Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to call the Senate's attention to the recent retirement of Air Force Brigadier General John L. Clay who is retiring after 28 years of dedicated service to our country. General Clay, a native of Utah, joined the Air Force following his graduation from the United States Air Force Academy. He has served honorably and professionally in a variety of research and development assignments encompassing armaments, missiles and space programs. He is renowned as a developer and manager of many space systems programs and currently serves as the Director of Space and Nuclear Deterrence in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. His outstanding leadership, management expertise, and foresight have been the foundation for the success of major ICBM and space force improvements and the effective use of $50 billion of the defense budget. General Clay directed the effort to replace the Minuteman missile guidance system. This vitally important accomplishment now provides the nation with a key element of our strategic deterrence capability. This was the first major modification to the Minuteman system in almost 30 years. Additionally, he was instrumental in the comprehensive national review of our nation's space launch program, including the innovative Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program which has resulted in the establishment of two internationally competitive commercial families of vehicles capable of meeting government and commercial needs. General Clay also established the Shared Early Warning System program following the September 1998 summit agreement between Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin. This program is a milestone in strategic partnerships as it allows the United States and partner countries to share early warning data. It also establishes a first-ever Center for Strategic Stability in Colorado Springs for the upcoming Y2K changeover. This Center will provide launch information to a jointly manned U.S.-Russian operations team during the Y2K rollover period. Unquestionably, Brigadier General John L. Clay is a man of unwavering loyalty and dedication. He has earned the respect of his colleagues in the Air Force, defense contractors, and members of Congress. On behalf of the Senate, I am pleased to convey to General Clay, my fellow Utahns, and his wife, Beverly, our best wishes on the occasion of his retirement and express our appreciation for his service to our country. We wish them well as they embark on this new chapter in their lives.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Minnesota that would impose an 18-month moratorium on mergers in the food processing industry. While I oppose this amendment, I understand Senator Wellstone's motivation in offering it. I share his concern over the rapid vertical and horizontal integration in the food processing industry and the effect this trend may have had on family farmers. The livestock industry for beef cattle and hogs has experienced low prices for too long. In fact, the price for live hogs recently reached its lowest level since the Great Depression. Family farms are the backbone of our rural communities, yet family farms are failing. Farmers now receive 36 percent less for their products than they did 15 years ago. Mr. President, there are not many other honest, hardworking Americans who can say that their salaries have gone down by 36 percent over the last decade. Some farmers have complained that the concentration within the industry has restricted their choice of buyers for their products. Many factors have contributed to the troubles farmers have faced recently--consolidation within the food processing industry may not be the sole cause of these troubles, though I recognize it could well be a cause. The recent rate of consolidation, however, is a concern to me, and for this reason I recently pledged a full and comprehensive review of this matter by the full Senate Judiciary Committee. We need to look at the entire spectrum of the food industry to explore the extent to which consolidation within the industry is adversely affecting family farmers. We also need to examine whether existing antitrust statutes are being adequately enforced and whether any changes to federal law are warranted. While I sympathize with the amendment offered by Senator Wellstone, I am afraid that it does nothing to shed further light on the matter. Not only does the amendment fail to address the heart of the matter, it may even do more harm than good for our farmers. We cannot possibly understand all of the implications of placing an 18-month moratorium on agribusiness mergers. It is very likely, Mr. President, that smaller food processing plants will rely on mergers with larger processors if they are to survive. Placing a moratorium on mergers could actually cause smaller firms to go out of business. In such a case, this amendment would surely stop a merger, but putting a smaller firm out of business is a less desirable outcome than allowing mergers to go forward. Many of these smaller processors are actually owned by farmers. We cannot afford to lose our family farms in this country, and I think everyone recognizes that. Let us deal with this issue pragmatically. Let us get to the bottom of this problem. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. We should first allow the Judiciary Committee to fully examine these issues and prudently determine what effect, if any, consolidation in the industry has on the plight of the family farmer. The type of market interference proposed by this amendment is simply wrong and I urge my colleagues to reject it. Mr. President, I would like to make some additional remarks regarding concentration in the food processing industry. I have been as concerned about concentration in the food processing industry as any Member of this body. My concern over the concentration in the food processing industry led me to break the logjam on the Livestock Concentration Report Act in the 104th Congress and get it through the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate. My concern over concentration in the processing industry led me to introduce the Interstate Distribution of State-Inspected Meat Act of 1997 in the 105th Congress. This bill would have helped to shore up and enhance competition in the meatpacking industry. My concern over this issue led me to pass an amendment in the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture appropriations bill that required the USDA to produce a proposal with regard to the interstate distribution issue. I am also considering legislation, along with Senator Daschle, to codify the USDA's proposal, which goes even further toward shoring up competition in the meatpacking industry. Finally, I have recently unveiled my plan for the Judiciary Committee to provide a full and comprehensive review of the concentration issue. So far, we have had some excellent studies on this issue. Here is just a small sampling of the many studies already completed with regard to consolidation in the food processing industry: (1) A GAO Report entitled: ``Packers and Stockyards Administration: Oversight of Livestock Market Competitiveness Needs to Be Enhanced'' (October 1991). (2) ``Concentration in Agriculture: A Report of the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration'' (June 1996). (3) A USDA report entitled: ``Concentration in the Red Meat Packing Industry'' (February 1996). (4) A GAO report entitled: ``Packers and Stockyards Program: USDA's Response to Studies on Concentration in the Livestock Industry'' (April 1997). (5) A report of the USDA Officer of Inspector General entitled: ``Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration: Evaluation of Agency Efforts to Monitor and Investigate Anti-competitive Practices in the Meatpacking Industry'' (February 1997). I believe the next step is not another study. The next step is to examine whether existing antitrust statutes are being adequately enforced and whether any changes to Federal law are warranted to help remedy the situation. I suggest that a moratorium on mergers has the potential for causing more harm than good. A moratorium is not an issue that has been studied, and frankly, the unintended consequences could be that some processors are forced to go out of business due to the ban on mergers. This would have exactly the opposite effect that we are hoping for. I might add, that farmers from my State who have been very concerned about the concentration issue have also expressed their opposition to the Wellstone amendment, for this reason.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in its current form, the bankruptcy reform bill attempts to resolve a major area of bankruptcy abuse, known as ``load up.'' In plain terms, load up occurs when a debtor goes on a spending spree shortly before filing for bankruptcy. Under S. 625, limits are placed on a debtor's ability to buy luxury goods and take out large cash advances on the eve of bankruptcy. The bill accomplishes this by creating a rebuttable presumption that certain debts are not dischargeable. Specifically, the bill provides that debts of more than $250 per credit card for luxury goods, that are incurred within 3 months of bankruptcy, and cash advances of more than $750, incurred within 70 days of bankruptcy, are presumed to be fraudulent and are non-dischargeable. These provisions, while an improvement over current law, are by no means a solution to the load up problem. Debtors still essentially are free to take out a cash advance of $750 and buy luxury goods valued at $250 on each of their credit cards before even the presumption of nondischargeability kicks in. It also is important to note that under the bill, luxury goods specifically exclude ``goods or services reasonably necessary for the support or maintenance of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor.'' Many have complained that these provisions do not go far enough to close the load up loophole. The amendment by the Senator from New York, in contrast, undermines the bill's modest anti-load up provisions by applying them only to those with income above the national median. Simply stated, the amendment would create an unjustified double standard, with those who fall under the national median income being permitted to load up on luxury goods and cash advances before filing for bankruptcy, as permitted by current law. If we seriously intend to reform our bankruptcy laws and eliminate fraud in the system, we cannot let this major loophole continue without any reasonable limits.