 trillion, $2.5 trillion or $2.6 trillion. The claimed additional interest cost of $500 billion to the tax cut is a red herring argument; interest is included in the budget; trying to tie interest cost to the tax cut is inconsistent with past practice on spending increases and tax cuts. Moreover, Mr. President, adding interest to these tax cuts assumes that the every dollar of the tax cut would be used to pay down the debt if the taxes were not cut. In reality, every Member of this Chamber very well knows that if we do not send this money home to the taxpayers who were overcharged in the form of too high of taxes, most of the surplus will be spent by Congress. There is no interest savings when the alternative to tax cuts is spending increases. All one has to do is look at last year for an illustration. The claimed additional revenue loss of $200 billion connected with the alternative minimum tax will have to be addressed within the context of the $1.6 trillion figure; with respect to the child tax credit, it is already accounted for in the President's budget. The President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of the Treasury have made it clear that if the AMT is taken care of, some other feature of the President's tax plan would be reduced to make it fit in the $1.6 trillion number. The claimed additional revenue loss of $200 billion for the retroactive portion of the tax cut will also have to be addressed within the context of the $1.6 trillion figure. The claimed additional revenue loss of $100 billion for tax extenders is an example of double counting; extenders are already addressed in the President's budget. The bottom line is that the numbers used by the other side are bogus arguments to support their ultimate goal: very little tax cut and much higher spending. The President's budget shows that you can pay down the Federal debt, return some of the surplus to the people as tax relief, and provide targeted spending increases. I think we ought to talk facts, not fiction. That is what I am trying to do. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are now on the 4th day of debating the bankruptcy reform legislation. Yesterday we were given a list of some 100 Democratic amendments to this bill. If Members are serious about their amendments, then I ask that they come down and offer them, and that they do so now, so we can see the actual text and avoid any further undue delays and move forward with this much needed reform legislation. There may be one or two amendments on our side, but I do not think much more than that. So it comes down to getting our friends on the other side to come and offer their amendments and we will go from there. I understand Senator Conrad will be here in a few minutes to speak to one of his amendments. With that, I yield back to the senior Senator from Nevada.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I was sitting here mulling things over after I listened to my colleague from North Dakota and his very erudite comments about the budget, about President Bush's budget, the tax cut package, and so forth. It is kind of amazing to me because, in all honesty, I am afraid our colleagues on the other side completely ignore what happened during the Reagan years. In their zeal to say that President Reagan caused the budget deficits, they ignore the impact of the marginal tax rate reductions that occurred during those years. The reason I know a little bit about this is because I was one of a handful who worked very hard to convince President Reagan to cut the marginal tax rates, which at that point topped out at 70 percent in this country. He cut the maximum rate down to 28 percent by 1986. I remember all the arguments that were raised then by our colleagues on the other side; and they basically centered on the fact that if you cut taxes like that, you will run us into huge deficits because by cutting taxes, you will cut revenues. Those were the arguments made by our colleagues on the other side. They have completely glossed over what really happened in saying that all of the subsequent deficits occurred because of Ronald Reagan and his tax cuts. The real facts are that Ronald Reagan's tax cuts--those marginal tax rate reductions from 70 percent down to 28 percent, by 1986--helped to lead us into an unprecedented era of prosperity we still enjoy today, and that the resulting federal revenues that came about after those cuts did not decrease, except for one single year. In fact, annual revenue to the Treasury actually almost doubled during the Reagan years. The fact is, those tax cuts led to greater revenues because more people saved their money. Instead of the federal Government spending it, most people invested their money, created businesses, opportunities, and jobs for others. In the end, we actually received more tax revenues. Well, then, how did we get the big deficits? In part, the deficits came from Reagan's increases in military spending. But let's stop and think about that for a minute. That spending has been highly criticized. But defense is the only area where he literally increased spending that I can recall. All of the other increases in spending came from our friends on the other side and liberal Republicans. Let's quit talking about Democrats and Republicans. Let's talk about liberals and conservatives. The fact is, we enacted the marginal tax rate reductions, and revenue jumped to almost double as a result. But spending went up dramatically during those years because, in order to get the marginal tax rate reductions, Ronald Reagan had to agree to Democrat spending because Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of the House at that time, and the House was controlled by Democrats, or should I say, by the liberals, and they just kept spending. That was part of the payoff in order to get tax rate reductions. But we should not lose sight of the fact that we had a tremendous increase in revenues as a result of tax rate reductions. The same revenue effect occurred when Senator Lieberman and I pushed through the Hatch-Lieberman capital gains rate reduction in 1997. I can remember our friends, our liberal friends in this body, saying: If you