Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to commend the majority leader, Senator Lott, for proceeding today with votes for these judicial nominees. As I have stated, we will continue to process the confirmations of nominees who are qualified to be federal judges. In that respect, the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first nominations hearing of this Session on Tuesday, February 22, and I expect to see more judicial nominees moving through the process in the coming months. There is a perception held by some that the confirmation of judges stops in election years. This perception is inaccurate, and I intend to move qualified nominees through the process during this session of Congress. That said, in moving forward with the confirmations of judicial nominees, we must be mindful of problems we have with certain courts, particularly the Ninth Circuit. It was reported yesterday that the Ninth Circuit has a record of 0-6 this supreme court term. In addition, the President must be mindful of the problems he creates when he nominates individuals who do not have the support of their home-State Senators. In this regard, I must say that it appears at times as if the President is seeking a confrontation with the Senate on this issue, instead of working with the Senate to see that his nominees are confirmed. During this Congress, despite partisan rhetoric, the Judiciary Committee has reported 42 judicial nominees, and the full Senate has confirmed 36 of these--a number comparable to the average of 39 confirmations for the first sessions of the past five Congresses when vacancy rates were generally much higher. In total, the Senate has confirmed 340 of President Clinton's judicial nominees since he took office in 1993. I am disturbed by some of the allegations that have been made that the Senate's treatment of certain nominees differed based on their race or gender. Such allegations are entirely without merit. For noncontroversial nominees who were confirmed in 1997 and 1998, there is little if any difference between the timing of confirmation for minority nominees and non-minority nominees. Only when the President appoints a controversial female or minority nominee does a disparity arise. Moreover, last session, over 50% of the nominees that the Judiciary Committee reported to the full Senate were women and minorities. Even the former Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Joe Biden, stated publicly that the process by which the committee, under my chairmanship, examines and approves judicial nominees ``has not a single thing to do with gender or race.'' That is from the transcript of a Judiciary Committee hearing on judicial nominations on November 10, 1999. The Senate has conducted the confirmations process in a fair and principled manner, and the process has worked well. The Federal Judiciary is sufficiently staffed to perform its function under article III of the Constitution. Senator Lott, and the Senate as a whole, are to be commended.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to commend the majority leader, Senator Lott, for proceeding today with votes for these two judicial nominees. We will continue to process the confirmations of nominees who are qualified to be Federal judges. In that respect, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its first nominations hearing of this session on Tuesday, February 22, and I expect to see more judicial nominees moving through the process in the coming months. There is a perception held by some that the confirmation of judges stops in election years. That perception is inaccurate, and I intend to move qualified nominees through the process during this session of Congress. That said, in moving forward with the confirmations of judicial nominees, we must be mindful of problems we have with certain courts, particularly the ninth circuit. In addition, the President must be mindful of the problems he creates when he nominates individuals who do not have the support of their home-State Senators. In this regard, I must say that it appears at times as if the President is seeking a confrontation with the Senate on this issue, instead of working with the Senate to see that his nominees are confirmed. Last session, despite partisan rhetoric, the Judiciary Committee reported 42 judicial nominees, and the full Senate confirmed 34 of these--a number comparable to the average of 39 confirmations for the first sessions of the past five Congresses, when vacancy rates were generally much higher. In total, the Senate has confirmed 338 of President Clinton's judicial nominees since he took office in 1993. I am disturbed by some of the allegations that have been made that the Senate's treatment of certain nominees differed based on their race or gender. Such allegations are entirely without merit. For noncontroversial nominees who were confirmed in 1997 and 1998, there was little, if any, difference between the timing of confirmation for minority nominees and non-minority nominees. Only when the President appoints a controversial female or minority nominee does a disparity arise. Moreover, last session, over 50 percent of the nominees that the Judiciary Committee reported to the full Senate were women and minorities. Even the Democratic former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Joe Biden, stated publicly that the process by which the Committee, under my chairmanship, examines and approves judicial nominees ``has not a single thing to do with gender or race.'' The Senate has conducted the confirmations process in a fair and principled manner, and the process has worked well and, in my opinion, will continue to work well. The Federal Judiciary is sufficiently staffed to perform its function under article 3 of the Constitution. Senator Lott, and the Senate as a whole, are to be commended. I want to make sure we make those points in the Record before we start voting on these judicial nominees. When the Judiciary Committee reports a nominee to the floor, it does not even consider telling Senators what the nominee's race or ethnicity or anything else is. The nominee's race or ethnicity or gender is irrelevant as far as we are concerned. We report judicial nominees because we believe them to be qualified. We report them because the President of the United States has the constitutional right to nominate judges. The Senate has right to confirm or not confirm them. I have to say, the big battles are behind the scenes where we determine, in consultation with the White House, whether or not people should be nominated at all. That process is participated in by virtually every Senator in this body, and certainly by the leaders of the Judiciary Committee. I wish to set the record straight because I see continual politicization of the judiciary by this administration whereby this administration tries to make appointments that literally do not deserve to be made. Naturally, having said all this, during a Presidential election year the nomination process does slow down. It ultimately ends during that year, and historically has done so whether there has been Republican or Democrat control of the Senate, and whether there has been a Republican or Democrat in the White House. Another point I believe must be emphasized: We in the Senate cannot take action on nominees we do not have. Yesterday, at a Democratic National Committee event in Texas, President Clinton took the Senate to task for not acting swiftly enough on his judicial nominees. Given the fact that this is his last year in office, and that he was speaking at a DNC event, President Clinton is bound to say anything. The nominees we will confirm today will bring the total number of Clinton judges confirmed by the Senate Republicans to 340. Approximately 40 percent of the total federal judiciary now are Clinton judges--judges confirmed by Republicans. I note this: The President has made nominations for less then half of the vacancies that currently exist. For all the bad-mouthing this administration does from time to time regarding the confirmation of judges, it is important to note there are presently 79 vacancies, and to date we have received only 38 nominees--4 of which we received just today, so, in essence, just 34 nominees until today. There are 41 vacancies for which the President has not even made a nomination. That needs to be said. I want to work with the President. I want to treat him fairly. I think we have been more than fair with him. I intend to be fair in the future as well, but I would appreciate it if he would speak a little more fairly himself.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the San Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation Act. I am proud to sponsor this legislation which is a result of local citizens working together with federal land managers to produce a plan that promotes and protects one of our nation's finest natural treasures, the San Rafael Swell in Emery County, Utah. This is by no means a standard one-size-fits-all land management scheme. It reflects both local and national interests. I wish to congratulate the elected officials of Emery County, Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, local citizen groups, and local Bureau of Land Management professionals for their willingness to come to the table and craft this proposal. It is a testament to what I have always believed: that those who live on and around our public lands love the land and, given the chance, will find ways to help protect it. I hope that this effort to work out solutions to land issues with meaningful local input will become the norm for federal land policy. Mr. President, under this legislation, 2.8 million acres will be designated as the San Rafael Western Legacy District. Visitors to the San Rafael will be able to see where Kit Carson, Chief Walker, Wesley Powell, Butch Cassidy and many others became famous, or infamous as the case may be. Backpackers and day hikers will be surprised by petroglyphs that tell stories of Native American ancestors and that give a picture of life as it once was. Families will enjoy access to one of the largest sources of fossils in the New World. They will also enjoy a variety of quality museums that already exist in the area which take us back in time, whether it be the time of dinosaurs, Native Americans, pioneers and the wild west, early explorers, or even the early atomic arms race. A the core of this Western Legacy District will be the San Rafael National Conservation Area, which will withdraw approximately 1 million acres from development. Mr. President, Congress cannot create spectacular geologic formations, such as the San Rafael Swell, but this legislation will protect what God has given us. The San Rafael Swell is vast and can accommodate all types of experiences including wilderness, wildlife viewing, fishing, mountain biking, and other activities. The specifics for these uses will be detailed in a forty year planning process led by the Secretary of Interior. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce this legislation along with my good friend and colleague Senator Robert Bennett. A companion measure in the House is sponsored by Representative Chris Cannon. The San Rafael Swell is an area rich in history, beauty, culture, and tradition. This legislation protects the San Rafael for all citizens in a manner that reflects the needs of those directly affected by its bounties. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent for the text of the fill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce what I believe is one of the most important pieces of legislation the Senate will consider this year, the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act. At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude to my two lead cosponsors, Senator Abraham and Senator Gramm. Both have worked tirelessly with me to craft this legislation. Senator Abraham, of course, as chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, has long led the way on this matter. I also thank our Democrat sponsors, Senators Graham, Lieberman, and Feinstein, as well as our majority leader and assistant majority leader for their contributions to this effort. Last month, the national jobless rate hit 4 percent, the lowest level in 30 years. That jobless rate is even lower in my home State of Utah at 3.3 percent. That's great news; but at the same time, serious labor shortages threaten our continued economic prosperity and global competitiveness. A recent study, for example, concluded that a shortage of high-tech professionals is currently costing the U.S. economy $105 billion a year. A look at last Sunday's Washington Post makes the problem very clear. High-tech jobs even have their own separate section of help wanted ads. Twenty-one pages of jobs, jobs, jobs. The Clinton administration recently projected that in the next 5 years, high-tech and related employment will grow ``more than twice as fast as employment in the economy as a whole.'' The growth of the high- tech industry is being felt across this country, and nowhere more than in my State of Utah. Common sense tells us that we must allow American high-tech companies to fill their labor needs in the United States, or they will be forced to take these opportunities of growth abroad. We want the high tech industry to thrive in the United States and to continue to serve as the engine for the growth of jobs and opportunities for American workers. If Congress fails to act promptly to alleviate today's high-tech labor shortage, today's low jobless rate will be a mere precursor to tomorrow's lost opportunities. The purpose of our important bipartisan legislation is twofold: (1) To allow for a necessary infusion of high-tech workers in the short term, and (2) to make prudent investments in our own workforce for the long term. It is clear that in the short term we need to raise the limits of the number of temporary visas for highly skilled labor. Our bill does this by increasing the cap to 195,0000 visas over each of the next 3 years. We also exempt persons from the cap who come to work in our universities and persons who have recently received advanced degrees in our educational institutions. But this, by itself, is not a satisfactory solution either in the short item or long term. Thus, we need to redouble our efforts to provide training and educational opportunities for our current and future workforce. Thus, we raise an additional $150 million for scholarships and training of American workers for these jobs for a total of $375 million for education and training under this program over 3 fiscal years. Our legislation, in other words, seeks to address both the short and long term needs. My hope is that the administration will come to support this important high-tech legislation. In our new knowledge-based economy, where ideas and innovations rather than land or natural resources are the principal well springs of economy growth, American competitiveness depends greatly on intellectual assets and capacity. The most successful economics of the 21st century will be those which maximize intellectual assets. In recognition of this fact, the administration has worked with me over the years to improve intellectual property protection and to encourage developing nations to invest in doing likewise. For this reason, I believe that the administration appreciates the need for this legislation. In the end, I hope they will have the smarts to listen to Alan Greenspan--who has testified about the need for this bill--and that the administration will support its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the San Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation Act. I am proud to sponsor this legislation which is a result of local citizens working together with federal land managers to produce a plan that promotes and protects one of our nation's finest natural treasures, the San Rafael Swell in Emery County, Utah. This is by no means a standard one-size-fits-all land management scheme. It reflects both local and national interests. I wish to congratulate the elected officials of Emery County, Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, local citizen groups, and local Bureau of Land Management professionals for their willingness to come to the table and craft this proposal. It is a testament to what I have always believed: that those who live on and around our public lands love the land and, given the chance, will find ways to help protect it. I hope that this effort to work out solutions to land issues with meaningful local input will become the norm for federal land policy. Mr. President, under this legislation, 2.8 million acres will be designated as the San Rafael Western Legacy District. Visitors to the San Rafael will be able to see where Kit Carson, Chief Walker, Wesley Powell, Butch Cassidy and many others became famous, or infamous as the case may be. Backpackers and day hikers will be surprised by petroglyphs that tell stories of Native American ancestors and that give a picture of life as it once was. Families will enjoy access to one of the largest sources of fossils in the New World. They will also enjoy a variety of quality museums that already exist in the area which take us back in time, whether it be the time of dinosaurs, Native Americans, pioneers and the wild west, early explorers, or even the early atomic arms race. A the core of this Western Legacy District will be the San Rafael National Conservation Area, which will withdraw approximately 1 million acres from development. Mr. President, Congress cannot create spectacular geologic formations, such as the San Rafael Swell, but this legislation will protect what God has given us. The San Rafael Swell is vast and can accommodate all types of experiences including wilderness, wildlife viewing, fishing, mountain biking, and other activities. The specifics for these uses will be detailed in a forty year planning process led by the Secretary of Interior. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce this legislation along with my good friend and colleague Senator Robert Bennett. A companion measure in the House is sponsored by Representative Chris Cannon. The San Rafael Swell is an area rich in history, beauty, culture, and tradition. This legislation protects the San Rafael for all citizens in a manner that reflects the needs of those directly affected by its bounties. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent for the text of the fill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will help restore public confidence in the Department of Justice by reforming the way that the Office of Pardon Attorney investigates candidates for executive clemency. This bill, the Hatch-Nickles-Abraham Pardon Attorney Reform and Integrity Act, which is co-sponsored by Senators Lott, Thurmond, Kyl, Ashcroft, Sessions, Smith of New Hampshire, and Coverdell, addresses the problems that led to the widespread public outrage at the Department of Justice's role in President Clinton's decision last September to release 11 Puerto Rican nationalist terrorists from prison. The beneficiaries of President Clinton's grant of clemency were convicted terrorists who belong to violent Puerto Rican independence groups called the FALN and Los Macheteros. They were in prison for a seditious conspiracy that included the planting of over 130 bombs in public places in the United States, including shopping malls and restaurants. That bombing spree--which killed several people, injured many others and caused vast property damage--remains the most prolific terrorist campaign within our borders in United States history. The Judiciary Committee has thoroughly investigated the facts and circumstances surrounding the decision to release those terrorists from prison. We read thousands of documents produced by the Department of Justice and the White House. We interviewed law enforcement officials knowledgeable about the FALN and Los Macheteros organizations. We spoke to victims, and we held two hearings on the many issues raised by the grant of clemency. Our investigation has led me to a very troubling conclusion: the Justice Department ignored its own rules for handling clemency matters, exercised very poor judgment in ignoring the opinions of law enforcement and victims, and sacrificed its integrity by bowing to political pressure to modify its original recommendation against clemency. I do not come to this conclusion lightly. I base it on an examination of the facts. The facts show that the clemency recipients were never asked for information relevant to open