Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my friend Senator Baucus and many of our Finance Committee colleagues today in introducing legislation that would permanently extend the research and experimentation tax credit. Over the past 10 years, our nation has experienced the longest and strongest peacetime period of economic expansion in our history. Over this past decade, the standard of living for all Americans has increased markedly while millions of new jobs have been created. At the same time, our federal budget outlook has been transformed from one of large and increasing deficits into the indefinite future to one of multitrillion dollar surpluses for at least the next ten years. Much of the cause of this economic expansion that has so blessed the United States is due to a strong surge in our productivity rate. This increase in productivity has allowed the economy to continue to grow at a rapid pace without the increase in inflation that usually accompanies such growth. The Congressional Budget Office, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and dozens of leading economists have all heralded the increase in our productivity as a key to our economic good times--and to their continuance. A major factor of this increase in productivity, Mr. President, is spending on research and development. This is what our bill today is all about. An August 1999 study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers concluded that as much as two-thirds of productivity gains is due to technological advances. These advances, in turn, fuel economic growth. The standard model of economic growth argues that one- third of growth in private-sector output is attributable to advances in technology. In the manufacturing sector, as much as two-thirds of growth can be attributed to technological advances. Moreover, this contribution is expected to increase over the next decade. It seems clear to me that if we want to keep our economy strong and growing, it is vital that we keep up and even increase these advances in technology. How do we do this? The answer is simple. Our nation must continue to invest in research and development, both at the public level, and especially in the private sector. I believe the best way to ensure that private-sector investment in research and development continues at the healthy rate needed to fuel the productivity gains of the future is to permanently extend the current-law research and experimentation credit. This tax provision is a proven and a cost-effective incentive to increase private-sector R&D spending. Studies have shown that the R&E tax credit significantly increases research and development expenditures. The marginal effect of one dollar of the R&E credit stimulates approximately one dollar of additional private research and development spending over the short-run and as much as two dollars of extra investment over the long-run. Congress has recognized the vital role the R&E credit has played in spurring increased research spending by extending the credit ten times since its inception in 1981. For most of those years, Congress was never able to find the funds to pay for a permanent extension of the credit, due to budget constraints. Fortunately, Congress passed a five- year extension in 1999 that will keep the credit alive until 2004. However, Mr. President, permanence is essential to the effectiveness of this credit. Research and development projects typically take a number of years and may even last longer than a decade. As our business leaders plan these projects, they need to know whether or not they can count on the R&E tax credit. The continual uncertainty surrounding the credit has induced businesses to allocate significantly less to research than they otherwise would if they were assured the tax credit would be available. This uncertainty undermines the entire purpose of the credit and has stifled its full potential for inducing research spending. For the government and the American people to maximize the return on their investment in U.S.-based research spending, this credit must be made permanent. In the business community, the development of new products, technologies, medicines, and ideas can result in either success or failure. Investments carry a risk. The R&E tax credit helps ease the cost of incurring these risks. Whereas foreign nations heavily subsidize research with public dollars, the United States has typically relied less on direct public funds and more on private sector incentives. The R&E tax credit has the potential to be an even more effective incentive if it were made permanent. I am aware that not every company that invests in research and development in the U.S. can take advantage of the regular R&E tax credit. As the credit's base period recedes and business cycles change, the current credit is out of reach for some companies that still incur significant research expenditures. To help solve this problem Congress enacted the Alternative Incremental Research Credit to help businesses that do not qualify for the R&E tax credit. To improve the effectiveness of this alternative credit, we have included a proposal to slightly increase each of its three incentive levels. A permanent extension of this credit may seem costly in terms of lost revenue. However, when you consider the value that this investment will create for our economy, it is a bargain. In fact, one study estimates that a permanent R&E credit would result in our Gross Domestic Product increasing by $10 billion after five years and by $31 billion after 20 years. Moreover, making the credit permanent will encourage more companies to locate their research activities within the United States. This will lead to more jobs and higher wages for U.S. workers. We must recognize that international competition is fierce. Many other countries offer significant enticements to prompt companies to move research activities within their borders. If we fail to ensure at least a level playing field, many companies will begin to consider moving their research activities abroad and we could lose thousands of precious high-paying jobs. Findings from a study conducted by Coopers & Lybrand show that workers in every state will benefit from higher wages if the R&E tax credit is made permanent. Payroll increases as a result of gains in productivity stemming from the credit have been estimated to exceed $60 billion over the next 12 years. Furthermore, greater productivity from additional R&E will increase overall economic growth in every state in the Union. My home state of Utah is a good example of how state economies benefit from the research tax credit. Utah is home to a large number of firms who invest a high percentage of their revenue on research and development. For example, between Salt Lake City and Provo lies one of the world's biggest stretches of software and computer engineering firms. This area, which was named ``Software Valley'' by Business Week, is a significant example of one of a growing number of thriving high tech commercial regions outside California's Silicon Valley. Newsweek magazine included Utah among the top ten information technology centers in the world. The Utah Information Technologies Association estimates that Utah's IT industry consists of more than 2,500 IT vendor enterprises and more than 1,000 eBusiness enterprises, employing tens of thousands and bringing billions of dollars to Utah's economy. In addition, Utah is home to about 700 biotechnology and biomedical firms that employ nearly 9,000 workers. Research and development are the reasons these companies exist. Not only do these companies need to continue conducting a high quality level of research, but this research feeds other industries and, ultimately, consumers. Just ask the patients who have benefitted from new drugs or therapies. In all, Mr. President there are more than 80,000 employees working in Utah's thousands of technology based companies. Many other states have experienced similar growth in high technology businesses. Research and development is the lifeblood of these firms and hundreds of thousands like them throughout the nation. During the ten times in the past 20 years that Congress has extended the R&E credit for a short time, the ostensible reason has been a lack of revenue. The excuse we give to constituents is that we didn't have the money to extend the bill permanently. Ironically, it costs at least as much in terms of lost revenue, in the long run, to enact short-term extensions as it does to extend it permanently. With the latest projections of the on-budget surplus, for one year, for five years, and for ten years, this excuse is gone. There is simply no valid reason that this credit should not be extended on a permanent basis. Moreover, now is the time to extend the provision permanently. By making the research credit permanent now, we will send a strong signal to the business community that a new era of stronger support for research has dawned. The timing could not be better because, as I mentioned, many research projects, especially those in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, must be planned and budgeted for months and even years in advance. The more uncertain the long-term future of the research credit is, the smaller the potential of the credit to stimulate increased research. Simply knowing of the reliability of a permanent research credit will give a boost to the amount of research performed, even before the current credit expires in 2004. A permanent R&E credit has wide support in both the Senate and the House. Last year, this body passed by a vote of 98-1 an amendment that would have permanently extended the credit. Unfortunately, all amendments were ultimately stripped from the underlying bill. The bill we are introducing today is identical to legislation introduced earlier this month by Representatives Nancy Johnson and Robert Matsui. The identical bill in the 106th Congress was cosponsored by 164 other members of that body. Moreover, the permanent extension of the credit is a major provision in President Bush's tax cut plan, and was supported by both former President Clinton and by Al Gore. In conclusion Mr. President, if we fail to make the R&E tax credit permanent, we are limiting the potential growth of our economy. How can we expect the American economy to hold its lead in the global economic race if we allow other countries to take the edge in innovation? Making the tax credit permanent will keep American business ahead of the pack. It will speed economic growth. New technology resulting from American research and development will continue to improve the standard of living for every person in the U.S. and also worldwide. Simply put, the costs of not making the R&E tax credit permanent are far greater than the costs of making it permanent. As we begin the new millennium, we cannot afford to let the American economy slow down. Now is the time to send a strong message to our companies and to the world that America intends to retain its position as the world's foremost innovator. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I do agree wholeheartedly. I feel compelled to add, however, that as the Chairman of the Committee of jurisdiction, it was important to me to make certain that the bill in no way impedes the Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA] from vigorously enforcing the Controlled Substances Act. Specifically, the DATA legislation is not intended to prevent the DEA from its historic role of prosecuting physicians for dispensing controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose.

Mr. HATCH. I certainly agree with that. Indeed, such an interpretation is expressly prohibited by the language: ``Nothing in such regulations or practice guidelines may authorize any Federal official or employee to exercise supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided.''