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today Senator Leahy and I are introducing a civil asset forfeiture reform bill. First and foremost, I want to emphasize that civil asset forfeiture is an important tool in America's fight against crime and drugs. Last year, the federal government seized nearly $500 million in assets. It is vitally important that the fruits of crime and the property used to commit crimes are forfeited to the government. In recent years, however, there have been numerous examples of civil asset forfeiture actions that should not have been taken. While the vast majority of civil asset forfeiture actions are justified, there have been cases in which government officials did not use good judgment. Some would even say that civil asset forfeiture has been abused in some instances by overzealous law enforcement officials. I will mention just a few examples of such imprudent civil forfeiture actions. In United States v. $506,231, 125 F.3d 442 (7th Cir. 1997), the court dismissed a forfeiture action involving $506,231 and scolded the government for its conduct. In this case, state authorities obtained a warrant to search a pizzeria for stolen goods. During the search of the restaurant, authorities did not find any stolen goods, but they did discover a large amount of currency. Criminal charges were not filed against the owners of the restaurant. Nevertheless, alleging that the currency was related to narcotics, the federal government filed a civil complaint for forfeiture of the $506,231. Four years after the money was seized, the court dismissed the forfeiture complaint and returned the currency to its owner. The court found that the evidence ``does not come close to showing any connection between the money and narcotics,'' that ``there is no evidence that drug trafficking was going on at the pizzeria,'' and that ``nothing ties this money to any narcotics activities that the government knew about or charged, or to any crime that was occurring when the government attempted to seize the property.'' At the conclusion of the case, the court stated that ``we believe the government's conduct in forfeiture cases leaves much to be desired.'' Even more disturbing is United States v. $14,665, 33 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D. Mass. 1998). In this case, airline officials informed the police that a passenger, Manuel Espinola, was carrying a large amount of currency in a briefcase. The police questioned Espinola about the $14,665 in cash. Espinola, a 23-year-old man who purchased the plane ticket in his own name, told the police that he and his brother earned the money selling personal care products for a company called Equinox International. When the police asked Espinola what the money was going to be used for, he stated that he was planning to move to Las Vegas and intended to use the cash as a down payment on a home. Espinola told police that he did not deposit the currency in a bank because he was afraid that it might be attached due to a prior credit problem. Espinola also gave the police a pager number of a co-worker who he said could verify his employment and his plans in Las Vegas. Based on Espinola's explanation, the police officer seized the money because the officer believed it was related to purchase narcotics. The officer did not arrest Espinola, who had no criminal record. After the seizure, in an attempt to get his money back, Espinola submitted documents that largely confirmed his explanation of the currency, including receipts for personal care products from Equinox International and copies of a settlement check from a personal injury claim. By contrast, the government offered no additional evidence that the currency was related to drugs and was subject to forfeiture. The court granted summary judgment to Espinola and, in its order, harshly criticized the forfeiture action. The court stated: ``Even in the byzantine world of forfeiture law, this case is an example of overreaching. The government's showing of probable cause is completely inadequate, based on a troubling mix of baseless generalizations, leaps of logic or worse, blatant ethnic stereotyping.'' Nearly two years after the police seized his money without any evidence it was related to narcotics, the court returned the currency to Espinola. Other federal courts have also criticized federal civil forfeiture actions. For example, in 1992, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated: ``We continue to be enormously troubled by the government's increasing and virtually unchecked use of the civil forfeiture statutes and the disregard for due process that is buried in those statutes.'' While I believe that these and other cases prove the need for some reform of civil asset forfeiture law, I want to take this opportunity to praise federal law enforcement officials. Federal law enforcement does an outstanding job fighting crime under the most difficult circumstances. In short, Mr. President, I believe that the problems with civil asset forfeiture have much more to do with defects in the law than with the character or competency of federal law enforcement officials. Senator Leahy and I drafted this bill to improve civil asset forfeiture law and ensure the continued use of civil asset forfeiture in appropriate cases. The Hatch-Leahy bill makes important improvements to existing law. I will describe a few of these improvements today. The first major reform places the burden of