investigations or the apprehension of fugitives--despite the fact that one of their co- defendants, Victor Gerena, is on the FBI's ``ten most wanted'' list. Many of the killings associated with the FALN bombings, including the infamous Fraunces Tavern bombing, remain unsolved. The failure to ask for such information from the clemency recipients, several of whom held leadership positions in the FALN, means that the rest of the perpetrators of those crimes may never be brought to justice. My legislation will require the Justice Department to notify law enforcement of pending clemency requests, and to assess whether a proposed clemency recipient could have information on open investigations and fugitives. Our investigation also revealed that the White House and the Justice Department ignored the many victims of FALN crimes, even while senior officials were holding numerous meetings with the terrorists' advocates for clemency. While top government officials actually gave strategic advice to the terrorists, no one lifted a finger to find, interview, or even notify the victims about the pending clemency request. My legislation would help ensure that the Justice Department remembers who it is supposed to be working for by requiring it to notify and seek input from victims. Finally, a disturbing connection has come to light between the FALN, Los Macheteros and the Cuban government. Jorge Masetti, a former Cuban intelligence agent, has stated that Cuba helped Los Macheteros to plan and execute the $7.1 million Wells Fargo robbery--the biggest cash heist in US history--by providing funding, training and assistance in smuggling the money out of the country. Some sources estimate that 4 million dollars from the robbery ended up in Cuba. We don't know whether the Pardon Attorney knew of or told the President about this Cuban connection because the Pardon Attorney currently has no obligation to contact intelligence agencies for information relevant to proposed grants of executive clemency. My legislation would require the Justice Department to solicit from law enforcement and intelligence agencies necessary information concerning the nature of the threat posed by potential clemency recipients so that the Pardon Attorney can properly advise the President whether a particular grant of clemency will impact future crime or terrorism. Before describing how this bill works, I want to explain how the Office of Pardon Attorney currently operates. The job of the Office of Pardon Attorney is not complicated: it is to investigate potential grants of clemency and, in appropriate cases, to produce a report and recommendations to the President. Ordinarily, this work begins when the office receives a petition from a prisoner or someone who has already completed a prison sentence. The Department's rules require that an individual seeking clemency submit such a petition to the Pardon Attorney. After receiving a petition, the Pardon Attorney makes an initial determination of whether the request has enough merit to warrant further investigation. If so, the Pardon Attorney researches the potential clemency recipient and prepares a report analyzing the information in light of the grounds for granting clemency. As described by the United States Attorneys' Manual, those grounds ``have traditionally included disparity or undue severity of sentence, critical illness or old age, and meritorious service rendered to the government by the petitioner.'' It is to be expected that the Administration and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (``OLC'') would question the constitutionality of this bill by asserting an expansive view of executive power. That is their nature. This is the same Administration and Department that resisted any oversight of the FALN clemency decision. The OLC and the Department have a history of taking a liberal view of laws and privileges that would shield the President from scrutiny. This is evidenced by the Department's sound defeats on assertions of government attorney-client privilege and its ill-fated attempt to create a protective function privilege out of whole cloth. Anyone examining the merits of the OLC's attacks against this bill, therefore, must acknowledge that the Administration and the Department have a track record of overstating executive power. With that background, let me clarify that the Pardon Attorney Reform and Integrity Act was carefully drafted to avoid offending the separation of powers. The Act does not attempt to dictate how the President uses the pardon power. Far from it. The Constitution gives that power to the President, and this bill does not restrict it in any way. This bill affects only those cases where the President delegates the responsibility to investigate a particular potential grant of clemency. Nothing in the bill requires the President to ask the Pardon Attorney for assistance or requires the Pardon Attorney to take any particular position or recommend any particular outcome. It doesn't even require the Department to submit a report to the President, but simply make it available. Furthermore, the bill does not require the President to read any report, consider any particular information, or avail himself of any resource. The President will still be able to disregard the Justice Department's reports, use another agency, ask anyone in the world for advice, or exercise the ``pardon power'' without anyone's counsel. Only if the President chooses to ask the Justice Department for assistance will the procedural requirements of this bill apply--and they will apply only to the Justice Department, not to the President. The Act is consistent with the Supreme Court's opinions relating to the pardon power. The Act neither ``change[s] the effect of . . . a pardon'' as described in United States v. Kline, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872), nor will it ``modif[y], abridge[], or diminish[]'' the President's authority to grant clemency as discussed in Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256, 266 (1974). In fact, the Act will have no effect whatsoever on the President's ability to exercise the pardon power as he or she sees fit. Moreover, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress can legislate in areas that touch upon the pardon power. In Carlesi v. New York, 233 U.S. 51 (1914), the Court found that it was within the power of the legislative branch to determine what effect a pardon would have on future criminal sentences. The Supreme Court has also acknowledged that the pardon power has limits; the President cannot use that power as an excuse to wield power over departments that he or she otherwise could not. In Knote v. United States, 95 U.S. 149 (1877), the Court held that the pardon power does not give the President authority to order the treasury to refund money taken from a prisoner--even though that prisoner had just been pardoned for the crime that gave rise to the government's seizure of that money. It is Congress, not the President, that has the authority--indeed, the responsibility--to examine and legislate the manner in which the Justice Department performs its work. Congress created an ``attorney in charge of pardons'' within the Department of Justice in 1891, and appropriated money for an ``attorney in charge of pardons'' in that same year. To this day, the Office of the Pardon Attorney depends on funds appropriated annually by the Congress. In the most recent appropriations legislation, the Congress appropriated $1.6 million for the Pardon Attorney for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. This Congressional involvement--creation and funding of the office--provides a compelling basis for the Judiciary Committee's investigation and the present legislation. ``The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.'' Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957). The scope of this power ```is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.''' Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 504 n. 15 (1975) (quoting Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 190, 111 (1959)). The Supreme Court has also recognized ``the danger to effective and honest conduct of the Government if the legislative power to probe corruption in the Executive Branch were unduly hampered.'' Watkins, 354 U.S. at 194-95. Once having established its jurisdiction and authority, and the pertinence of the matter under inquiry to its area of authority, a committee's investigative purview is substantial and wide-ranging. Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 408-09 (1961). Congress also has broad powers under the Constitution to ``make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department of Officer thereof.'' The areas in which Congress may potentially legislate or appropriate are, by necessary implication, even broader. Thus, in determining whether Congress has jurisdiction to oversee and enact legislation, deference should be accorded to Congress' decision. Because of this legal history, the administration of the Department of Justice and its various components has long been considered an appropriate subject of Congressional oversight. Early this century, in McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 151 (1927), the Supreme Court endorsed Congress' authority to study ``charges of misfeasance and nonfeasance in the Department of Justice.'' In that case, which involved a challenge to Congress' inquiry into the DOJ's role during the Teapot Dome scandal, the Court concluded that Congress had authority to investigate ``whether [DOJ's] functions were being properly discharged or were being neglected or misdirected, and particularly whether the Attorney General and his assistants were performing or neglecting their duties in respect of the institution.'' Id. at 177. These precedents make clear that the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction to investigate the Pardon Attorney's role in the pardon process, and to enact legislation concerning the way in which that office operates. We have discussed this bill with the Department of Justice, and we have reviewed the regulations the Department has proposed. The problems with the Office of the Pardon Attorney, however, cannot be fixed by a mere change in department regulations. It has been six months