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as Senator Levin knows, the DATA bill includes a provision similar to one applicable for many years to both the Medicaid and Medicare programs, which makes clear that basic decisions about the way medicine is practiced are to be made by physicians and patients, not by the federal government.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my colleague from Michigan is correct. Additionally, as my colleagues are aware, the bill reauthorized the operation of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and established and reinforced penalties for illegal manufacture, sale, and possession of certain illicit drugs.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, I want to take this opportunity to comment about several of the provisions included in the bill. This bill contains many important health care provisions affecting both Medicare providers and Medicare beneficiaries. Accordingly, I am delighted that a final agreement has been reached with the White House on these provisions and that the measure is now ready for passage. I also want to take this opportunity to commend the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, for his leadership and persistence over the past several months in moving this critically important legislation. On a personal note, I would be remiss if I did not say that I will miss my colleague and good friend Bill Roth. I am very sorry that he will not be returning to the next Congress to continue the work on which he has labored for so many years. Bill Roth has made a real difference to Americans--he was one of the original believers in across-the-board tax cuts. President Reagan seized on this idea as the way to get our nation out of ``stagflation.'' The tax policy worked and produced one of the longest periods of prosperity in history. Bill Roth was also a father of the individual retirement account, which is a simple way that Americans can help themselves save for retirement. Senator Roth worked tirelessly over the years to expand IRAs, make them even more available and more workable. I greatly admire Bill Roth's understanding of the tax code and tax policy, and we are going to miss his continued contributions to this complex issue area. But, Chairman Roth has also been a champion on the Finance Committee and in the Senate for his commitment in addressing the critical structural and financing problems facing the Medicare program. Indeed, his work over the past several years as Chairman of the Finance Committee has dramatically improved the prospects that meaningful Medicare reform can be accomplished, in a bipartisan fashion, in the next Congress. Moreover, because of his efforts, the foundation has been laid for a workable and much-needed Medicare drug benefit that I am hopeful Congress will enact with the leadership of President-elect Bush. For now, I would like to comment briefly on several provisions which I authored, or strongly supported, that are included in this legislation. First, I am pleased the legislation contains provisions to create a prospective payment system for federally qualified health centers in every state of the country. Betty Vierra, who serves as the Executive Director of the Association for Utah Community Health, advised me that this is one of the top priorities of community health centers in Utah and across the nation. Community health centers have been working on this issue since 1997, and I am pleased they have finally won their hard-fought battle. The bill also contains provisions from the Medicare Access to Technology Act of 2000, legislation that I introduced earlier this year. Last year, provisions were included in the omnibus budget legislation for fiscal year 2000 that addressed some of the outstanding problems concerning access issues for Medicare beneficiaries. Unfortunately, we were to able to resolve all of the issues last year. As a result, Medicare beneficiaries continue to have trouble gaining access to many new medical technologies that are already reimbursed by private insurance plans. That is why I introduced the Medicare Patient Access to Technology Act of 2000. I believe we must eliminate the delays and barriers to access that have arisen in the way Medicare decides to cover, code and pay for new medical devices and diagnostics. Last year's legislation, which was included in the Balanced Budget Relief Act (BBRA), represented an important first step in modernizing the Medicare program to provide timely access to needed medical treatments provided in the hospital outpatient setting. Briefly, my legislation requires the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to implement the OPPS pass-through payment program on the basis of categories starting April 1, 2001. The bill includes a provision which changes the way in which HCFA reimburses for clinical laboratory services including the establishment of a specific process for clinical laboratory payments, and to report to Congress on this issue. Finally, the legislation requires the maintenance of local codes by Medicare contractors for three years and also requires HCFA by October 1, 2001 to provide for the inclusion of new technologies and devices more quickly in the Medicare inpatient hospital payment program. On another matter, I have been deeply concerned about the safety of our nation's blood supply. Patient access to a safe and adequate blood supply is a national health priority, however, many of us have heard from the American Red Cross, America's blood centers, and the American Association of Blood Banks about hospitals having trouble paying for new blood therapies. Additional funding is needed if we are to remain committed to the safest blood supply possible. The blood banking and transfusion medicine communities are constantly working to assure that safety improvements for blood are implemented as soon as they are available. Unfortunately, these measures significantly increase the cost of blood products--over 40 percent for the two latest technologies--for both the hospital and blood bank. While blood is donated by volunteers, nonprofit blood centers must recover the costs associated with providing a safe product. Nonprofit blood centers pass these charges onto hospitals, which in turn, must get timely and adequate reimbursement for these lifesaving and life- enhancing products. Unfortunately, the current system by which HCFA determines inpatient reimbursement rates does not account for these safety improvements a timely manner. The bill directs HCFA and MedPAC to review how hospitals are being reimbursed for blood. It also asks both entities to recommend necessary changes to provide fair and timely reimbursement. While these recommendations will not be completed until late next year, I will continue to work on guaranteeing that patients are receiving the safest possible blood products as soon as possible. I am also very pleased that the legislation before the Senate today contains additional funding for our nation's skilled facilities (SNFs). In September, I introduced legislation, S. 3030, along with my colleague Senator Domenici, to increase Medicare reimbursements for skilled nursing facilities. Nursing homes across our country continue to struggle under the enormous demands of complying with the implementation of the prospective payment system as authorized pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). In an effort to address this problem, Congress passed legislation last year to restore nearly $2.7 billion for the care of nursing home patients. This action provided much needed relief to an industry that is facing extraordinarily financial difficulties as a result of the spending reductions provided under the BBA as well as implementation by HCFA. Unfortunately, the problem is not fixed and more needs to be done. That is why Senator Domenici and I introduced the Skilled Nursing Facility Care Act of 2000 so that seniors can rest assured that they will have access to this important Medicare benefit. In Utah, there are currently 93 nursing homes serving nearly 5,800 residents. I understand that seven of these 93 facilities, which are operated by Vencor, have filed for Chapter 11 protection. These seven facilities care for approximately 800 residents. Clearly, we need to be concerned about the prospect of these nursing homes going out of business, and the dramatic consequences that such action would have on all residents--no matter who pays the bill. I am pleased that the bill before the Senate contains provisions from the Skilled Nursing Facility Care Act to ensure patient access to nursing home care. Medicare's skilled nursing benefit provides life enhancing care following a hospitalization to nearly two million seniors annually. Unless Congress and HCFA take the necessary steps to ensure proper payments, elderly patients will be at risk, especially in rural, underserved and economically disadvantaged areas. Specifically, the bill provides approximately $1.6 billion to SNFs over the next five years. The legislation repeals the minus one percent decrease in the SNF market basket for FY 2001 thereby providing the full market basket update. In FY 2002 and 2003 the updates would be the market basket index increase minus 0.5 percentage points. Moreover, temporary increases in the federal per diem rates provided by last year's increases would be in addition to the increases in this provision. The bill also increases the nursing component for each Resource Utilization Group (RUG) by 16.66% over current law for SNF care furnished after April 1, 2001 and before October 1, 2002. Clearly, these additional dollars will help ensure the continuity of beneficiary care in our nation's nursing homes. Another issue that I worked hard to get into the legislation is the financial commitment made for the treatment and research on diabetes. I am extremely pleased that the bill provides a substantial increase in appropriations for special diabetes programs for children with Type 1 Diabetes as well as for Native Americans with diabetes. As my colleagues recall, the BBA created two new grant programs under which the Secretary of Health and Human Services could make grants to support prevention and treatment services of diabetes for children and for Native Americans, respectively. Specifically, Congress committed $30 million each for Native American diabetes care and for NIH research of Type 1 Diabetes in children. This program was authorized for five years--FY 1998 through FY 2002. I am very pleased the legislation increases the appropriated funds available for these two programs by raising the amount from $30 million to $100 million for FY 2001 and FY 2002, respectively. Moreover, the bill appropriates $100 million for each program for FY 2003. These dollars have been extremely helpful in Indian Country where Native Americans suffer the highest rate of diabetes than any other segment of our population. I want to commend the Republican leadership for ensuring that these dollars were included in the bill--this commitment is truly making positive difference in the lives of millions of Americans who suffer from this deadly disease. With respect to home health care, the legislation protects funding for home health care services by delaying until October 1, 2002 a BBA- scheduled 15 percent cut in Medicare payments. I sponsored legislation earlier this year that addresses the issue of the 15 percent cut. And, while I hoped we could repeal the 15% cut provision altogether, I can appreciate the difficulty the conferees faced in resolving this complicated and costly provision. Delaying the cut for another year will provide Congress additional time to address this controversial issue. Moreover, the bill provides for a full medical inflation update for home health. I am particularly pleased the bill contains a provision that enhances the use of telehealth medicine in the delivery of home health care services. This enhancement will be especially helpful to those individuals who live in the rural and remote parts of Utah where medical specialists are not readily available. As a result, Utahns who live in these areas will not have improved access to the best doctors and medical care specialists regardless of where they live. The bill also contains a provision on adult day care. This provision clarifies that the need for adult day care for a patient's plan of treatment does not preclude appropriate coverage for home health care. It also clarifies the ability of homebound beneficiaries to attend religious services without being disqualified from receiving home health care benefits. As one of the Senate's strongest supporters of home health care, I believe these provisions will enhance substantially the home health care benefit. As far as hospitals are concerned, the legislation provides a substantial amount of new funding for our nation's hospitals. I have been particularly concerned about the financial impact of the BBA's provisions on rural hospitals. As I travel across Utah, I am constantly reminded by hospital