cut capital gains rates, we will lose revenues. We said: No. If you cut capital gains rates, people will save more, invest more, create more businesses, more jobs, more opportunities, we will have more people working, with more people paying taxes into the system. We will actually increase revenues. Some of them even laughed at us until the DRI econometricians came out with their analysis, and they are hardly a conservative group. They came out and made it clear that not only did we not lose revenues as a result of reducing capital gains rates from 28 percent down to 20 percent, but we actually gained revenues. We did not gain as much as I thought we would, but we gained revenues. That is what happened with the Reagan marginal tax rate reductions. But the spending increases were phenomenal during those years. True, military spending went up during the Reagan years. And I am sure Ronald Reagan would be the first to take credit for spending more on the military. In fact, during John F. Kennedy's tenure as President, we were spending almost 50 percent of the budget on the military. Over the next years, it greatly decreased. Reagan finally got it up to higher levels, but it was far cry from where John F. Kennedy had it as a percentage of budget expenditures. Today, under the Clinton budget, it has gone down to somewhere below 3 percent, virtually half or less of where Ronald Reagan had it. But what people seem to ignore, when they complain about military spending, is that because of the increase in the budget for the military, the cold war was ended because the Soviets had to throw in the towel because they could not compete with the United States of America. The fact is, we probably have saved trillions of dollars by ending the cold war, with the United States emerging as the No. 1 power in the world today. So even with that additional spending, which was not anywhere near as high as the percentage of the budget that John F. Kennedy was spending, we have probably saved trillions of dollars over the years since the cold war came to an end. I never cease to be amazed at how our liberal friends in this body are constantly talking about balancing the budget. It never ceases to amaze me because in 1994, when they controlled both Houses of Congress, and President Clinton was President, their budget projections showed $200 billion in deficits every year ad infinitum. Tell me that isn't true. I know it is. I was here--$200 billion every year, henceforth in the future. Basically, President Clinton said there was not much we could do about it. And then, all of a sudden, the first Republican Congress in almost 40 years came into being, and we started pushing for a balanced budget, which we shortly after achieved. And now our liberal friends are trying to claim they balanced the budget. Give me a break. I am talking about liberals on both sides of the aisle. If you just look at last year, the people in these two bodies could not control spending and it went up in whopping fashion. The reason it went up is because there was no pressure to control spending because we had a surplus, and we could just tap into that surplus at will. I might also add that President Clinton used the surpluses for ``emergency'' spending that exceeded $20 billion a year. Frankly, almost everything they wanted to spend on, from a liberal perspective, suddenly became an emergency. Some of those programs were emergencies, but certainly not all. I guess what I am saying is, if we do not give the taxpayers back some of this $5.6 trillion projected surplus--and I have to say $1.6 trillion of the $5.6 trillion isn't very much--if we do not give them back some of that surplus, I guarantee you the wonderful Members of Congress, especially those on the liberal side--but I have to say some conservatives, too; all of us are to blame--we will spend every stinking dime of it. And the American people will be the worse off for it. When I hear these analyses done by our friends on the other side, they never give credit for the dynamic effects of cutting marginal tax rates. They always use static budgetary figures that never take into consideration economic stimuli that comes from cutting taxes and giving people a break. Of course, they have been able to get away with it for years because, for all of the time I have been here--and I have been here for 25 years--there has never been a conservative control of either House of Congress. It has always been under the control, if you look at the numbers, of the left. And the left believes in spending. They believe the Federal Government is the last answer to everything. They believe the Federal Government, like a great big all-consuming nanny, is going to take care of all of us. They ignore the economic fact that there are some dynamics in economics that do occur when you give incentives to the American people. We have a $5.6 trillion projected surplus. Most economists, including OMB, including CBO, indicate that this may be a conservative figure. It may be even beyond that if we do what is right. One of the things we can do to make sure it is a conservative figure and to make sure we might even get more money in revenue is to cut marginal tax rates because it does work to do so. If we have the guts and the brains and the ability to do that, the American economy is going to be much better off. President Bush has said he doesn't want a spending increase of more than 4 percent in the total budget. He has also said he will be reasonable with regard to the spending needs of Congress. He has also said he only wants $1.6 trillion from the $5.6 trillion projected budget in tax cuts. That leaves $4 trillion more, and he is going to put $2.6 trillion away for Social Security and Medicare. I get such a kick out of the lockbox arguments on both sides because there is no lockbox. There is never going to be a lockbox. The fact is, if we save that money, unless we reform Medicare and Social Security, we are going to have to take that money and either spend it, which is what Congress will probably do, or we are going to pay down the national debt, which is what we should do to an extent. Even if you save the $2.6 trillion for Social Security