since the public outcry over the FALN clemency shined a spotlight on the Pardon Attorney's practices. Despite having half-a-year to reform itself, the Department has suggested only minimal changes in the way it does business. In its draft regulations, the Department agrees that it should ascertain the views of victims, but only in cases involving ``crimes of violence.'' Victims of other crimes deserve the right to be heard, too. Victims of so-called identity theft, for example, have compelling stories of the horror of being forced into bankruptcy to avoid collections lawyers, losing their jobs due to issues related to wage garnishments, and trying to rebuild their lives without the ability to obtain credit or sign an apartment lease. Victims of such crimes also deserve to be heard. Similarly, the Department's proposed regulations acknowledge the need to determine whether releasing a particular prisoner would pose a risk, but limit their focus to past victims and ignore other possible targets including witnesses, informants, prosecutors and court personnel. The Department's proposal also fails to notify victims when it undertakes a clemency investigation, when it completes its report to the President, or when the President makes a decision. Under the Department's scheme, victims may still learn of a prisoner's release from prison by watching the event on TV. Equally important, the Department's suggested regulations ignore the Department's main job: to protect law-abiding people from criminal acts. The Department does not see a need to require the Pardon Attorney to talk to law enforcement officials about whether a particular person could provide helpful information about criminal investigations or searches for fugitives. Nor does the Department see the value of asking law enforcement whether a potential release from prison would pose a risk to specific people other than victims or to a broader societal interest such as enhancing a particular criminal organization or decreasing the deterrent value of prison sentences. The Department's proposed regulations also ignore the importance of whether a potential clemency recipient has accepted responsibility for, or feels remorse over, criminal acts. Even if the Department's proposed regulations were identical to this bill, moreover, those regulations could not overcome what is perhaps the most important weakness of all: Regulations are not law. They do not have the force of statutes, and they can be changed very easily. The FALN case proves the need for a statute because the Attorney General ignored even the current, weak regulations in the FALN matter. Although the Justice Department and the White House refuse to let anyone in Congress review the reports produced by the Pardon Attorney about the FALN clemency, it is clear that the Pardon Attorney did not follow the Justice Department regulations when analyzing the issues for the President. For starters, the Pardon Attorney began investigating a potential grant of clemency for the FALN terrorists even though no personal petitions for clemency had been filed. That's right--these terrorists had not asked for clemency prior to the Justice Department's efforts to free them. Indeed, no such petitions were ever filed. And the absence of petitions was not a mere oversight: the FALN terrorists refused to file such petitions because they do not recognize that their criminal acts were wrongful or that the United States government had the right to punish them for committing those acts. I have the utmost respect for the career men and women at the Justice Department. It appears, however, the Department caved in to political pressure in this case. Although it submitted a report in December 1996 recommending against the granting of clemency for the FALN terrorists-- which should have ended its involvement--the Pardon Attorney produced another report two-and-a-half years later reportedly changing its recommendation. The second report did not recommend either for or against the granting of clemency, violating the Justice Department regulation requiring that in every clemency case the Department ``shall report in writing [its] recommendation to the President, stating whether in [its] judgment the President should grant or deny the petition.'' Why did the Justice Department's recommendation change? What happened between the first report in December 1996 and the second one in the summer of 1999 that justified a reexamination and change of the Department's conclusion? Because of the President's assertion of executive privilege, we may never know for sure. It was a mistake for the President to let politics affect such an important clemency decision, but is much worse than a mistake when political pressure forces an independent agency to alter its advice against its better judgment. The Pardon Attorney Reform and Integrity Act will help prevent this from happening again. It will make available to the President access to the most pertinent facts concerning the exercise of executive clemency, including information from law enforcement agencies about the risks posed by any release from prison. It will also help ensure that--if the President chooses to have the Department of Justice conduct a clemency review--the victims of crime will not be shut out of the clemency process while terrorists and their organized sympathizers have access to--and obtain advice from--high government officials. In other words, this Act will insure that the tax-payer funded Justice Department will, when assisting the President in a clemency review, focus on public safety, not politics. Let me be clear that the Department of Justice is an agency which I have great respect for. Its employees are loyal, dedicated public servants. This bill is aimed at helping the Department, not hurting it. Specifically, our bill will do the following: 1. Give victims a voice by insuring that they are notified of key events in the clemency process and by giving them an opportunity to voice their opinions. 2. Enhance the voice of law enforcement by requiring the Pardon Attorney to notify the law enforcement community of a clemency investigation and permitting law enforcement to express its views on: the impact of clemency on the individuals affected by the decision--for example, victims and witnesses; whether clemency candidates have information which might help in other investigations; and whether granting clemency will increase the threat of terrorism or other criminal activity. Of course, it is the hope of all the co-sponsors--and all Americans-- that presidents will use the congressionally created and funded Office of the Pardon Attorney in order to make the best possible decisions regarding executive clemency. I believe that when Congress passes this bill--and should President Clinton sign it into law--future Presidents, victims, and the American public will be well served. If President Clinton wants to help in this effort to restore integrity to the clemency process, he will announce his support for this bill. Mr. President, I thank the many co-sponsors of this act, and I ask the rest of my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce what I believe is one of the most important pieces of legislation the Senate will consider this year, the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act. At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude to my two lead cosponsors, Senator Abraham and Senator Gramm. Both have worked tirelessly with me to craft this legislation. Senator Abraham, of course, as chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, has long led the way on this matter. I also thank our Democrat sponsors, Senators Graham, Lieberman, and Feinstein, as well as our majority leader and assistant majority leader for their contributions to this effort. Last month, the national jobless rate hit 4 percent, the lowest level in 30 years. That jobless rate is even lower in my home State of Utah at 3.3 percent. That's great news; but at the same time, serious labor shortages threaten our continued economic prosperity and global competitiveness. A recent study, for example, concluded that a shortage of high-tech professionals is currently costing the U.S. economy $105 billion a year. A look at last Sunday's Washington Post makes the problem very clear. High-tech jobs even have their own separate section of help wanted ads. Twenty-one pages of jobs, jobs, jobs. The Clinton administration recently projected that in the next 5 years, high-tech and related employment will grow ``more than twice as fast as employment in the economy as a whole.'' The growth of the high- tech industry is being felt across this country, and nowhere more than in my State of Utah. Common sense tells us that we must allow American high-tech companies to fill their labor needs in the United States, or they will be forced to take these opportunities of growth abroad. We want the high tech industry to thrive in the United States and to continue to serve as the engine for the growth of jobs and opportunities for American workers. If Congress fails to act promptly to alleviate today's high-tech labor shortage, today's low jobless rate will be a mere precursor to tomorrow's lost opportunities. The purpose of our important bipartisan legislation is twofold: (1) To allow for a necessary infusion of high-tech workers in the short term, and (2) to make prudent investments in our own workforce for the long term. It is clear that in the short term we need to raise the limits of the number of temporary visas for highly skilled labor. Our bill does this by increasing the cap to 195,0000 visas over each of the next 3 years. We also exempt persons from the cap who come to work in our universities and persons who have recently received advanced degrees in our educational institutions. But this, by itself, is not a satisfactory solution either in the short item or long term. Thus, we need to redouble our efforts to provide training and educational opportunities for our current and future workforce. Thus, we raise an additional $150 million for scholarships and training of American workers for these jobs for a total of $375 million for education and training under this program over 3 fiscal years. Our legislation, in other words, seeks to address both the short and long term needs. My