administrators about the serious financial pressures many of these institutions currently face with increased demands for care while coping with reduced reimbursements from Medicare. Clearly, Congress needs to act now to ensure the financial viability of our nation's hospitals. The bill also addresses the problem by providing equitable treatment for rural disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs) which care for a disproportionate share of poor Medicare patients. The bill extends the Medicare Dependent Hospital program for rural areas; it updates target amounts for sole community hospitals; and increases rural patients' access to emergency and ambulance services. Moreover, the bill ensures continued access to hospital services nationwide by providing a full inflation market basket update for fiscal year 2001. The plan also ensures the financial stability of teaching hospitals by increasing payments related to physician training. This provision is especially important to Utah's University Hospital which has been hard hit in the past year by the BBA reductions. With regard to Native Americans, the legislation contains an extremely important provision regarding Indian health care. The bill authorizes, for the first time, the Indian Health Service (IHS) and tribally operated clinics and hospitals to receive Medicare Part B reimbursement for services provided under the physician fee schedule. This proposal would enhance the access of Medicare-eligible Native Americans to affordable, quality health care and improve the ability of these clinics and hospitals to serve the Native American population. Another important Medicare issue I want to raise involves providing appropriate coverage for certain injectable drugs and biologicals that are critical to many Medicare beneficiaries. To resolve this issue, the legislation has a provision which addresses this important issue. The Medicare Carriers Manual specifies that a drug or biological is covered under this provision if it is ``usually'' not self- administered. Under this standard, Medicare for many years covered drugs and biological products administered by physicians in their offices and other outpatient settings. In August 1997, however, HCFA issued a memorandum that had the effect of eliminating coverage for certain products that could be self-administered. This resulted in patients suddenly losing their Medicare coverage for these products, thus limiting access to drugs and biologicals for many seniors and disabled individuals. The legislation's language clarifies Medicare reimbursement policy to guarantee that physicians and hospitals will be reimbursed for injectable drugs and biologicals. The new language requires coverage of ``drugs and biologicals which are not usually self-administered by the patient,'' thus restoring the coverage policy that was in effect before the August 1997 HCFA memorandum was issued. When HCFA considers whether a drug or biological is usually self- administered, I feel HCFA should determine whether a majority of Medicare beneficiaries can actually self-administer the drug. HCFA should assume, as it did for many years, that Medicare patients do not usually administer injections or infusions to themselves, while oral medications usually are self-administered. I believe that it would be appropriate for HCFA to issue guidelines for its contractors to clarify the intent of the legislation. In addition, HCFA should instruct its contractors not to exclude a drug or biological without making an explicit finding supported by evidence that the product is usually self-administered by most Medicare patients. This issue is an important step to provide our seniors and persons with disabilities with the prescription drugs and biologicals that they deserve. I look forward to working with HCFA to ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries receive adequate and appropriate coverage for these drugs and biologicals. On another matter Mr. President, I would also like to state that as the Medicare provisions of this legislation are implemented, I urge the Secretary of Health and Human Services to review policies that affect the order of services provided to home health beneficiaries to assure that, under the prospective payment system, home health agencies are given maximum flexibility to provide services in a clinically appropriate and efficient order. In this connection, I believe the Secretary should also review the role of occupational therapists in conducting the initial Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) even when occupational therapy is not the therapy service that initially qualifies the beneficiary for covered home health services. For example, when patients are prescribed home health solely for rehabilitation, the review should include whether or not it would be clinically appropriate for occupational therapy to be the first service provided to the patient. Another factor to be considered is whether or not it may be appropriate for an occupational therapist to conduct the initial OASIS. I am hopeful that the prospective payment system implemented by the Secretary will not restrict the ability of home health agencies to fully utilize the unique skills of covered therapists. Once again, Mr. President, I am pleased the Congress and President Clinton have come together in reaching agreement on this legislation. It is vital that these provisions become enacted this year; they will help many people across our country. I look forward to the President signing this measure into law at the earliest possible date. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the numerous individuals across the great state of Utah who took the time to meet with me here in Washington and in Utah over the past year regarding many of the health provisions included in this bill. I value the input and expertise I received from health care providers and consumers in may state, and especially from the elderly whose views have been particularly helpful to me in the development of this legislation. Seniors in Utah and across our country depend on Medicare. We must ensure this program provides the highest quality of health care to beneficiaries. Moreover, I am hopeful that in the next Congress, with the leadership from President-elect Bush, we will be able to build on today's work and further improve the quality of services to beneficiaries and, especially, provide for a new outpatient prescription drug benefit.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take just a moment to offer my public thanks and appreciation to the Judiciary Committee's chief counsel and staff director, Manus Cooney, for all his dedicated work over the last 7 years he has served on my staff, and for his exemplary 12-year career in the Senate. Manus has been my right hand. I want to state that for the Record so that 10 years from now his daughters--Caitlin, Claire, and Tara--will know why their father was hardly ever home for dinner. Let me say to them that, without his tremendous efforts, we could not have accomplished half as much for our country. Let me also say to my colleagues that I know Manus was tenacious. Senators and staff alike always took it seriously when Manus was on a mission. Believe me, I got as many orders and assignments as you did. Seriously, though, it was amazing to me how Manus always kept the faith--he believed in what we were doing and never gave up. I am going to miss him. He will be leaving my office at the end of the year for a new, exciting opportunity to develop corporate strategy and to head Napster's new Washington office. He is the right guy for this job. He has the energy and the know-how to help Congress understand and connect with the complex and rapidly changing high-tech world. Manus is the kind of person who does not face the challenges of an unknown future with dread, but rather with enthusiasm. So, as we close out this extraordinary 106th Congress, I hope my colleagues will join me in expressing appreciation to Manus for his loyalty and his tremendous contribution to the Senate and to public service. I wish him all the best in the future.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the Roman statesman, Cicero said ``Memory is the treasury and guardian of all things.'' I believe we as humans often take our ability to remember for granted. Throughout the past century, we have been blessed with many scientific innovations and discoveries. Large strides have been made in the medical area that have helped to improve the quality of life for all the people of the world. Memory is an essential function of our human experience. The loss of memory is certainly a tragedy. Thankfully, there are those who are conducting research who endeavor to understand the memory process and seek to solve memory disorders and loss. For instance, last year Congress appropriated $17.7 billion to the National Institutes of Health to fund scientific research. A portion of that funding is used for studies working to gain a better understanding of memory. I have recently read an essay entitled ``Musings on Memory'' by Dr. Morris Martin and was intrigued by the author's insights on memory. This essay was read before the Literary Club of Tucson, Arizona, on November 20, 2000. Dr. Martin is a professor of history having taught at Princeton University. He received his degrees from Oxford in England. His essay explores the many aspects of memory and the importance it has played throughout the history of the world. I would like to share his wisdom with my colleagues in the Senate and ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows. Musings on Memory (By Morris Marton) Elephants, they say, never forget, and maybe amoebas remember in some amoebic fashion. But that, is beyond my scope. Human history, personality, our rich individuality, all derive in some measure from memory. The Greeks, as usual, got it right. Certainly by the time of Hesiod around 700 B.C. with that instinct for clarification that distinguishes them, the Greeks had drawn up the family tree of Memory. Mnemosyne, Memory, was the wife of Zeus and the mother of the Muses-- Poetry, Literature, Music, Dance, Tragedy, Comedy etc. all nine of them, which of course, makes Memory the mother of Culture. Being the wife of Zeus also made her respectable, an Olympian goddess. But her origins go further back beyond the Olympians, to her brother Kronos, the chief of the disreputable Titans, whose very shady origins lie somewhere among the very unGreek Hittites of Asia Minor. Her father was Uranos (Heaven) and her mother was Gaia (Earth) and further back than that no one can go. It was the Greek way of saying what today's scientists say that Memory derives from the neural connections that pass from the primitive limbic area to the hippocampus via the amygdala. They use Greek words, but the Greeks said the same thing more simply and much more picturesquely. Memory for them went back to the Earth Mother and was the womb of Culture. It is the original collector and transmitter of experience. Before writing culture depended on tremendous memories. We know of the Bards who traveled from village to village rewriting those tales of valor or of wondrous events, which became the Iliad and the Odyssey. Milman Parry, the American scholar, threw light on this when in the Thirties he discovered the practice still alive in the Balkans among the Serbian Muslims. Memory is still the backbone of tradition among the Indian Brahmins who memorize tens of thousands of lines of the Bhagavad Gita or the Ramayana, or of ribbis who memorize the Torah. Memory was Queen until Writing was invented. Again the Greeks with uncanny precision traced writing back to Egypt, though the Chaldeans of Ur anticipated the Egyptians in making scratches on baked tablets. Plato in the person of Socrates tells how Thoth, the Egyptian god who invented writing, was reproached by Thamus, the king of Egypt, ``This discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in he learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves . . . They will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.'' So fast forward to our own day. The written or printed word has taken the place of memory for a majority of our needs. The computer has added a further layer of incompetence to our thinking. ``It's on the net, I don't have to remember it.'' That is the mantra today of too often. It was the written word that started mankind on the downward slope to Lethe or Forgetfulness personal memory; its length and validity In terms of personal historical memory, how far back can we moderns remember? We all have examples of this on which you might ponder. For instance my father on his 90th birthday in 1962 gathered his four sons and their wives around him in his much-loved garden in Kent and reminisced about his father and grandfather. We were transported back to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, the funeral of the Duke of Wellington in 1851, tales of London life and family anecdotes which would have perished