and Medicare, that is not going to do much good unless we reform those programs. Everybody knows there are approximately 40 million people on Medicare now. That is going to rise to 80 million people by the year 2035. If we don't do something now to reform Medicare, it won't make any difference how much money we put in there. It will not be enough. Social Security has some of the same problems. When Social Security came into existence, there were 46 workers, if I recall correctly, for everybody receiving Social Security. Today, it is 3.4 workers for everybody on Social Security, going down to 3, maybe 2.9 in the next 10 years, 2.9 workers for everybody receiving Social Security. What future do our kids have unless we reform these programs and make them work and make them live within their means? I hear all these comments about a lockbox and how we have to save Medicare and Social Security. Yet I don't see a lot of effort being made, at least by the left and maybe some of us on the right, being made to save these programs, to reform them, and make them work. I am very concerned about these issues. President Bush is willing to set aside $2.6 trillion of the projected surplus. He wants $1.6 trillion for a tax cut, and that still leaves a considerable amount of money to take care of other problems we have. That surplus won't be there if we keep taxing and spending as we have a tendency to do. Last year was a perfect illustration, as we just spent ourselves into a blind fit of passion. Those who actually handle the budget, those who handle the appropriations process, are having a heck of a time trying to hold the more moderate-to-liberal members among us from spending this Nation into bankruptcy. Yet all we hear is, we shouldn't cut taxes. When you have a $5.6 trillion projected surplus, by gosh, you know the taxpayers are paying too much in taxes. It is the time to give them some of these taxes back. Is this $1.6 trillion tax cut exorbitant? Hardly. It is about half in relative terms what John F. Kennedy did and only a third of what Ronald Reagan did. It is not a great big ballooning tax cut. The fact is, if we cut taxes, this economy will be stimulated and spurred on to higher revenue. The so-called ``budget surplus'' is really an overcollection of taxes which belongs to the American people. There is no question about it. One other point we need to understand is that the budget surplus is not the result of some brilliant new goods or services the Federal Government sells. The Government's revenues come from collections from the American people. The Federal Government hasn't created this surplus. Some on the other side would say their massive increases of taxes, such as the 1993 tax increase, have helped. I suspect that is possibly true. Then again, doesn't that argue in my favor and make the point I have been making: we are taxing the American people far too much when you have these kind of surpluses? There are some on the other side who have never seen a spending bill they didn't fall in love with. There are some on the other side who have never said, in the whole time I have known them--and I think we could pick them out rather easily--they have never said: Where are we going to get the money to pay for these programs? There are some on the other side who really do want us to have the Federal Government take care of everybody from the cradle to the grave. That sounds wonderful except it would make the United States an also- ran country like so many others that have taken that type of philosophy and put it into practice. What we have to do as Members of Congress is to support this President. The American people did elect him, in spite of all the moaning and groaning about Florida. The facts are that George Bush did win Florida. He probably won New Mexico, too. Because Florida was where it was at, they didn't contest New Mexico. He probably won a few other States. If you look at some of the reports that have come in, there is no reason for anybody on the other side to be complaining at this particular point. Some have said Gore received a half million more votes. Well, that is irrelevant because we have an electoral college system where we have a direct election by 50 States, not by 280 million people, except insofar as they vote for a particular candidate in their respective States. There is a genius to that system because it makes our system for running for President a truly national election rather than a series of regional elections. Under this system, a candidate can't afford to ignore any State, any of the 50 States, when he or she is running for President. If you need any further proof, just look at the last election. Wyoming, with three electoral college votes, made the difference. I might add, Vermont would have made the difference with three. North Dakota would have made the difference with three, or Alaska with three votes. Every State was in play. There was a genius to the Founding Fathers. Our electoral college system requires a national, not a regional, campaign. Why is that important? Because the Founding Fathers were afraid, in fact terrorized, that the small States, the more rural States, would be completely obliterated by those who had all the money and the population. So they gave a little advantage to the small States by having the House of Representatives elected proportionately but the Senate with equal rights of suffrage for every State. In other words, Utah, with 2.1 million people, has the same number of Senators as California with 32 million. The reason was because they wanted to have the Senate protect the country. That is why Senators have 6-year terms, so they can rise above politics occasionally. The fact is, our electoral college system works very well because Presidential campaigns have to be national, not regional. The media would not control the Federal election completely, which they would, because only the 10 or 12 largest States would control the country. What it means is that George Bush, if we had a direct popular election, would have spent a lot more time in New York, a lot more time in California, a lot more time in Michigan, a lot more time in Illinois. He would have