hope is that the administration will come to support this important high-tech legislation. In our new knowledge-based economy, where ideas and innovations rather than land or natural resources are the principal well springs of economy growth, American competitiveness depends greatly on intellectual assets and capacity. The most successful economics of the 21st century will be those which maximize intellectual assets. In recognition of this fact, the administration has worked with me over the years to improve intellectual property protection and to encourage developing nations to invest in doing likewise. For this reason, I believe that the administration appreciates the need for this legislation. In the end, I hope they will have the smarts to listen to Alan Greenspan--who has testified about the need for this bill--and that the administration will support its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will help restore public confidence in the Department of Justice by reforming the way that the Office of Pardon Attorney investigates candidates for executive clemency. This bill, the Hatch-Nickles-Abraham Pardon Attorney Reform and Integrity Act, which is co-sponsored by Senators Lott, Thurmond, Kyl, Ashcroft, Sessions, Smith of New Hampshire, and Coverdell, addresses the problems that led to the widespread public outrage at the Department of Justice's role in President Clinton's decision last September to release 11 Puerto Rican nationalist terrorists from prison. The beneficiaries of President Clinton's grant of clemency were convicted terrorists who belong to violent Puerto Rican independence groups called the FALN and Los Macheteros. They were in prison for a seditious conspiracy that included the planting of over 130 bombs in public places in the United States, including shopping malls and restaurants. That bombing spree--which killed several people, injured many others and caused vast property damage--remains the most prolific terrorist campaign within our borders in United States history. The Judiciary Committee has thoroughly investigated the facts and circumstances surrounding the decision to release those terrorists from prison. We read thousands of documents produced by the Department of Justice and the White House. We interviewed law enforcement officials knowledgeable about the FALN and Los Macheteros organizations. We spoke to victims, and we held two hearings on the many issues raised by the grant of clemency. Our investigation has led me to a very troubling conclusion: the Justice Department ignored its own rules for handling clemency matters, exercised very poor judgment in ignoring the opinions of law enforcement and victims, and sacrificed its integrity by bowing to political pressure to modify its original recommendation against clemency. I do not come to this conclusion lightly. I base it on an examination of the facts. The facts show that the clemency recipients were never asked for information relevant to open investigations or the apprehension of fugitives--despite the fact that one of their co- defendants, Victor Gerena, is on the FBI's ``ten most wanted'' list. Many of the killings associated with the FALN bombings, including the infamous Fraunces Tavern bombing, remain unsolved. The failure to ask for such information from the clemency recipients, several of whom held leadership positions in the FALN, means that the rest of the perpetrators of those crimes may never be brought to justice. My legislation will require the Justice Department to notify law enforcement of pending clemency requests, and to assess whether a proposed clemency recipient could have information on open investigations and fugitives. Our investigation also revealed that the White House and the Justice Department ignored the many victims of FALN crimes, even while senior officials were holding numerous meetings with the terrorists' advocates for clemency. While top government officials actually gave strategic advice to the terrorists, no one lifted a finger to find, interview, or even notify the victims about the pending clemency request. My legislation would help ensure that the Justice Department remembers who it is supposed to be working for by requiring it to notify and seek input from victims. Finally, a disturbing connection has come to light between the FALN, Los Macheteros and the Cuban government. Jorge Masetti, a former Cuban intelligence agent, has stated that Cuba helped Los Macheteros to plan and execute the $7.1 million Wells Fargo robbery--the biggest cash heist in US history--by providing funding, training and assistance in smuggling the money out of the country. Some sources estimate that 4 million dollars from the robbery ended up in Cuba. We don't know whether the Pardon Attorney knew of or told the President about this Cuban connection because the Pardon Attorney currently has no obligation to contact intelligence agencies for information relevant to proposed grants of executive clemency. My legislation would require the Justice Department to solicit from law enforcement and intelligence agencies necessary information concerning the nature of the threat posed by potential clemency recipients so that the Pardon Attorney can properly advise the President whether a particular grant of clemency will impact future crime or terrorism. Before describing how this bill works, I want to explain how the Office of Pardon Attorney currently operates. The job of the Office of Pardon Attorney is not complicated: it is to investigate potential grants of clemency and, in appropriate cases, to produce a report and recommendations to the President. Ordinarily, this work begins when the office receives a petition from a prisoner or someone who has already completed a prison sentence. The Department's rules require that an individual seeking clemency submit such a petition to the Pardon Attorney. After receiving a petition, the Pardon Attorney makes an initial determination of whether the request has enough merit to warrant further investigation. If so, the Pardon Attorney researches the potential clemency recipient and prepares a report analyzing the information in light of the grounds for granting clemency. As described by the United States Attorneys' Manual, those grounds ``have traditionally included disparity or undue severity of sentence, critical illness or old age, and meritorious service rendered to the government by the petitioner.'' It is to be expected that the Administration and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (``OLC'') would question the constitutionality of this bill by asserting an expansive view of executive power. That is their nature. This is the same Administration and Department that resisted any oversight of the FALN clemency decision. The OLC and the Department have a history of taking a liberal view of laws and privileges that would shield the President from scrutiny. This is evidenced by the Department's sound defeats on assertions of government attorney-client privilege and its ill-fated attempt to create a protective function privilege out of whole cloth. Anyone examining the merits of the OLC's attacks against this bill, therefore, must acknowledge that the Administration and the Department have a track record of overstating executive power. With that background, let me clarify that the Pardon Attorney Reform and Integrity Act was carefully drafted to avoid offending the separation of powers. The Act does not attempt to dictate how the President uses the pardon power. Far from it. The Constitution gives that power to the President, and this bill does not restrict it in any way. This bill affects only those cases where the President delegates the responsibility to investigate a particular potential grant of clemency. Nothing in the bill requires the President to ask the Pardon Attorney for assistance or requires the Pardon Attorney to take any particular position or recommend any particular outcome. It doesn't even require the Department to submit a report to the President, but simply make it available. Furthermore, the bill does not require the President to read any report, consider any particular information, or avail himself of any resource. The President will still be able to disregard the Justice Department's reports, use another agency, ask anyone in the world for advice, or exercise the ``pardon power'' without anyone's counsel. Only if the President chooses to ask the Justice Department for assistance will the procedural requirements of this bill apply--and they will apply only to the Justice Department, not to the President. The Act is consistent with the Supreme Court's opinions relating to the pardon power. The Act neither ``change[s] the effect of . . . a pardon'' as described in United States v. Kline, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872), nor will it ``modif[y], abridge[], or diminish[]'' the President's authority to grant clemency as discussed in Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256, 266 (1974). In fact, the Act will have no effect whatsoever on the President's ability to exercise the pardon power as he or she sees fit. Moreover, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress can legislate in areas that touch upon the pardon power. In Carlesi v. New York, 233 U.S. 51 (1914), the Court found that it was within the power of the legislative branch to determine what effect a pardon would have on future criminal sentences. The Supreme Court has also acknowledged that the pardon power has limits; the President cannot use that power as an excuse to wield power over departments that he or she otherwise could not. In Knote v. United States, 95 U.S. 149 (1877), the Court held that the pardon power does not give the President authority to order the treasury to refund money taken from a prisoner--even though that prisoner had just been pardoned for the crime that gave rise to the government's seizure of that money. It is Congress, not the President, that has the authority--indeed, the responsibility--to examine and legislate the manner in which the Justice Department performs its work. Congress created an ``attorney in charge of pardons'' within the Department of Justice in 1891, and appropriated money for an ``attorney in charge of pardons'' in that same year. To this day, the Office of the Pardon Attorney depends on funds appropriated annually by the Congress. In the most recent appropriations legislation, the Congress appropriated $1.6 million for the Pardon Attorney for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. This Congressional involvement--creation and funding of the office--provides a compelling basis for the Judiciary Committee's investigation and the present legislation. ``The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.'' Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957). The scope of this power ```is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.''' Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 504 n. 15 (1975) (quoting Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 190, 111 (1959)). The Supreme Court has also recognized ``the danger to effective and honest conduct of the Government if the legislative power to probe corruption in the Executive Branch were unduly hampered.'' Watkins, 354 U.S. at 194-95. Once having established its jurisdiction and authority, and the pertinence of the matter under inquiry to its area of authority, a committee's investigative purview is substantial and wide-ranging. Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 408-09 (1961). Congress also has broad powers under the Constitution to ``make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department of Officer thereof.'' The areas in which Congress may potentially legislate or appropriate are, by necessary implication, even broader. Thus, in determining whether Congress has jurisdiction to oversee and enact legislation, deference should be accorded to Congress' decision. Because of this legal history, the administration of the Department of Justice and its various components has long been considered an appropriate subject of Congressional oversight. Early this century, in McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 151 (1927), the Supreme Court endorsed Congress' authority to study ``charges of misfeasance and nonfeasance in the Department of Justice.'' In that case, which involved a challenge to Congress' inquiry into the DOJ's role during the Teapot Dome scandal, the Court concluded that Congress had authority to investigate ``whether [DOJ's] functions were being properly discharged or were being neglected or misdirected, and particularly whether the Attorney General and his assistants were performing or neglecting their duties in respect of the institution.'' Id. at 177. These precedents make clear that the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction to investigate the Pardon Attorney's role in the pardon process, and to enact legislation concerning the way in which that office operates. We have discussed this bill with the Department of Justice, and we have reviewed the regulations the Department has proposed. The problems with the Office of the Pardon Attorney, however, cannot be fixed by a mere change in department regulations. It has been six months since the public outcry over the FALN clemency shined a spotlight on the Pardon Attorney's practices. Despite having half-a-year to reform itself, the Department has suggested only minimal changes in the way it does business. In its draft regulations, the Department agrees that it should ascertain the views of victims, but only in cases involving ``crimes of violence.'' Victims of other crimes deserve the right to be heard, too. Victims of so-called identity theft, for example, have compelling stories of the horror of being forced into bankruptcy to avoid collections lawyers, losing their jobs due to issues related to wage garnishments, and trying to rebuild their lives without the ability to obtain credit or sign an apartment lease. Victims of such crimes also deserve to be heard. Similarly, the Department's proposed regulations acknowledge the need to determine whether releasing a particular prisoner would pose a risk, but limit their focus to past victims and ignore other possible targets including witnesses, informants, prosecutors and court personnel. The Department's proposal also fails to notify victims when it undertakes a clemency investigation, when it completes its report to the President, or when the President makes a decision. Under the Department's scheme, victims may still learn of a prisoner's release from prison by watching the event on TV. Equally important, the Department's suggested regulations ignore the Department's main job: to protect law-abiding people from criminal acts. The Department does not see a need to require the Pardon Attorney to talk to law enforcement officials about whether a particular person could provide helpful information about criminal investigations or searches for fugitives. Nor does the Department see the value of asking law enforcement whether a potential release from prison would pose a risk to specific people other than victims or to a broader societal interest such as enhancing a particular criminal organization or decreasing the deterrent value of prison sentences. The Department's proposed regulations also ignore the importance of whether a potential clemency recipient has accepted responsibility for, or feels remorse over, criminal acts. Even if the Department's proposed regulations were identical to this bill, moreover, those regulations could not overcome what is perhaps the most important weakness of all: Regulations are not law. They do not have the force of statutes, and they can be changed very easily. The FALN case proves the need for a statute because the Attorney General ignored even the current, weak regulations in the FALN matter. Although the Justice Department and the White House refuse to let anyone in Congress review the reports produced by the Pardon Attorney about the FALN clemency, it is clear that the Pardon Attorney did not follow the Justice Department regulations when analyzing the issues for the President. For starters, the Pardon Attorney began investigating a potential grant of clemency for the FALN terrorists even though no personal petitions for clemency had been filed. That's right--these terrorists had not asked for clemency prior to the Justice Department's efforts to free them. Indeed, no such petitions were ever filed. And the absence of petitions was not a mere oversight: the FALN terrorists refused to file such petitions because they do not recognize that their criminal acts were wrongful or that the United States government had the right to punish them for committing those acts. I have the utmost respect for the career men and women at the Justice Department. It appears, however, the Department caved in to political pressure in this case. Although it submitted a report in December 1996 recommending against the granting of clemency for the FALN terrorists-- which should have ended its involvement--the Pardon Attorney produced another report two-and-a-half years later reportedly changing its recommendation. The second report did not recommend either for or against the granting of clemency, violating the Justice Department regulation requiring that in every clemency case the Department ``shall report in writing [its] recommendation to the President, stating whether in [its] judgment the President should grant or deny the petition.'' Why did the Justice Department's recommendation change? What happened between the first report in December 1996 and the second one in the summer of 1999 that justified a reexamination and change of the Department's conclusion? Because of the President's assertion of executive privilege, we may never know for sure. It was a mistake for the President to let politics affect such an important clemency decision, but is much worse than a mistake when political pressure forces an independent agency to alter its advice against its better judgment. The Pardon Attorney Reform and Integrity Act will help prevent this from happening again. It will make available to the President access to the most pertinent facts concerning the exercise of executive clemency, including information from law enforcement agencies about the risks posed by any release from prison. It will also help ensure that--if the President chooses to have the Department of Justice conduct a clemency review--the victims of crime will not be shut out of the clemency process while terrorists and their organized sympathizers have access to--and obtain advice from--high government officials. In other words, this Act will insure that the tax-payer funded Justice Department will, when assisting the President in a clemency review, focus on public safety, not politics. Let me be clear that the Department of Justice is an agency which I have great respect for. Its employees are loyal, dedicated public servants. This bill is aimed at helping the Department, not hurting it. Specifically, our bill will do the following: 1. Give victims a voice by insuring that they are notified of key events in the clemency process and by giving them an opportunity to voice their opinions. 