with him a few years later, but for Cadmus' invention and my wife's shorthand. Those memories are now recorded and can be passed on to future generations. How far back can such memories go? I remember meeting a delightful old lady in the Forties who told me proudly that as a baby she had been held in the arms of President Lincoln. Search your own minds for the earliest event, which you can remember in this way, personally or anecdotally. And remember that Roy Drachman lunched with Wyatt Earp! However, I think I can cap anything you may come up with. In February of this year 2000 the London Times recorded the following. It described a man now living who as a child made a disparaging remark about Oliver Cromwell. A lady present said firmly, ``Never speak ill of that great man. My husband's first wide's first husband knew Oliver Cromwell and liked him well.'' At the dawn of this new century someone living today can recall a single matrimonial generation linked directly with the mid-17th century. How can that be? The remark was made in 1923 by a lady born in 1832. At the age of 16 (i.e. in 1848) she had married an 80-year old man named Henry. Sixty-four years earlier in 1784 young Henry had married for reasons, which remain obscure, an 82-year old woman. Her first marriage, in 1720 was to an 80-year-old who had served Cromwell before his death in 1658. We have a memory going back 342 years from the present day. It should be a warning to us not to disregard oral traditions, which can stretch over what appear to be impossibly long generations. group memory Communal or tribal memories can be even longer. Our common law reflects a time when memory was the official legal linkage of the centuries. Blackstone in his Commentaries dealing with land tenure says that some claims can go post hominum memoriam. Or ``Time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.'' Tribal memories run very deep. They became tradition. Then they can illuminate or bedevil the present. They can make Fourth of July picnics or they can raise the Confederate Flag. Irish Protestants refight the Battle of the Boyne of 1690 each marching season to the dismay of those who would build a new future for Ireland. Serbs fight for Kosovo, recalling the battle in 1389 which was actually a defeat but which has been transformed into a victory in national memory. Sixhundred years later this memory gave the emotional surge to the Serbian claim to the Province of Kosovo which involved twenty nations in contesting it. Sentiment in the heart often transforms memory in the head. This year the British celebrated the 60th anniversary of the ``Miracle of Dunkirk'' while the French looked on with a jaundiced eye, as being in their memory the betrayed of France by a retreating ally. Now let us turn to the relation of Memory to the writing of History. History and historical writing begin as Memory plus editorial slant. The good historian will do his best to be aware of his bias. Herodotus is known as a father of History since he collected the stories told him by all and sundry, but often added a skeptical comment or two here and there to the effect ``I find this hard to believe.'' Thucydides was the first scientific historian to evaluate memory. He wrote, ``I have described nothing but what I either saw myself, or learned from others of whom I made the most careful and particular inquiry. The task was a laborious one as eyewitnesses gave different accounts of the same occurrence, as they remembered or were interested in the actions of one side or another.'' Many centuries later the German historian Ranke decided to write history ``wie es eigentlich geschah.'' (As it actually happened). It turned out to have a very Prussian tinge. Judges know the unreliability of witnesses to the same event. Each sees something; no one sees everything. Time edits memory to fit bias. Selected past memories shape our present thought and behavior. The generation of the Depression of the Thirties switches off electric lights, keeps its credit cards in balance, thinks waste is wicked--I can hear my mother saying it--spends cautiously and generally disapproves of the openhanded expenditure of today. And believes it the one true way of life, so strong is the imprinted record of the past on memory and behavior. When historians turned from personal memory to contemporary written records they felt they moved a large step nearer to authenticity. I spent much time examining Greek inscriptions, gravestones, temple financial records on almost illegible pieces of marble, with the feeling that I was in touch with historical facts. But I found they also needed a lot of interpretation! In this connection and to show what original and unusual truths we learn from ancient records, may I recall, as I remember it, the earliest Egyptian papyrus. It is said to read ``The times are very evil. Children no longer obey their parents. And the price of wheat is outrageous.'' Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose! memory and the senses On the personal level the senses are often the emotional adhesive that enables us to retain past events in our consciousness. Our first paycheck. Our first baby. I remember my first girl friend, though I cannot recall our first kiss. Whenever I hear Bach's Mass in B Minor I experience again the shiver of excitement that was mine when I first heard the Sanctus in the old Queen's Hall in London. ``Music when soft voices die, Vibrates in the memory'', says Shelley. ``Odours, when sweet violets sicken. Live within the sense they quicken.'' The smell of fresh bread recalls the French-Swiss bakery where I bought our breakfast ``brotchen'' when I was living in Bern. The smell of garbage brings back a picture of the vast dump outside New York City as I passed it frequently on the Turnpike driving in from Princeton. In the intricate mechanism of memory all the senses play their part as glue and as signals of familiarity. You will supply examples from your own experience. photographic memory Have you ever met anyone with a really photographic memory? Thomas Babington Lord Macaulay, the Victorian historian, was said to be able to read a page of print and to recall it perfectly from one reading. Saint Augustine writes with admiration of a friend who could recite the whole text of Vergil--backwards! Not a very enlightening party trick. There is a recent example in the story of The Professor and the Madman. You remember Sir James Murray, the first editor and father of the Oxford English Dictionary had a brilliant reader who supplied him with examples of literary usage. It was years before they met. Only then did Sir James find that the reader was confined to a mental Hospital as a hopeless schizophrenic but with a remarkable almost photographic memory. Such ability may well be a disadvantage. The capacity to forget is almost as important as to remember. Otherwise we would be cluttered with useless facts and unable to distinguish significant from worthless. Simonides offered to teach the statesman Themistocles the art of Memory, Themistocles refused, ``Teach me not the art of remembering but the art of forgetting'' was his reply. ``For I remember things I do not wish to remember, but I cannot forget things I wish to forget.'' William James, in more modern times said, ``In the practical use of our intellect, forgetting is as important a function as remembering.'' how to improve memory For those of us with lesser capacity, there have been throughout history methods of strengthening and supporting memory. Myself when young, and probably all of us, learnt our multiplication tables by rote. I was also introduced to English history by memorizing the Kings and Queens of England in a rhyme: ``William the Conqueror from Normandy came, His son William Rufus while hunting was slain, Henry the First was for wisdom renowned, Stephen instead of Matilda was crowned * * * The Magna Charta was signed by John, Which Henry the Second put his seal upon etc. etc. You I trust were brought up on ``In 14 hundred and 92 Columbus sailed the ocean blue * * *. I learnt my Greek irregular verbs by reciting them in chorus with all the rest of the class at my London school. Saturday mornings (we went to school on Saturdays in those good old days) we were called on to recite a piece of great verse which we had learnt the previous night and declaim it in the almost empty Great Hall to our class mates. It was a valuable lesson and I have portions of it still tucked away on the dusty shelves of my memory. Learning by rote has fallen out of favor as a pedagogic tool in our sophisticated West, but not everywhere in the world. On the island of Lamu off the coast of Kenya, I heard a murmur of voices coming from a building and looked in to find a school of very young boys chanting passages from the Koran, which they had had to memorize. Memories of Greek verbs came back and I wished them well. In my youth I remember a card game called ``Pelmanism'' which by memorizing and reidentifying like cards with like was said to be highly effective. Association of the less familiar with the more familiar is a method we all use. Politicians have their tricks for remembering names and winning votes. Cicero for the very practical purpose of being a public orator considered Memory one of the five parts of rhetoric, which was his profession. He embellished the ``architectural'' art of memory invented by Quintillian. Think of a large building with many rooms. Take each point of your speech and connect it with an object--a spear, an anchor, a picture--and put each mentally in a different room. Then as you speak, mentally walk from room to room, the object you have placed in each will recall the next point of your speech. This system, refined, is still in use in training memory. We all create mental pegs upon which to hang data. B.F. Skinner, the psychologist, as a very old man did this not metaphorically but literally. He would listen to the weather forecast on the radio and should it be for rain, he would immediately rise and hang his umbrella on the door handle. The older we get, the more we need such association. I find I frequently go through several steps of association to recall names. I can forget John Schafer's name but as he approaches, I look in the memory box named ``University''. Smaller box labeled ``President.'' I mentally take out Koffler, No, Harvil, No, Pacheco, No, Likens, No.'' There is only one name left in the box. Of course that process, accompanied by a blank look which changes to recognition, used to be completed in an invisible flash. Now it takes two, three or four flashes. Bear with me. Nowadays, of course, a pill is recommended for strengthening the memory. I received a pharmaceutical suggestion of this sort this week, extensively illustrated and expensively produced. I am skeptical of its potency. Memory and the Future Memory we naturally assume deals only with the past. Lewis Carroll's White Queen in Alice in Wonderland felt this was a very limited idea. ``There's one great advantage to living backwards, one's memory works both ways,'' she remarks. ``I'm sure mine only works one way,'' says Alice. ``I can't remember things before they happen.'' ``It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards,'' the Queen remarked. ``What sort of things do you remember best'', asked Alice. ``Oh, things that happened the week after next,'' said the Queen. Here, of course, Lewis Carroll is playing with the concept of Time, as in ``Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today.'' But there is something, which we might describe as a form of memory of the future. We call it imagination, which projects past data instead of merely collecting and organizing it as does the memory. Art draws on both imagination and memory. Think of the combination of memorizing and recreating a great play that goes into an actor's performance. Daniel Barenboim at the age of seven began to memorize all Mozart's works. At eighteen he had mastered the whole corpus. Constant practice fixes the memory in the muscles. A wellknown pianist was suddenly called on to play a certain concerto. He declined saying, ``I have it in my head, but not yet in my fingers.'' When it is in the fingers there is no effort to remember; the music can be fully endowed with the feeling the artist desires. Shakespeare asked the question ``Tell me where is fancy bred? Or in the heart or in the head? How begot? How nourished? Reply. Reply'' He replied ``It is engendered in the eyes.'' He did not say ``In the hippocampus or the amygdala?'' The mystery of artistic imagination and its relation to memory still resists a mechanistic interpretation. the future of memory As far as information goes, so the experts inform me, before long we shall all be able to have the Encyclopedia on a chip along with the corpus of English literature, all the mathematical formulae required to do advanced physics and all the telephone numbers in the world. Anything you want can be provided on a chip. All you have to do is click on and scroll down. Since the amount