proof in civil asset forfeiture cases on the government throughout the proceeding. Under current law, the government is only required to make an initial showing of probable cause that the property is connected to criminal activity and is thus subject to forfeiture. After the government makes this modest showing, the burden then shifts to the property owner to prove that the property was not involved in criminal activity. Not surprisingly, the fact that the property owner bears the burden of proving the property is not subject to forfeiture has been extensively criticized by the federal judiciary and numerous legal commentators. As one federal court that has been particularly critical of civil asset forfeiture noted, placing the burden of proof on the property owner is a ``constitutional anomaly.'' United States v. $49,576, 116 F.3d 425 (9th. Cir. 1997). The court in $49,576 even questioned whether requiring a property owner to bear the burden of proof in a civil forfeiture action is constitutional: ``We would find it surprising were the Constitution to permit such an important decision to turn on a meager burden of proof like probable cause.'' I, too, believe that placing the burden of proof on the property owner contradicts our nation's traditional notions of justice and fairness. Under the Hatch-Leahy bill, the government will have the burden in civil forfeiture actions to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the property is connected with criminal activity and is subject to forfeiture. Another major reform in the Hatch-Leahy bill involves what is known as the cost bond. Under current civil forfeiture law, a property owner must post a cost bond of the lessor of $5,000 or 10 percent of the value of the property seized in order to contest a seizure of property. It is important to note that the cost bond merely allows the property owner to contest the forfeiture. It does not entitle the property owner to the return of the property pending trial. I believe that it is fundamentally unfair to require a person to post a bond in order to be allowed to contest the seizure of property. For example, what if the government required persons who were indicted to post a bond to contest the indictment? Such a requirement would be unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment. I believe that requiring a property owner to post a bond to contest the seizure of property is no less objectionable. Such a requirement, Mr. President, seems un- American. The framers of our Constitution would be appalled to know that the federal government, after seizing private property, required the property owner to post a bond in order to contest the seizure. The Justice Department argues that the cost bond requirement reduces frivolous claims. To address this concern, the Hatch-Leahy bill requires that a person who challenges a forfeiture must file his claim to the property under oath, subject to penalty of perjury. I predict that eliminating the cost bond will produce, at most, minor inconveniences because persons who file frivolous claims will be deterred by the substantial legal fees and costs incurred in contesting the forfeiture. After all, who is willing to hire counsel and pay other expenses to litigate a frivolous claim, especially when subject to penalty of perjury? Another reform in the Hatch-Leahy bill addresses the situation in which the government's possession of seized property pending trial causes hardship to the property owner. Under current law, the government maintains possession of seized property pending trial even if it causes hardship to the property owner. A common example of such hardship is where the government seizes an automobile, and the seizure prevents the property owner or members of the property owner's family from getting to and from work pending the forfeiture trial. The Hatch- Leahy bill changes current law to allow, but not require, the court to release property pending trial if the court determines that the hardship to the property owner of continued possession by the government outweighs the risk that the property will be damaged or lost. This is a common sense reform that allows the court to release property in appropriate cases. Another reform in the Hatch-Leahy bill involves reimbursement of attorney fees. The Hatch-Leahy bill awards attorney fees and costs to property owners who prevail against the government in civil forfeiture cases. The costs of contesting a civil forfeiture of property can be substantial. The award of attorney fees and costs to property owners who prevail against the government in civil forfeiture cases is justified because unlike criminal forfeiture actions, the property owner is not charged with a crime. Instead, the government proceeds ``in rem'' against the property. Given that the government does not sue or indict the property owner, it is unfair for the property owner to have to incur attorney fees and costs when the government does not prevail in civil forfeiture actions. The award of attorney fees is also justified because the government only has to prove its case against the property by a preponderance of the evidence. By contrast, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that property is subject to forfeiture in criminal forfeiture actions. If the government decides to pursue a civil forfeiture action instead of the