picked up those 500,000 votes or more. He didn't spend a lot of time in States he knew he was going to lose. He had to try to make sure he ran a national campaign and picked up enough votes to win the electoral college, so that no 6, or 8, or 10, or 12 States, at the most, would control everything in this country. The media would not control the major centers that disseminate all the news in this country. Nobody doubts for a minute that the media is one-sided. Everybody in America knows the media are certainly tilted to the left. It is awfully hard to even get a job in the media unless you are on the left. We all know that; the media knows that; there isn't even a question about it. So our electoral college system does work. It makes it a national election, not a regional election. The media can't control the election. You have to campaign in all of the respective States, and, literally, it makes a lot of sense. This last election proved that more than ever before. I hear these arguments that George Bush is taking us down the road to destruction because he wants to give the American people some of their money back. George Bush is absolutely right on his tax cut. There should not be a $5.6 trillion surplus without a realization that the American people are being taxed and overtaxed. I have to tell you, if we don't do something about it and give some of that money back, our wonderful friends in both bodies here--and they are good people; they just can't help themselves--are going to spend all that money and we are going to try to ``do good'' with all that money. In the end, we will kill this economy deader than a doornail. So what President Bush is fighting for out in the hinterland right now is extremely important. It will make the difference as to whether we have another 17 or 18 years of economic prosperity, with continual rises in productivity and other benefits that are economic in nature, or whether we start to descend and retrogress as a nation. I believe that is one reason he was elected. I believe that is one reason we need to support him. I have heard a lot about bipartisanship around here. In all honesty, this is a good chance for everybody to show bipartisanship and support the President in the one program that he really thinks is the centerpiece of his agenda. We are going to try to do something on education, but let's be honest about that: The Federal Government affects only about 7 percent of all of public education in this country; 93 percent of all educational funds come from the States. That is where they ought to come from, and that is where the power ought to be, and that is where the authority ought to be. But President Bush is going to do what he can in education. That will probably be the next bill on the floor after bankruptcy. The hallmark of the Bush tax cut legislation is the same as Ronald Reagan's. When Reagan came in, people laughed at first when he started talking about a 25-percent marginal tax rate reduction over a 3-year period. But you can't laugh at it today. It was the Reagan marginal tax rate reductions that almost doubled the revenues. It was Congress' spending that put us into the huge deficits we had. Plus, he did increase the military, but we ended the cold war, which saved us trillions of dollars over the years. Then we had a battle for the balanced budget amendment year after year. We knew we would always lose that battle. There was only one time we had a chance of winning. It had to be waged, and it got the American people thinking, my gosh, they are right, we should balance the budget. It was the 1997 capital gains rate reductions, that Senator Lieberman and I and a whole raft of others in the Congress fought so hard to get, which helped to stabilize the economy. It helped in so many ways. It was the productivity that grew out of those issues. I think Alan Greenspan, to a large degree, has done very remarkable work at the Fed. I think Bob Rubin did a very good job in stabilizing world markets as Treasury Secretary. But it was the first Republican Congress in almost 40 years that insisted on balancing the budget, and President Clinton was brought reluctantly with us. We insisted on balancing the budget, and we were able to finally do it. Our colleagues on the left are now claiming they are the ones who did it. Give me a break. As bad as spending was last year, it could have been far worse. We had to fight every inch of the way to control it, to the extent that we could. It would have gone completely out of control. It is not all the left's fault; some of the blame is on the right as well. All of these factors came together to bring us to the point now where we have a balanced budget and a projected $5.6 trillion surplus. I suggest there will be a lot more if we cut tax rates by $1.6 trillion, as President Bush would like to. I get a little tired of this class warfare that goes on around here, too. It gets very old to hear that ``the upper 1 percent'' is going to benefit so much and those making $25,000 a year will get no benefits out of this program. That is not true. All levels of taxpayers are going to get tax cuts from the Bush plan. A family of four earning $35,000 a year or less will pay nothing in taxes. There is a good reason that taxpayers with even lower incomes are not going to get much benefit from the tax cut they don't pay any taxes to begin with, as far as income taxes are concerned. They do pay through the nose, especially if they are self-employed, on Social Security, FICA taxes, there is no question about it. We need to do something about that, but not without some reform of the Social Security system. When you stop and think about it, the upper 5 percent of income- taxpayers pay 50 percent of all the income taxes in this country. All Bush wants to do is reduce the top rate from 39.6 percent down to 33 percent, and the other three brackets correspondingly, with the lower ones being reduced the most. Guess what the bottom 50 percent pay in Federal income taxes. Less than 5 percent of Federal income taxes. So, naturally, those who benefit from marginal rate reductions will be those who pay taxes. Naturally, there will be people who are wealthy and who