of information is limited only by the capacity of the chip--which I am told, will increase a thousandfold or more in the next six months--it is likely it can be carried in a wristwatch slightly smaller than a Rolex, or, in time, implanted in the hippocampus or the amygdala or any vacant spot in the brain. And Memory will have become a vermiform appendix to the computer. I do not look forward to that day. Princeton, I am distressed to learn has just spent two million dollars on an MRI which they have enthroned in a new Center for the Study of Brain, Mind and Behavior allied, alas, to the Department of Humanities. The first area of research, according to the New York Times, is to be the brain wave that normal people call ``Love''. Our world is convinced that when we know the ``how'' of our psyche, we shall know the ``what'' and the ``why''. I am not convinced. I hope and trust that should the day come when we understand all mechanisms, measure all wave-lengths, and plot all emotional outcomes, we as individuals will still be the masters that issue the commands that set in motion the neurological synapses which capture memory, enlighten meaning and in general make life human. May we continue to remember as much as is necessary of what we need to remember and forget that which is forgettable, and be kind to those whose advancing years rob them, from time to time of your name, and even of their own. And may music still vibrate in the memory and William the Conqueror still come from Normandy and Columbus in 1492 still sail the ocean blue, and Greek verbs still be memorable and may computers fail to find out how to be masters of our consciousness. We have had a pleasant half-hour wandering, somewhat disjointedly, through the groves of Memory. Let me close with a poem on the subject by a neglected Twentieth century poet. It is appropriately called ``Memory.'' Wind, west wind, of an evening Whispering through the tall trees, Tell me tales I used to hear told By the vagabond Sussex breeze, Lifting the layers of silence, And letting them softly lie, Passing into the stillness that comes When whispers softly die. And I'll see the woods where we wandered And wake with a lonely heart As the wind of memory passes through The tall trees of my heart.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator for his very intelligent question. There is no question that this bill will make dramatic changes in bankruptcy laws to the benefit of children, parents, families, farmers--just name them--in large measure because of the work of the distinguished Senators, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Torricelli, and others, including our ranking member Senator Leahy, and especially the distinguished Senator from Alabama. The distinguished Senator from Alabama has been here just long enough to show how effective he is and what a perfect job he has done on the Judiciary Committee. I personally compliment the Senator. He has played a significant and noble role in this bill, as have others, but, in particular, I consider him one of the best lawyers, one of the best legal practitioners in this whole body. I am very proud of the work the Senator and so many others have done on this bill, without which it would have been much tougher for me as chairman of the committee. This bill has made a true difference in the lives of the children of this country. If we don't have this bill put on the law books of this country, families, children, farmers, consumers, and others are going to be drastically hurt. Yes, no bill is absolutely perfect, but we have too many people at cross-purposes. But we have worked every day this bill has been in existence with our colleagues on the other side. That is why we have a number of them who are willing to support this bill, not only willing but enthusiastically do so. We couldn't have come this far without the work of the distinguished Senator from Alabama. I have great respect for the Senator and I am grateful he is on the floor today. I am grateful the Senator is one of the people who is helping to make the case for this bill. There are good people on both sides of the aisle, good people who understand these important matters, good people who know that children are a focal point of much of this bill. I thank the Senator for his question.

Mr. HATCH. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have a question for the chairman of the Subcommittee and principal author of H.R. 2415. Because we were forced to proceed in an unconventional procedural manner with respect to this legislation, can you provide any guidance for courts and practitioners on this legislation?

Mr. HATCH. Thank you. We are in agreement on what this legislation does.

Mr. HATCH. I yield such time as he shall need.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this consumer bankruptcy reform legislation is one of the most important legislative efforts to reform the bankruptcy laws in decades. I thank my distinguished friend and colleague from Iowa for his hard work on this, of course, the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, and so many others, Senator Biden from Delaware. There are many others as well. This is important. Before talking about the substance of the legislation, I personally thank the majority leader who has worked hard and tirelessly to keep this legislation on track despite the many obstacles that it has faced--I have to say phony obstacles at that. Thanks to the majority leaders's commitment to moving this legislation, we now find ourselves in a position to weed out many of the abuses in the bankruptcy system and also to enhance consumer protection. I also acknowledge and thank the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, who has worked with me and Senator Grassley and others to reach agreement on many of the bill's provisions. Most of all, I commend the original authors of the legislation, Senators Grassley and Torricelli, chairman and ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, respectively, for their hard work in crafting this much needed legislation and for their unrelenting commitment to making the development and passage of this bill a bipartisan process. As I have mentioned, my praise also goes to Senator Sessions and Senator Biden, who have shown unwavering dedication to accomplishing the important reforms in this bill, and to the many other Members of the Senate for their hard work and cooperation. I was deeply troubled by a comment made on the floor yesterday by a colleague from the other side of the aisle to the effect that this bill was written by Republicans and is being forced upon Senate Democrats. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am compelled to set the record straight on that point. The entire development of this bill has taken place in a bipartisan manner. In fact, throughout the entire process of consideration of this bill, beginning as long ago as the drafting stage, numerous changes suggested by the minority have been made. It is no secret that in the informal conference process, we worked together with Senate Democrats. And with rare exception, the provisions that are contained in the final conference product were agreed to and were done with the full bipartisan cooperation and support of the Senate negotiators. Furthermore, in an effort to reach a bipartisan agreement and address concerns of the White House, we took issues that were important to many of us on the Republican side off the table. For example, I agreed to remove from consideration a provision I had sought which would have prevented criminal check kiters and counterfeiters from collecting attorney's fees in lawsuits that they bring against debt collectors--I might add, multiple lawsuits that really don't make sense. Many others in the majority also made concessions and a good faith effort to resolve differences and move forward with the long overdue comprehensive bankruptcy reform. Here on the Senate floor, the assertion was made that not a single organization that advocates for kids supported this bill. I simply cannot allow that kind of misrepresentation to stand uncorrected. In fact, there is tremendous support for this legislation from child advocates. Let me give some illustrations. A letter from Laura Kadwell, President of the National Child Support Enforcement Association, representing over 60,000 child support professionals across America: I'm writing to urge you to support the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000. NCSEA is committed to ensuring that both parents fulfill their responsibilities to provide emotional and financial support to their children--including honoring legally-owed child support obligations. The pending legislation will forward this goal significantly. In a letter from Howard Baldwin, President of the Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council, an organization comprised of child support professionals from the private and public sectors west of the Mississippi River: I would like to express our membership's unqualified support. The resolution of the California Family Support Council, consisting of approximately 2,500 persons employed by county and State agencies which administer the Federal child support program in California: Now therefore be it resolved that the California Family Support Council * * * directs the president of the California Family Support Council to convey to the California congressional delegation and to the President its enthusiastic endorsement of the Bankruptcy Reform Bills. How about a letter from Betty D. Montgomery, attorney general of the State of Ohio: As the chief law enforcement officer for [Ohio], I stand committed to protecting our most vulnerable citizens [and this legislation] will further promote the objectives of our state and national child support enforcement program and further ensure that those families in need are protected. A vote for this conference report will mean a vote to stop letting deadbeat parents use bankruptcy to avoid paying child support. It will mean a vote to stop paying lawyers ahead of children who rely on child support. I have worked with Senator Torricelli, the National Association of Attorney Generals, and the National Women's Law Center to improve current bankruptcy law with respect to child support and alimony. Currently bankruptcy law is simply not adequate. Frankly, I was outraged to learn of the many ways deadbeat parents were manipulating and abusing the current bankruptcy system in order to get out of paying their domestic support obligations. I am proud of the improvements we are making in this legislation over current law in terms of ensuring that parents meet their child support and other domestic support obligations in bankruptcy. I have worked tirelessly, as others have--those I have mentioned-- provision by provision, both last year and this year, to make this conference report one that dramatically improves the position of children and ex-spouses who are entitled to domestic support. No one who actually looks at what the conference report says can in good conscience say that this bill is not a tremendous improvement for children and families over current law. This bill for women and children gives child support first priority status, up from seventh in line, meaning they will be paid ahead of the lawyers, if you can imagine that. It is about time. It makes staying current on child support a condition of discharge. It makes debt discharge in bankruptcy conditional upon full payment of past due child support and alimony. It makes domestic support obligations automatically nondischargeable without the cost of litigation. It prevents bankruptcy from holding up child custody, visitation and domestic violence cases. And it helps avoid administrative roadblocks to get kids the support they need. It is a very important set of changes, without which we are going to be abusing children in the law. That is not all. The conference report makes more improvements over current law for women and children. This chart shows that. It makes the payment of child support arrears a condition of plan confirmation. It provides better notice and more information for easier child support collection. It provides help in tracking down deadbeats. It allows for claims against a deadbeat parent's properties. It allows for the payment of child support with interest by those with means. And it facilitates wage withholding to collect child support from deadbeat parents. It does all of that. I am also happy to say that the conference report prevents deadbeats from using the automatic stay in bankruptcy to avoid paying their support obligations. The bankruptcy reform stops deadbeat parents from abusing the automatic stay. The conference report prevents deadbeats from using bankruptcy's automatic stay to avoiding child support with this legislation. The automatic stay cannot be used to put a hold on the interception of a deadbeat parent's tax refund to pay support. The automatic stay cannot be used to prevent the reporting of overdue support