more difficult to prove criminal forfeiture action, it should be obligated to pay the attorney fees and costs of the property owner when the property owner prevails. Mr. President, I would like to emphasize that while the Hatch-Leahy Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act contains important reforms; it retains civil forfeiture as an important tool for law enforcement. In fact, the Hatch-Leahy bill is a cautious, responsible reform. Some would even argue that this bill is too modest. A comparison of the reforms enacted by the State of California in 1993 is instructive. For example, California changed its civil forfeiture law to require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and achieve a related criminal conviction in most civil asset forfeiture cases. The exception to this rule in California involves seizures of currency in excess of $25,000. In these cases, the State must prove the currency is subject to forfeiture by clear and convincing evidence. Also, California abolished the cost bond in civil forfeiture cases. In short, California's reforms go far beyond anything in the Hatch- Leahy bill, but these reforms have not undermined civil asset forfeiture as a law enforcement tool. The modest reforms in the Hatch- Leahy bill will add much needed protections for property owners at no significant costs to law enforcement. By making these needed reforms, the Hatch-Leahy bill will preserve civil forfeiture as a law enforcement tool for the future. Lastly, I would like to thank Senator Leahy and his staff for their tireless effort on this legislation. Senator Leahy has been an advocate for civil asset forfeiture reform for many years. He is one of the leading champions of civil liberties in the Senate. This legislation would not have occurred without his interest and persistence, and I thank him for his efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a section-by-section summary of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, occasionally in Washington, an individual crosses our paths whose talents go beyond legal and government relations skills or polished representation of political and policy issues, and extend to an elusive higher level. At this level, we think of him not as a creature of the policies he advocates but as a person--a man of integrity and decency. Mike Petrina is such a man. Generous and unfailingly courteous, Mike has represented the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association with intelligence, savvy, and charm. In doing his job well, he also has achieved what is often very difficult in this town--an excellent reputation as a genuinely nice guy. Before he joined CTFA, Mike worked as legislative counsel to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, as an attorney both in private practice and in community legal services, and as a legislative assistant to the late Representative Silvio Conte. In each of these capacities, his watchword was integrity and his purpose was to achieve the goal without compromising either his own principles or the credibility of his employer. It is clear that among the defining moments of Mike's life--those moments that signaled how successful he would be here in wonk universe, were his quiz show triumphs. If winning on Jeopardy doesn't tell us anything else about a person, it tells us that he will always be able to produce an obscure fact and that he can react instantaneously to a totally unexpected question or comment. Surely those two skills suited Mike superbly for his fruitful Washington career. Mike has chosen to retire early in the year 2000, when he is young enough to enjoy his retirement and to have a long time to do it. I wish him well, and want him to know that many of us here will miss him. With Mike and CTFA president Ed Kavanaugh, the industry made a lasting mark on the Utah Children's Charities through contributions of products to our golf tournament each August. I have been grateful for the contribution and, more importantly, for the spirit of good will that always characterized my interactions with CTFA and with Mike. Mike illustrated, through effective use of his talents, the sense of humor that always tided him over the tough moments, and his gentle approach to people, what the poet and artist J. Stone once said: ``the most visible creators I know of are those artists whose medium is life itself . . . They neither paint nor sculpt--their medium is being. Whatever their presence touches has increased life.'' I am sure I speak for all those who worked with Mike in thanking him for all he did here to make our work together so pleasant and productive. I wish Mike Petrina a long and enjoyable retirement, and urge him to remember always the words of Robert Browning: ``The best is yet to be, the last of life for which the first was made.''