will benefit from that tax rate reduction. But these people don't take that money and put it into socks or mattresses, they put it into productive uses, by and large, and in the process create more opportunity, jobs, high-technology, and they keep the United States in the forefront of all of these economic programs that have made us the greatest Nation in the world. Yes, those who pay taxes are going to get tax reductions. Those who don't are still going to get plenty of benefits from the Federal Government. We do need to do something to save Social Security and Medicare, no question about it. I, for one, hope we have the guts to do something about that over the next few years. But when I hear these comments all based on a static economic analysis, never considering the dynamism we have all seen occur since 1982, just completely ignoring that and acting as though it doesn't exist, and coming out with these doomsday scenarios that are trying to undermine what President Bush is trying to do, which is to just get the taxpayers a little bit back. In comparison to John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, the Bush tax cut is half of the Kennedy tax cut and one-third of the Reagan tax cut, if you want to put it in relative terms. I hear these doomsday scenarios that we should not cut taxes because we have so much for which we need to spend that money. I am not speaking of my friend from North Dakota. I think he literally wants to do what is right, but he is using the static economic analyses that aren't necessarily accurate. You can use figures to make any point you want. But there is one figure you can't ignore, and that is a $5.6 trillion surplus that virtually all of the major economic analytical groups say is going to be there. If that is so, then you have to draw the conclusion that the American people are paying too much in taxes and that they deserve tax breaks under these circumstances. I want to see us go toward a more dynamic economic analysis, at least have both sides of it so we do not just have this stultification to any kind of tax rate reduction that is being argued by our friends on the other side. I hope they are not arguing these basic budgetary principles, that I think are wrong, just so they can politically make it tough for President Bush. He has only been in office a couple months. Frankly, it would be a crime to not give his program a chance to work since he is our President. It would be a crime to not work in a bipartisan fashion to do what needs to be done. Literally, it would be a crime not to give this President some support. We have done it for President Clinton, and it is time to do it for President Bush. It is not President Bush for whom we are doing it in the final analysis, it is for everybody in our society, and really for many places in the world that depend upon the economic stability of the United States of America. I make these points because I get concerned when I hear one-sided arguments on the budget, one-sided arguments on tax rate reductions, one-sided arguments on Medicare and Social Security, one-sided arguments based on static analyses that never take into consideration actual real-world results, one-sided arguments that ignore the facts in this country that tax rate reductions work, and one-sided arguments in complete derogation and ignorance of the last 18 years. The fact is, we all have to do our best to analyze this the best we can, but we should not ignore the econometricians, though not conservative, who have proven that tax rate reductions do work, and we should not ignore the fact that restraint in spending does work, too. We have not had much of that around here, even with a Republican Congress. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HATCH. Fine.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately resume consideration of S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. There are several amendments pending, and others are expected to be offered. Any votes ordered during today's and Monday's session will be scheduled to occur on Tuesday, at 11 a.m. Senators with amendments are, again, encouraged to come to the floor today and Monday to offer their amendments. As previously announced, it is hoped that all action on this bill can be completed by midweek next week. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, HOEPA, already gives borrowers numerous protections and built-in ``super-remedies'' including the consumer's right to rescind the loan, actual and statutory damages, class action law suits, attorneys fees and costs. This amendment imposes a drastic and unnecessary new penalty on lenders by taking away their right to get paid in bankruptcy--and thus gives the debtor a ``free house''--in the event of a violation of HOEPA. This amendment will create litigation within litigation. Also, the amendment as written would make any secured loan, whether or not subject to HOEPA, even if fully compliant with all other banking laws, subject to the draconian remedies of this amendment for a violation of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act. This provides a major disincentive, as the distinguished Senator from Texas, the chairman of the Banking Committee, has made the case, for making loans to people on the margin, taking the American dream of home ownership out of reach for them. I join with the distinguished Senator from Texas in making it clear that this amendment does precisely the opposite. That is what our very effective colleague, with all of the horror stories he mentioned, has been advocating. Frankly, I hope we vote this amendment down because it will be a disaster in bankruptcy law. I think it will be a disaster for those folks who currently benefit from fair lending. Where there is unfair lending, I have no doubt the laws will take care of that. This amendment will work exactly to the contrary. Mr. President, I will move to table the amendment following the closing statement of Senator Durbin.

Mr. HATCH. If I could move to table at 10 until 12, and let everybody know, is that OK?

Mr. HATCH. Then about 10 until 12; is that all right? I will make a motion to table. Could I ask unanimous consent?