owed by deadbeat parents to any consumer reporting agency. The automatic stay cannot be used to prevent the withholding, suspension, or restriction of driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational licenses when deadbeats default on domestic support obligations. And suspending the driver's license of the deadbeat parent can be a very effective way of getting them to pay the child support they owe. This is important stuff. It has taken lot of time to get this done. We will pass this bill. But if the administration doesn't accept this bill and it winds up vetoing it, it will be a tragedy. These are just a few of the many improvements the conference report makes in this area as compared with current law. I have had a long history of advocating for children and families in Congress and throughout my legal career. I support a conference report that puts child support first in line ahead of the lawyer's fees and that doesn't let debtors who owe child support turn their backs on children when they file for bankruptcy. In another provision I authored, the conference report protects for the first time in bankruptcy education savings accounts set up by parents and grandparents for their children and grandchildren. All things considered, it is pretty simple. A vote for this conference report is a vote for our Nation's kids. Just look at the bankruptcy consumer provisions. A vote for this conference report is a vote for consumers. The legislation includes a whole host of new consumer protections that do not exist under current law, such as: New disclosure by creditors and more judicial oversight of reaffirmation of agreements to protect people from being pressured into onerous agreements; A debtors' bill of rights to prevent the bankruptcy mills from preying upon those who are uninformed of their rights; New consumer protections under the Truth in Lending Act, such as required disclosure regarding minimum monthly payments and introductory rates for credit carts; Penalties on creditors who refuse to negotiate reasonable payment schedules outside of bankruptcy; Penalties on creditors who fail to properly credit plan payments in bankruptcy; Credit counseling programs to help avoid the cycle of indebtedness; Protection of educational savings accounts; and Equal protection for retirement savings in bankruptcy. You can't look at this bill and what it means to people in this country without realizing that this is a step forward. A vote for this legislation is also a vote for families by preventing wealthy people from continuing to abuse the system at the expense of everyone else. Under the current system, people with high incomes can run up massive debts and then use bankruptcy to get out of honoring them. All of us end up paying for the unscrupulous who abuse the system. In fact, it has been estimated that every American family pays $550 a year in a hidden taxes as a result of these abusers. This legislation helps eliminate this hidden tax by implementing a means test to make wealthy people who can repay their debts honor them. Let me make one thing absolutely clear. The poor are not affected by the means test. In fact, 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. Again, only those above the median income are affected, and the means test could not deny anyone 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. A vote for the conference report also is a vote to stop allowing a few wealthy individuals to abuse the homestead exemption. The conference report tackles the problem of the homestead exemption. Although rare, that problem is offensive to those of us who work hard to make good on our debts. The conference report reaches a compromise which targets the major abuse of bankruptcy by those who move to States with generous homestead exemptions purely in order to file bankruptcy and keep an expensive home. Although this reform provision does not go as far as some of us would like, without it we are back to business as usual with no improvement to current law at all. A vote for this conference report is also a vote for families who work to save for retirement. I mentioned earlier that the conference report contains my provision to provide equal treatment for retirement savings plans in bankruptcy. For example, the retirement savings of teachers and church workers are clearly given the protection in bankruptcy as much as everyone else. They deserve nothing less. A vote for the conference report is a vote for our country farmers and the men and women who work hard every day in the face of many challenges. Without this reform package, family farmers lose out on the special bankruptcy protections they need in chapter 12. I urge my colleagues to think for a moment about the children, the consumers, families, and farmers who will end up getting hurt if comprehensive bankruptcy reform is not enacted this year. I urge my colleagues to support and cast a vote for them and to support this bankruptcy reform. I also urge the President of the United States to sign this bankruptcy reform into law.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that H.R. 2415 is one of the most important legislative efforts to reform the bankruptcy laws in decades. I would like to express my thanks to the people who have worked on this legislation. First, I want to acknowledge the Majority Leader, who has worked diligently to keep this legislation on its course. Thanks to his commitment to moving this legislation, we are in a position to eliminate the abuses in the current bankruptcy system, while at the same time, enhance consumer protections. I also want to acknowledge the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, who has worked with me to reach agreement on many of the bill's provisions. In addition, I want to commend my colleagues, Senators Grassley and Torricelli, the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, respectively, for their hard work in crafting this much needed legislation, and for their unrelenting commitment to making the development and passage of this bill a bipartisan process. My thanks also goes to Senator Sessions and Senator Biden, who have shown unwavering dedication to accomplishing the important reforms in this bill; and the many other members of the Senate for their hard work and cooperation. The compelling need for this reform is highlighted by the large number of bankruptcy filings we have seen over the past several years, which are particularly troubling because they have occurred during a time of relative prosperity for our Nation. Mr. President, the bankruptcy system was intended to provide a ``fresh start'' for those who truly need it. During the process of developing this legislation, I have remained committed to preserving a bankruptcy system that will allow those individuals to emerge from severe financial hardship. At the same time, I believe that individuals should take personal responsibility for their debts and repay them if they are able to do so. I believe the complete elimination of debt should be reserved for those who truly cannot repay their debts, not for those who simply choose not to repay. This bipartisan legislation, authored by Senators Grassley and Torricelli, is carefully structured to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and responsibilities of both debtors and creditors. If enacted, it will enable those truly in need of a fresh start to get one, and at the same time, reform current law to prevent the system from being abused at the expense of honest, hard-working Americans. Mr. President, again I would like to applaud the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues who have made this a broadly-supported bill that removes some of the abuses of the current bankruptcy system while enhancing consumer protections. I am particularly proud of the great strides this legislation makes in improving current law. The legislation includes my provision to prevent deadbeat parents from using bankruptcy to avoid paying child support. It includes my provision to protect educational savings accounts that parents and grandparents set up for their children and grandchildren. And, it includes my provision that ensures that the retirement savings of teachers and church workers are given the same protection in bankruptcy as everyone else. It includes my provision that prevents violent criminals and drug traffickers from taking advantage of bankruptcy at the expense of their victims. Specifically, when these criminals voluntarily file for bankruptcy, my provision protects victims by allowing them to move for dismissal of the bankruptcy case. The legislation also includes my provision that is designed to curb fraud in bankruptcy filings by putting in place new procedures and providing new resources to enhance enforcement of bankruptcy fraud laws. My provision requires (1) that bankruptcy courts develop procedures for referring suspected fraud in bankruptcy schedules to the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for investigation and prosecution and (2) that the Attorney General designate one Assistant U.S. Attorney and one FBI agent in each judicial district as having primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting fraud in bankruptcy. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge a few people who have worked very hard on this legislation. On my staff, I particularly would like to thank the Committee's Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Manus Cooney, the counsels who worked diligently on this measure, Makan Delrahim, Rene Augustine and Kyle Sampson, and staff assistant Katie Stahl. On Senator Leahy's Committee staff, I want to recognize Minority Chief Counsel Bruce Cohen, along with counsel Ed Pagano. On the Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee, I would like to thank John McMickle and Kolan Davis, counsels to Senator Grassley, and Jennifer Leach, counsel to Senator Torricelli, for their tireless efforts and input. My thanks also goes to Ed Haden and Sean Costello, counsels to Senator Sessions. I also would like to express my gratitude to Senate Legislative Counsel, and in particular I want to recognize Laura Ayoud of that office, whose hard work made this bill a better product. Without the dedication and efforts of these loyal public servants, the important reforms in this legislation would not have been possible. Thank you.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I also want to say a word about Donna Day. Donna has been on my staff for 15 years. She has been a loyal and efficient staffer, working diligently on data entry. I don't quite know how we will fill the hole left in our correspondence management unit when she retires at the end of the month. If the personnel office at any organization were to write down the attributes of the perfect employee, the list would describe Donna Day. She has worked tirelessly over these 15 years on my behalf. She is never late, rarely absent, and always pleasant. It seems that Donna never has a bad day. We have always been able to count on her day after day, year after year, to do an important job consistently well. And, I don't believe I have ever heard her complain about anything--not even the deluge of letters, cards, faxes, and e-mails we received during some very high profile debates. Frankly, it is hard to imagine walking into our mailroom in January and not seeing her there sorting mail or working at the computer. I have been blessed during my Senate tenure to have had excellent staff, not just in my policy and senior staff positions, but in the support roles as well. Donna has been such a staffer, and I will miss her. I want to thank her for her many contributions to my office, congratulate her on a well-deserved retirement, and wish her all the best as she moves on to the next chapter in her life. I want her to know how much I appreciate her and her colleague Joyce and how much I love and appreciate Bob Lockwood. These people have proven that government workers work above and beyond, that they really make a difference in all of our lives, and that they are part of the reason why many in this country have a quality of life they would not otherwise have. I am so grateful to these three people and for the service they have given to our country, to the Senate, to my constituents. It has been such a privilege to work with them. I say ``with them.'' They never worked for me. They worked for all of us. They worked with me. I don't think I would be nearly as effective had it not been for the work that these three wonderful people have done. I pay personal tribute to them.