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today Senator Leahy and I are introducing a civil asset forfeiture reform bill. First and foremost, I want to emphasize that civil asset forfeiture is an important tool in America's fight against crime and drugs. Last year, the federal government seized nearly $500 million in assets. It is vitally important that the fruits of crime and the property used to commit crimes are forfeited to the government. In recent years, however, there have been numerous examples of civil asset forfeiture actions that should not have been taken. While the vast majority of civil asset forfeiture actions are justified, there have been cases in which government officials did not use good judgment. Some would even say that civil asset forfeiture has been abused in some instances by overzealous law enforcement officials. I will mention just a few examples of such imprudent civil forfeiture actions. In United States v. $506,231, 125 F.3d 442 (7th Cir. 1997), the court dismissed a forfeiture action involving $506,231 and scolded the government for its conduct. In this case, state authorities obtained a warrant to search a pizzeria for stolen goods. During the search of the restaurant, authorities did not find any stolen goods, but they did discover a large amount of currency. Criminal charges were not filed against the owners of the restaurant. Nevertheless, alleging that the currency was related to narcotics, the federal government filed a civil complaint for forfeiture of the $506,231. Four years after the money was seized, the court dismissed the forfeiture complaint and returned the currency to its owner. The court found that the evidence ``does not come close to showing any connection between the money and narcotics,'' that ``there is no evidence that drug trafficking was going on at the pizzeria,'' and that ``nothing ties this money to any narcotics activities that the government knew about or charged, or to any crime that was occurring when the government attempted to seize the property.'' At the conclusion of the case, the court stated that ``we believe the government's conduct in forfeiture cases leaves much to be desired.'' Even more disturbing is United States v. $14,665, 33 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D. Mass. 1998). In this case, airline officials informed the police that a passenger, Manuel Espinola, was carrying a large amount of currency in a briefcase. The police questioned Espinola about the $14,665 in cash. Espinola, a 23-year-old man who purchased the plane ticket in his own name, told the police that he and his brother earned the money selling personal care products for a company called Equinox International. When the police asked Espinola what the money was going to be used for, he stated that he was planning to move to Las Vegas and intended to use the cash as a down payment on a home. Espinola told police that he did not deposit the currency in a bank because he was afraid that it might be attached due to a prior credit problem. Espinola also gave the police a pager number of a co-worker who he said could verify his employment and his plans in Las Vegas. Based on Espinola's explanation, the police officer seized the money because the officer believed it was related to purchase narcotics. The officer did not arrest Espinola, who had no criminal record. After the seizure, in an attempt to get his money back, Espinola submitted documents that largely confirmed his explanation of the currency, including receipts for personal care products from Equinox International and copies of a settlement check from a personal injury claim. By contrast, the government offered no additional evidence that the currency was related to drugs and was subject to forfeiture. The court granted summary judgment to Espinola and, in its order, harshly criticized the forfeiture action. The court stated: ``Even in the byzantine world of forfeiture law, this case is an example of overreaching. The government's showing of probable cause is completely inadequate, based on a troubling mix of baseless generalizations, leaps of logic or worse, blatant ethnic stereotyping.'' Nearly two years after the police seized his money without any evidence it was related to narcotics, the court returned the currency to Espinola. Other federal courts have also criticized federal civil forfeiture actions. For example, in 1992, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated: ``We continue to be enormously troubled by the government's increasing and virtually unchecked use of the civil forfeiture statutes and the disregard for due process that is buried in those statutes.'' While I believe that these and other cases prove the need for some reform of civil asset forfeiture law, I want to take this opportunity to praise federal law enforcement officials. Federal law enforcement does an outstanding job fighting crime under the most difficult circumstances. In short, Mr. President, I believe that the problems with civil asset forfeiture have much more to do with defects in the law than with the character or competency of federal law enforcement officials. Senator Leahy and I drafted this bill to improve civil asset forfeiture law and ensure the continued use of civil asset forfeiture in appropriate cases. The Hatch-Leahy bill makes important improvements to existing law. I will describe a few of these improvements today. The first major reform places the burden of proof in civil asset forfeiture cases on the government throughout the proceeding. Under current law, the government is only required to make an initial showing of probable cause that the property is connected to criminal activity and is thus subject to forfeiture. After the government makes this modest showing, the burden then shifts to the property owner to prove that the property was not involved in criminal activity. Not surprisingly, the