2. Enhance the voice of law enforcement by requiring the Pardon Attorney to notify the law enforcement community of a clemency investigation and permitting law enforcement to express its views on: the impact of clemency on the individuals affected by the decision--for example, victims and witnesses; whether clemency candidates have information which might help in other investigations; and whether granting clemency will increase the threat of terrorism or other criminal activity. Of course, it is the hope of all the co-sponsors--and all Americans-- that presidents will use the congressionally created and funded Office of the Pardon Attorney in order to make the best possible decisions regarding executive clemency. I believe that when Congress passes this bill--and should President Clinton sign it into law--future Presidents, victims, and the American public will be well served. If President Clinton wants to help in this effort to restore integrity to the clemency process, he will announce his support for this bill. Mr. President, I thank the many co-sponsors of this act, and I ask the rest of my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the confirmation of Alan Greenspan to a fourth term as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Mr. President, our economy has just completed its 107th month of expansion--a record period of growth in peacetime or war in our Nation. Our economy is the marvel of the world, and for good reason. The unemployment rate is at a record low, and the Gross Domestic Product grew at a rate of almost 6 percent in the second half of 1999. Despite this low unemployment and high growth, factors that can typically bring about strong inflation, inflation has been kept in check. Part of the reason for this is due to increases in productivity, which resulted in large part from the pro-growth economic policies of the 1980s as well as stunning technological advances. These technological advances are revolutionizing the way America does business and are changing the face of our economy. Some are calling it a ``new economy,'' because it seems to defy some of the conventional forces that shaped the economy in the past. Some are going so far as to suggest that the economic cycle may be dead and that we do not need to worry as much about these old forces. Now that the economy has surpassed all previous records of growth, there are signs that it is perhaps overheating. Yesterday, the Federal Open Market Committee and the Federal Reserve, under the leadership of Chairman Greenspan, raised the federal funds and the discount rates as a further measure to counter this possible overheating. Some are criticizing these moves, saying they are unnecessary and that the ``new economy'' does not need the same kind of restraint as did the old. But, Mr. President, I would certainly be cautious about second- guessing the wisdom of Alan Greenspan. Over the past 13 years, Alan Greenspan has been the voice of steady reason and common sense for our monetary policy. His policies have shown prescience, and his stewardship has been confident and strong. Chairman Greenspan has been the voice of common sense that the financial markets listen to and respect. I believe we are indeed fortunate to have had the services of Chairman Greenspan over the past 13 years, and I commend the President for reappointing him to this key post. I am greatly pleased and relieved that he is willing to serve another term. We need his experience. We need his wisdom. And we need his continuing steady hand at the helm of our monetary policy. Whether or not we truly have a new economy that will continue to defy traditional forces, I don't know. But I am very pleased that Alan Greenspan is here to guide us and I enthusiastically support his confirmation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendments be voted in the order in which they were debated today, with 4 minutes prior to each vote for explanation, divided equally. I ask unanimous consent the remaining parameters of the consent agreement then be in place.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, S. 625, the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act, is one of the most important legislative efforts to reform the bankruptcy laws in decades. I want to thank a few of the people who have worked on this bill. Let me first acknowledge the Majority Leader, who has worked very hard to keep this bill moving forward. Given the demanding Senate schedule, it would have been easier for him to have refused to take up the bill, but because of his dedication to the important reforms in this bill, we now have legislation that makes enormous strides in eliminating abuse in the bankruptcy system. I am also grateful to the assistant majority leader, Senator Nickles, along with Senators Daschle and Reid for their efforts in working with us to move the legislation forward. Let me also acknowledge the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, who has worked tirelessly to reach agreement on many of the bill's provisions, and who ably managed the bill for his side of the aisle. I also 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 tremendous efforts in crafting this much needed legislation. I particularly appreciate the dedication they have shown in making the passage of this bill an inclusive and bipartisan process. Also, let me express my thanks to Senator Sessions who has shown unwavering dedication to accomplishing the important reforms in this bill, to Senator Biden for his efforts over the past two years in helping see sensible reform through the Senate, and to the many other members of the Senate for their hard work and cooperation. At the Committee staff level, let me acknowledge a few people who have worked very hard on this bill. Kolan Davis and John McMickle of the Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee staff, along with Ed Haden, Kristi Lee and Sean Costello of the Youth Violence Subcommittee staff deserve praise for their impressive efforts on this legislation. In addition, Judiciary Committee Counsels Makan Delrahim, who was the lead counsel on this bill, Rene Augustine, and Kyle Sampson, as well as staff assistant Karen Wright, are to be commended for their hard work on this important bill. Thanks as well should be given to the Judiciary Committee's Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Manus Cooney, one of the most able and hard-working Chief Counsels the Committee has had. On Senator Leahy's Committee staff, I want to acknowledge Minority Chief Counsel Bruce Cohen, along with counsel Ed Pagano for their efforts. In addition, I want to recognize the tireless efforts of Eric Shuffler and Jennifer Leach of Senator Torricelli's staff, as well as the hard work of Jim Greene of Senator Biden's staff, the Youth Violence Subcommittee's Minority Chief Counsel Sheryl Walter, as well as Ben Lawsky of Senator Schumer's staff. I also want to commend Jim Hecht of the majority leader's staff, Stewart Verdery, Eric Ueland, and Matt Kirk of the assistant majority leader's staff, Jonathan Adelstein of Senator Daschle's staff, and Eddie Ayoob and Peter Arapis of the Minority Whip's staff for their efforts on this legislation. The compelling need for this reform is underscored by the dramatic rise we have seen over the past several years in bankruptcy filings. The Bankruptcy Code was liberalized back in 1978, and since that time, consumer bankruptcy filings have risen at an unprecedented rate. Mr. President, the bankruptcy system was intended to provide a ``fresh start'' for those who truly need it. We need to preserve the bankruptcy system within limits to allow individuals to emerge from severe financial hardship. What we do not need is to preserve the elements of the system that allow it to be abused--that allow some debtors to use bankruptcy as a financial planning tool rather than as a last resort. I firmly believe that by allowing people who can repay their debts to avoid their financial obligations, we are doing a disservice to the honest and hardworking people in this country who end up paying for it. Mr. President, again I would like to applaud the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues who have made S. 625 a broadly-supported bill. The impact of this important legislation not only will be to curb the rampant number of frivolous bankruptcy filings, but also will be to give a boost to our economy.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have said before, this amendment bars firearm manufacturers and sellers, including retailers, from business reorganization under the bankruptcy code by not allowing the discharge of debts that might result from one of these recently filed tort suits. That means a major retailer could go bankrupt and would not be able to reorganize to be able to pay off their debts. It would just gradually be sold off to meet the needs of this particular amendment. Manufacturers that could pay off injured parties substantially in full over time would simply not be able to do so under this amendment. Instead, they would be forced into liquidation. It is both poor policy and a dangerous precedent to single out an unpopular industry for unfavorable treatment under the bankruptcy code. This is political correctness gone awry. As I recall, there are 18 exemptions on the personal side but none on the corporate side in this bill so far. Let us keep the bankruptcy laws nondiscriminatory in the sense of attacking and loading it up on an unpopular business just for political purposes. That is the wrong political correctness to be used. In this particular case, it just doesn't make sense. We ought to want them to go into reorganization so the debts could be paid and the business might be able to survive. That is why this amendment needs to be voted down. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, many Members have come to different conclusions as to the need for this amendment concerning the dischargeability of debts related to abortion clinic violence. It is clear from today's debate, nobody in the Congress supports violence at abortion clinics, or at any other venue. Those of us who support bankruptcy reform do not believe that the bankruptcy laws should be used to shield any acts of violence. Many of us believe that current law already precludes those found guilty of violent activities at abortion clinics from discharging debts arising from such activity in bankruptcy. But apparently the sponsors of the amendment believe there is more than can be done in this area. Although I believe this amendment to be tremendously flawed, the majority leader, Senator Grassley, and I recommend that members on both sides vote for this amendment. We will, in good faith, in conference correct the amendment and resolve these problems at that time. With this amendment accepted, nobody will be able to politically demagogue this issue in the context of true bankruptcy reform. We pledge to work with our friends on both sides of the aisle who are interested in this issue during conference to make sure that the law is clear, that with due respect for the first amendment, debts arising from violent acts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New York is coming to the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum until we start the 2 minutes of debate on each side.