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I pay public tribute to Bob Lockwood, who is finally retiring. I say ``finally'' because he has tried to leave at least twice previously, and I successfully prevailed on him to stay. But, this time, it looks as if he is really going to do it. Bob came to my staff after a long and distinguished career in the Army, serving in many capacities, including in Vietnam and on the Secretary of Defense staff. Bob has many credentials making him unique among military officers. He is a lawyer, an engineer, and an economist. He found an organization--the U.S. Army--where he could put all of these qualifications to work. So, when he wanted to establish a second career in public policy, I benefited from a man who could wear many hats. It will probably take three people to replace him. Bob had the complex portfolios of defense and trade as well as business liaison. The amazing thing is that he is expert in all these areas as well as tenacious and unwilling to let any issue slide. There may be a few people at the Pentagon and at USTR who will cheer his retirement if only because Bob will not be around to bug them. On the other hand, I know firsthand that Bob is universally respected for his knowledge, his integrity, and his professionalism. He has big shoes that will be hard to fill. Over the years, he has helped me to foster business development in Utah, to prepare for the landmark debates we have had on trade, and to protect our great Hill Air Force Base and other military facilities from ill-advised and politically motivated cuts and closures. I will always be grateful for his yeoman effort on these projects. Utah is better off today for his dedication to these major issues. Bob has also turned into a real Utahan during the years he has worked for me. Traveling to our State often during the year, he fell in love with Utah and the possibilities that abound there. At the end of the month, Bob will go from being my employee to being my constituent. I wish him well as he is taking on the new challenge of retirement, one for which his wife may not be fully prepared. I know Bob to be successful at any project he takes on. I know he will drive his wife nuts if he stays home very much. But he won't. He is one of these guys who really works hard and makes every second of his life count. He is one of my dearest friends, and I love him.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, at the end of December, one of my charter staff members will be retiring. Joyce Newton has been on my staff since I took office as the Senator from Utah in January 1977. As a freshman Senator, I was the beneficiary of Joyce's decade of previous experience as a caseworker for former Representatives Frank Horton and John Conlan and as a staffer at the Office of Management and Budget. But, during these last 24 years, Joyce has helped countless Utahns with Social Security snafus, international adoptions, military transfers, and a whole host of other special needs and problems. Joyce has always been there to offer a sympathetic ear or to jump start a slow or reluctant bureaucracy. Joyce has been known to come to the office in the wee hours of the morning in order to telephone an embassy halfway around the globe. She has been known to telephone the same Federal caseworker three times in one day just to make sure a constituent's application was not buried under another pile of work resulting in a needless delay or missed deadline. She has been known to go to bat for constituents even when the grounds for their congressional appeals were shaky. And, Joyce has been tenacious. She has pursued cases as far as she could. If we were unsuccessful in resolving a constituent problem, it was never for lack of trying--it was only for lack of more avenues. I remember the ``Books for Bulgaria'' project. How could we get literally hundreds of pounds of books to Bulgaria at little or no cost to be used by a nonprofit organization for educational outreach in that distressed country? This was not an easy problem. Joyce somehow managed to solve it. I remember the young woman from England who needed specialized surgery to cure a rare condition that prevented her from walking. Doctors at the University of Utah had pioneered a new technique not available anywhere else, but various INS rules needed to be sorted out in order for her to come and remain in our country long enough for recovery and rehabilitation. There is a woman able to walk today because Joyce got it done. I have always had complete confidence in Joyce. When she phoned an agency, she was phoning for me. No Senator or Representative can possibly do this work by himself or herself. It takes dedicated, caring, and competent people to work through the various redtape entanglements that often ensnare our citizens. These constituent service staffers too often work in the background. They don't attend signing ceremonies. They don't meet with celebrities or national leaders. They don't have bills and photographs, plaques or certificates on their office walls. Joyce Newton was one of these devoted individuals on Capitol Hill who labored quietly on behalf of the citizens of America. And, she got it done. There are thousands of citizens in my State--seniors, children, service men and women, families, students--who may not remember Joyce Newton's name. But, they will always remember what she did for them. We are sorely going to miss Joyce Newton on the Hatch staff. And, today I want to thank her publicly for all of her dedicated hard work over these last many years and wish her all the best in a much deserved, well-earned retirement.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will be reading from these charts some of the provisions of current law for women and children. We developed these child support provisions with Senators Torricelli, Durbin, and Dodd on the Democrat side. We have worked very hard to accommodate both sides. For women and children, we give child support first priority status-- up from seventh in line--meaning they will be paid ahead of the lawyers. We make staying current on child support a condition of discharge. We make debt discharge in bankruptcy conditional upon full payment of past due child support and alimony. We make domestic support obligations automatically nondischargeable, without the costs of litigation. We prevent bankruptcy from holding up child custody, visitation, and domestic violence cases. We help avoid administrative roadblocks to get kids the support they need. Those are some of the things we are doing for women and children in this bankruptcy bill. There are more improvements over current law for women and children. We make payment of child support arrears a condition of plan confirmation. We provide better notice and more information for easier child support collection. We provide help in tracking down deadbeats. We allow for claims against deadbeat parents' property. We allow for payment of child support with interest by those with means. We facilitate wage withholding to collect child support from deadbeat parents. We make great strides against deadbeats. Pro-consumer provisions: New disclosures by creditors and more judicial oversight of reaffirmation agreements, to protect them from being pressured into onerous agreements; A debtor's bill of rights, to prevent bankruptcy mills from preying upon those who are uninformed of their rights; New consumer protections under the Truth in Lending Act, such as required disclosures regarding minimum monthly payments and introductory rates for credit cards. We provide penalties on creditors who refuse to renegotiate reasonable payment schedules outside of bankruptcy. We have penalties on creditors who fail to properly credit plan payments in bankruptcy. We have credit counseling programs, to help avoid the cycle of indebtedness. We provide protection for educational savings accounts. We give equal protection for retirement savings in bankruptcy. This is a very good bankruptcy bill. We have worked hard to bring both sides together. It is something that is absolutely needed in this country. I hope our colleagues will support us today in this motion to reconsider. I reserve the remainder of the time in favor of Senator Grassley.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I rise today with my cosponsors, Senators Feinstein and Bingaman, in support of a sense of the Senate resolution to encourage the U.S. Government, through the State Department or other appropriate offices, to use its best efforts to open a dialog between former American POW's forced into slave labor in Japan and the private Japanese companies that profited from their labor. This is a very important issue to our veterans and I think they deserve our help. On April 9, 1942, Allied forces in the Philippines surrendered Bataan 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 POW's were shipped to Japan in the holds of freighters known as ``Hell Ships.'' Once in Japan, many of these POW's were forced into slave labor for private Japanese steel mills and other private companies until the end of the war. Fifty 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 POW's were once again asked to sacrifice for their country. Following the end of the war, for example, our government allegedly instructed many of the POW's held by Japan not to discuss their experiences and treatment. Some were even asked to sign nondisclosure agreements. Consequently, many Americans remain unaware of the atrocities that took place and the suffering our POW's endured. Following the passage of a California statute extending the statute of limitations for World War II claims until 2010 and the recent litigation involving victims of Holocaust, a new effort is underway by the former POW's in Japan to seek compensation from the private 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. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the claims being made by the former American POW's against the private Japanese companies. One issue of concern for the Committee was whether the POW's held in Japan are receiving an appropriate level of advocacy from the U.S. Government. In the Holocaust litigation, the United States appropriately played a facilitating role in discussions between the German companies and the victims. The Justice Department also declined to file a statement of interest in the litigation--even when requested by the court. The efforts of the administration were entirely appropriate and the settlement, which was just recently finalized, was an invaluable step toward moving forward from the past. Here, in contrast, there has been no effort by our Government, through the State Department or otherwise, to open a dialog between the Japanese and the former POW's. Moreover, in response to a request from the court, the Justice Department did, in fact, file two statements of interest which were very damaging to the claims of the POW's--stating in essence that their claims were barred by the 1951 Peace Treaty with Japan and the War Claims Act. From a moral perspective, the claims of those forced into labor by private German companies and private Japanese companies appear to be of similar merit, yet they have spurred different responses from the administration. Why? Here in the Senate, we have been doing what we can to help these former prisoners of war. With the help of Senator Feinstein, we have moved through the Judiciary Committee Senate bill 1902, the Japanese Records Disclosure Act, which would set up a commission to declassify thousands of Japanese Imperial Army records held by the U.S. Government after appropriate screening for sensitive national security information and the like. The Senate is also doing what it can to fulfill our Government's responsibility to these men by including a provision in the DOD authorization bill which would pay a $20,000 gratuity to POW's from Bataan and Corregidor who were forced into labor. Such payment would be in addition to any other payments these veterans may receive under law--and thus would not compromise any of the claims asserted in the litigation against the Japanese companies. The bill I introduce today, an expression of the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Government should attempt to facilitate a dialog, as it did in the German case, is a logical and appropriate extension of our other efforts. Ultimately, I do not know where we will come out on the precise meaning of the Treaty. Regardless of how the technical legal issues are resolved--which the courts will determine--in light of the moral imperative and interests of simple fairness, we must ask ourselves why shouldn't the United States facilitate a dialog between the parties? When is good faith discussion a bad idea? I think we owe this much to these brave veterans and their families. I believe a good faith dialog is the first step towards a just resolution that accommodates the various moral, legal, national security, and foreign policy interests which are at play. I urge all Members to support this amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. President Clinton properly signed the 1996 immigration bill. But now weeks before election day he seeks to turn the 1996 act on its head. I, too, want to help constituents. But putting several million people who violated the immigration laws ahead of the line of the 3.5 million people who are legitimately waiting and have waited for years to come here legally, it seems to me, is wrong.

Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I don't think we have.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to make some points that need to be made at the end of the session. Here we are, running right up against election time, and we are being held hostage because the President of the United States wants to grant amnesty to up to 4 million illegal aliens, people who haven't played by the rules, haven't paid the price, who literally want to jump over those who have played by the rules and who belong here--this blanket amnesty all for the purpose of politics. In fact, I heard one of the leading Democrats say: Boy, Telemundo and all of the Hispanic newspapers are really playing this up. Well, that might be true in the Hispanic media, but I think Hispanic people in this country want fairness above everything else. I think they know what is going on here. They know darn well they are being played, and they are being played in a vicious way. I once again urge President Clinton not to veto the Commerce-Justice- State appropriations bill the Senate passed on Friday. President Clinton has threatened a veto because we did not include his so-called Latino Fairness Act. But we have included something much better than his Latino Fairness Act: the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, the LIFE Act. This act reunites families and restores due process to those who have played by the rules. Our proposal does not pit one nationality against another, nor does it pit one race against another. Our legislation provides relief to immigrants from all countries, not just special countries. A veto of CJS would be a blow against immigrant fairness. But a veto would do far more than that. A veto would cut off funding for some of our most important programs. The CJS appropriation allocates $4.8 billion for the Immigration and Naturalization Service and an additional $15.7 million for Border Patrol equipment upgrades. It provides $3.3 billion for the FBI and $221 million for training, equipment, and research and development programs to combat domestic terrorism. We are not playing around here. This is important stuff. I don't think it is right to be playing politics with the lives of immigrants at the end of the session just to obtain some cheap political advantage. There is $4.3 billion allocated for the Federal prison system in CJS. That is money we need to run the prison system and to treat people with due process. Then we have $1.3 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration. This is critical to our fight against illegal drugs in this country. There is $288 million for the Violence Against Women Act. That is legislation that I have strongly supported and that provides assistance to battered women and children through a variety of different programs. Actions have consequences. If President Clinton vetoes this bill, he is putting the public safety and well-being at risk both at home and abroad, all in an effort to play wedge politics. The President's veto threats ring hollow because this appropriations bill provides many proposals to help immigrants. The President himself has stated he wants to ``keep families together and to make our immigration policies more equitable.'' This is exactly what our LIFE Act that we have in the appropriations bill does. Had the White House proposed this during President Clinton's first 7 years in office, he might have been able to develop a mandate to grant amnesty to millions of undocumented aliens, aliens who have broken our laws. But no such mandate exists. The American people need to know that the INS, the FBI, and the Border Patrol are being brought to the brink of a shutdown because President Clinton wants Congress to grant amnesty for up to 4 million illegal aliens, people who haven't played by the rules. When we fought the H-1B legislation on the floor, many on the other side pointed out the difficulties of legal immigrant families. They pointed out that children needed to be reunited with their parents, that spouses needed to be reunited with their husbands and wives. I said I would try to do something about that. We realized there was a problem with the late amnesty class of 1982 who qualified for residency under the 1986 Act. We said we would try to do something about that, and the LIFE Act does. The American people are a fair people. The LIFE Act will take care of 1 million people who either don't have due process or who need to be reunited with their families. It takes care of them first rather than granting amnesty to up to 4 million illegal people who haven't played by the rules, which is what the President wants to do. Fairness dictates that we not grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens when there are 3.5 million people who have played by the rules waiting to come to the United States. The President should remember this inequitable proposal and reconsider what he wants to do here. Let me say a couple of other things. I have even let the White House know that to determine if there are further inequities we will hold hearings right after we come back at the first of the year, and we will find out what needs to be done to restructure INS, if necessary, to make sure they treat people with more respect. We will consider these people who President Clinton would like to help. But most of them are here illegally and without further information, we think they should not be jumped above or in front of these people who aren't here legally or who have been waiting in line to be reunited with their families. We brought both sides together in this LIFE Act and brought a variety of different people into this. But there are some people who don't want any immigration to our country. They may live in States that are overrun with illegal immigrants; at least some of them do. Others don't seem to care about any rules, and I suspect the President is in that category. But we have brought these people together in the LIFE Act to resolve the problems that were mentioned during the H-1B debate. By gosh, I think it is time for the President to sign this bill and get about doing the Nation's business. He should quit playing wedge politics with these issues that are highly inflammable and about which he can blame people in illegitimate and wrongful ways. I have worked very hard, along with a number of others, to bring this about in a way that is equitable, fair, and takes care of those who first need to be taken care of, with promises to hold hearings to see if there are any others who need the help and fairness that we can grant. That is the best we can do this year. That is the best we can do at the end of this session. It is the best we can do in bringing people together. I think we have done a good job getting it done, and I hope the President will go along with our proposal so we can continue funding the INS, the Border Patrol, the FBI, training and equipment research and development programs to combat domestic terrorism, the Federal prison system, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. We must enact the CJS Appropriations into law because it funds things that are absolutely critical to this country. Moreover, it makes it possible for 1 million people to get permanent residency, people who have been waiting in line, have paid the price, and played by the rules. This is a front-page issue in the Hispanic media, but most Americans don't know what the President is trying to do because the mainstream media is not reporting this issue. The American people need to know what is going on here. I think it is a crass approach to play wedge politics at the end of this session, holding us hostage so we can't get home and campaign and do what we need to do. Right now, I would much rather be home in Utah than here in Washington. But as long as we have to be here, I am going to make these points to try to help all immigrants, including Hispanics to receive fair treatment by the INS and by our immigration policies. I am a cochairman of the Republican Senatorial Hispanic Task Force. I started it a number of years ago to make sure Hispanics are treated fairly and that Hispanic issues are given the attention they deserve. We have done an awful lot in this area, and I think the LIFE Act is a very good piece of legislation that will take us far down the road. Additionally, we have made a promise to hold hearings next year to see if there are any other inequities that need to be remedied. We will be glad to do that. We have 535 Members of Congress and a wide variety of viewpoints. I think we have brought them together in a way that will work and solve some of these problems. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. You may have done that. The administration has fought us on these issues, and frankly----

Mr. HATCH. They do now and they didn't then. They support it now for crass political purposes. Let me say one other thing. The Senator has been on the Judiciary Committee. He knows these are hot-button issues, and hot-button issues are very difficult issues to handle. He knows I want to solve these problems. But he also knows that there is a wide disparity of belief in both bodies, and it is almost impossible to bring everybody together and solve every problem, just like that. We have done our best.