fact that the property owner bears the burden of proving the property is not subject to forfeiture has been extensively criticized by the federal judiciary and numerous legal commentators. As one federal court that has been particularly critical of civil asset forfeiture noted, placing the burden of proof on the property owner is a ``constitutional anomaly.'' United States v. $49,576, 116 F.3d 425 (9th. Cir. 1997). The court in $49,576 even questioned whether requiring a property owner to bear the burden of proof in a civil forfeiture action is constitutional: ``We would find it surprising were the Constitution to permit such an important decision to turn on a meager burden of proof like probable cause.'' I, too, believe that placing the burden of proof on the property owner contradicts our nation's traditional notions of justice and fairness. Under the Hatch-Leahy bill, the government will have the burden in civil forfeiture actions to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the property is connected with criminal activity and is subject to forfeiture. Another major reform in the Hatch-Leahy bill involves what is known as the cost bond. Under current civil forfeiture law, a property owner must post a cost bond of the lessor of $5,000 or 10 percent of the value of the property seized in order to contest a seizure of property. It is important to note that the cost bond merely allows the property owner to contest the forfeiture. It does not entitle the property owner to the return of the property pending trial. I believe that it is fundamentally unfair to require a person to post a bond in order to be allowed to contest the seizure of property. For example, what if the government required persons who were indicted to post a bond to contest the indictment? Such a requirement would be unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment. I believe that requiring a property owner to post a bond to contest the seizure of property is no less objectionable. Such a requirement, Mr. President, seems un- American. The framers of our Constitution would be appalled to know that the federal government, after seizing private property, required the property owner to post a bond in order to contest the seizure. The Justice Department argues that the cost bond requirement reduces frivolous claims. To address this concern, the Hatch-Leahy bill requires that a person who challenges a forfeiture must file his claim to the property under oath, subject to penalty of perjury. I predict that eliminating the cost bond will produce, at most, minor inconveniences because persons who file frivolous claims will be deterred by the substantial legal fees and costs incurred in contesting the forfeiture. After all, who is willing to hire counsel and pay other expenses to litigate a frivolous claim, especially when subject to penalty of perjury? Another reform in the Hatch-Leahy bill addresses the situation in which the government's possession of seized property pending trial causes hardship to the property owner. Under current law, the government maintains possession of seized property pending trial even if it causes hardship to the property owner. A common example of such hardship is where the government seizes an automobile, and the seizure prevents the property owner or members of the property owner's family from getting to and from work pending the forfeiture trial. The Hatch- Leahy bill changes current law to allow, but not require, the court to release property pending trial if the court determines that the hardship to the property owner of continued possession by the government outweighs the risk that the property will be damaged or lost. This is a common sense reform that allows the court to release property in appropriate cases. Another reform in the Hatch-Leahy bill involves reimbursement of attorney fees. The Hatch-Leahy bill awards attorney fees and costs to property owners who prevail against the government in civil forfeiture cases. The costs of contesting a civil forfeiture of property can be substantial. The award of attorney fees and costs to property owners who prevail against the government in civil forfeiture cases is justified because unlike criminal forfeiture actions, the property owner is not charged with a crime. Instead, the government proceeds ``in rem'' against the property. Given that the government does not sue or indict the property owner, it is unfair for the property owner to have to incur attorney fees and costs when the government does not prevail in civil forfeiture actions. The award of attorney fees is also justified because the government only has to prove its case against the property by a preponderance of the evidence. By contrast, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that property is subject to forfeiture in criminal forfeiture actions. If the government decides to pursue a civil forfeiture action instead of the more difficult to prove criminal forfeiture action, it should be obligated to pay the attorney fees and costs of the property owner when the property owner prevails. Mr. President, I would like to emphasize that while the Hatch-Leahy Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act contains important reforms; it retains civil forfeiture as an important tool for law enforcement. In fact, the Hatch-Leahy bill is a cautious, responsible