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, at the end of this matter we are going to vote on these amendments. Then we will have a managers' amendment and finish the bill. I want to personally express my respect for and appreciation of both Senators Grassley, Torricelli, and others for the hard work they have done in bringing this bill through the subcommittee and through the Judiciary Committee and on to the floor. Senator Sessions has been a very solid supporter of good bankruptcy legislation, as well as others on the Judiciary Committee--I hate to leave anybody out--but especially Senators Grassley and Torricelli. They deserve a lot of respect for what was a very difficult bill to bring through even a subcommittee, let alone the full committee and the floor. I am hopeful we will get this bill all the way through and signed by the President. It is a bill that will make a great deal of difference in everybody's lives and, I think, will set the bankruptcy code in the direction it should go and stop some of the fraud and some of the misuses of bankruptcy that are going on currently in our bankruptcy system. There are some things we will have to work on in conference; there is no question about that. We will try to perfect this bill as best we can, hopefully, so that both sides are pleased with it. There are some problems that naturally do exist, but we will work with our friends on the other side and see what we can do to resolve any conflicts we have. Again, I thank the distinguished ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. He and his staff have played an excellent role, along with the staffs of Senators Grassley and Torricelli, in helping to bring this about. I thank my own staff for the work they have done. All of these staff members have worked diligently to do what is a very good job on bankruptcy. Having said that, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. HATCH. Yes. We already had that.

Mr. HATCH. Therefore, a series of votes will shortly occur in the following order, with passage the last in this series: Schumer amendment No. 2763, Feingold amendment No. 2748, Levin amendment No. 2658, and the Schumer amendment No. 2762. I might mention that on the last amendment there is a possibility we may be able to resolve that amendment. If we do, then there will only be three votes and final passage. If we cannot resolve it, we will have four votes and final passage.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, look, let's not get this amendment mixed up. The current law takes care of actual injury. It takes care of malicious injury and willful injury by the debtor. That is not discharged in bankruptcy. So it has nothing to do with violence. The current law takes care of that. None of us condone violence. That is not what this amendment is about. Look at the doggone language of this amendment. It is unbelievable. What it says here is, ``an actual or potential action alleging the violation of any Federal, State, or local statutory or common law'' and ``that results from the debtor's actual, attempted, or alleged harassment. . .'' What does that mean? ``Intimidation of. . .'' What does that mean? If somebody says ``boo,'' are they intimidating and they could not be discharged in bankruptcy, in an unjust case in bankruptcy where they haven't caused any harm or willful malicious injury? Interference with? Obstruction of? This is an overreach if there ever was one, since we already have bankruptcy law that provides nondischargeability of debts of a debtor who has caused willful or malicious injury to another person, or even to the clinic, I suppose. We should not get into a type of social engineering in the bankruptcy code since we already take care of willful and malicious activities. When you start talking about harassment, intimidation, obstruction, interference--these are words that can be used in a criminal code, but they should not be used in the bankruptcy code which already provides for willful, malicious injury by the debtor as nondischargeable in bankruptcy. I think when we get into that stuff we are getting into areas that basically disrupt the code and should not be part of the code. None of us tolerate or approve of violence at the abortion clinics. Some of these anti-abortion people who have committed violence should be punished to the full extent of the law. They should not be allowed to get away with it. Whichever side you are on in this issue ought to be a side of debate and a side of honest debate, not a side of violence. But we take care of willful and malicious injury, which may not even be violence. It may be something that even involves negligence, I suppose. We take care of it in the current code. Why should we amend the code just because some would like to do so with this strange and very undefined language. Plus, it is something that everybody ought to think about--improper and illegal, or should I say nonlegal, to argue that this amendment is all about violence. It is not at all. It is about extending what is already covered to areas that literally do not involve violence or malicious injury or willful and violent and malicious conduct. That is not what the bankruptcy code should be all about. I hope our colleagues will vote this amendment down. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, bankruptcy law already covers willful, malicious, intentional conduct about which the distinguished Senator from Washington has been talking. I rise to speak in opposition to this amendment offered by the Senator from New York. Nobody in this body condones violence of any kind. There is no excuse for it; that is, whether it is committed at an abortion clinic, whether it is committed by labor unions, or whether it is committed against churches, or for any other reason. But this amendment has nothing legitimate to do with bankruptcy reform. In my view, we should focus on our task of providing real bankruptcy relief for the American people. This amendment is unnecessary. It provides that debts and liabilities arising from abortion clinic violence would not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. There simply is no need to place damages regarding access to abortions in a special class with special protections above other damages for other actions, including, for example, actions under civil rights laws. Not only is it poor policy to segregate certain classes of violence for special status in bankruptcy, but the bankruptcy code already allows for the nondischargeability of debts for ``willful and malicious injury by the debtor.'' This is already taken care of, if that is what the Senator is really concerned about, willful and malicious injury caused by the debtor. Indeed, I asked to include a summary of a recent case in the Record. In that case, the Behn case, it is said, in a newspaper report of that case: A veteran anti-abortion protester cannot use bankruptcy to erase a debt of more than $50,000 in court-imposed fines, legal fees and interest she owes a Buffalo clinic that performs abortions, a federal judge has ruled. ``If anyone thought they might escape penalties for violating a judge's order through bankruptcy,'' said Glenn E. Murray, a lawyer who represented the clinic, ``they should read this decision.'' Already the law takes care of what the distinguished Senator from New York would like to have taken care of. Notwithstanding that this amendment is entitled ``Nondischargeability of Debts Incurred Through the Commission of Violence at Clinics,'' its reach extends much more broadly. That is where the danger comes in. For example, the amendment, by its own terms, is not limited to acts of violence, as the title would lead us to believe, but covers acts of ``interference with'' a person seeking an abortion, whatever that means. In addition, the amendment refers to ``an actual or potential action under any Federal, State, or local law'' having to do with providing abortions. As I read this language, it goes far beyond the discrete issue of violence at abortion clinics. In fact, if you read this language in the actual amendment, it has some very strange language in it. It says, in paragraph (3)(C): an actual or potential action alleging the violation of any Federal, State, or local statutory or common law, including chapter 96 of title 18 and the Federal civil rights laws (including sections 1977 through 1980 of the Revised Statutes) that results from the debtor's actual, attempted, or alleged--(i) harassment of, intimidation of, interference with, obstruction of . . . Then it gets into injury to, threat to, or violence against any person. Look at that language: harassment, intimidation, interference. My goodness. I urge my colleagues to read the actual text of the amendment before they vote. If they believe they are voting on an amendment that strictly covers acts of violence at abortion clinics, they are mistaken. Who knows how this amendment is going to be applied otherwise. The bankruptcy law already takes care of violence, abortion clinic violence, if you will. It does not discharge that in bankruptcy. The cases so state. I do not think we should fail to recognize that the bankruptcy code already provides or allows for the nondischargeability of debts ``for willful and malicious injury by the debtor.'' This goes far beyond real injury. This actually could be used to oppress people who legitimately feel otherwise than the abortion clinic does. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. At the appropriate time, I am sure the distinguished Senator from Iowa or myself will move to table the amendment. I hope we can reject this amendment. I hope it is not necessary for the Vice President to come and break a tie vote on this matter. I think this would be catastrophic language in the bankruptcy code, which already does take care of violence at abortion clinics. Case law so states. This is just another overreach by those who want to make a political issue out of something that does not deserve to be in the bankruptcy code, although I believe it is a sincere overreach that perhaps is not considered such by my dear friend from New York, for whom I have a lot of esteem in the law. I am concerned about this kind of language. It is very broad, very undefined. No question that it goes far beyond actual injury, far beyond malicious conduct, far beyond willful and malicious injury that the bankruptcy code already covers. We have enough in the code to take care of problems at abortion clinics without putting in harassment, intimidation, interference, and obstruction into the bankruptcy code. I reserve the remainder of our time.