reform. Some would even argue that this bill is too modest. A comparison of the reforms enacted by the State of California in 1993 is instructive. For example, California changed its civil forfeiture law to require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and achieve a related criminal conviction in most civil asset forfeiture cases. The exception to this rule in California involves seizures of currency in excess of $25,000. In these cases, the State must prove the currency is subject to forfeiture by clear and convincing evidence. Also, California abolished the cost bond in civil forfeiture cases. In short, California's reforms go far beyond anything in the Hatch- Leahy bill, but these reforms have not undermined civil asset forfeiture as a law enforcement tool. The modest reforms in the Hatch- Leahy bill will add much needed protections for property owners at no significant costs to law enforcement. By making these needed reforms, the Hatch-Leahy bill will preserve civil forfeiture as a law enforcement tool for the future. Lastly, I would like to thank Senator Leahy and his staff for their tireless effort on this legislation. Senator Leahy has been an advocate for civil asset forfeiture reform for many years. He is one of the leading champions of civil liberties in the Senate. This legislation would not have occurred without his interest and persistence, and I thank him for his efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a section-by-section summary of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Hutchinson, Helms, Allard, and Grams be added as original cosponsors of the Hatch-Ashcroft-Abraham drug amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of myself, Senators Ashcroft, Abraham, Hutchinson, Helms, Grams, and Allard that contains new and responsible measures aimed primarily at curbing the manufacturing, trafficking, and abuse of methamphetamine, a destructive drug that is sweeping across our country. We must act now to stop this plague before it destroys the lives of many of our fellow citizens. I hope that the administration will take advantage of this legislation and finally begin, in its seventh year, to take serious steps to enforce our drug laws. Sadly, the Clinton-Gore administration has failed miserably at keeping drugs away from our youth. The administration recently boasted that reported illicit drug use by children 12 to 17 years of age is down this year. What the administration is trying to conceal, however, is that, since it took office, drug use among this same group of children more than doubled. Even with the current dip, the rate is still nearly twice what it was when President Clinton and Vice-President Gore took office. America's history of fighting illegal drugs has been long and tiring, but with so many Americans' lives being ruined by this drug, now is not the time to give up--it is a time to fight smarter and harder. This amendment will provide law enforcement with several effective tools, including proven prevention and treatment programs, that will help us turn the tide of proliferation of methamphetamine use. A significant portion of this amendment reflects language that was passed unanimously in the Judiciary Committee earlier this year. This language, which enjoyed the sponsorship of Senators Leahy, Ashcroft, Feinstein, DeWine, Biden, Grassley, Thurmond, and Kohl, represented a bipartisan effort to combat methamphetamine manufacturing and trafficking in America. Methamphetamine, also known on the streets as ``meth,'' ``speed,'' ``crank,'' ``ice,'' and ``crystal meth,'' is a highly toxic and addictive stimulant that severely affects the central nervous system, induces uncontrollabe, violent behavior and extreme psychiatric and psychological symptoms, and eventually leads some of its abusers to suicide or even murder. Methamphetamine, first popularized by outlaw biker gangs in the late 1970's, is now being manufactured in makeshift laboratories across the country by criminals who are determined to undermine our drug laws and profit from the addiction of others. So what can we do about the problem? Three years ago, I authored, and Congress passed, the Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. This legislation, which also enjoyed bipartisan support, aimed at curbing the diversion of commonly used precursor chemicals and mandated strict reporting requirements on their sale. This law has allowed the DEA, along with the help of industry, to stop large quantities of precursor chemicals from being purchased in the United States and being used to manufacture methamphetamine. But, as the methamphetamine problem continues to grow, more can and should be done to help law enforcement uncover, arrest, and hold accountable those who produce this drug. The methamphetamine threat differs in kind from the threat of other illegal drugs because methamphetamine can be made from readily available and legal chemicals, and because it poses serious danagers to both human life and the environment. According to a report prepared by the Community Epidemiology Work Group, which is part of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, methamphetamine abuse levels ``remain high . . . and there is strong evidence to suggest this drug will continue to be a problem in west coast areas and to spread to other areas of the United States.'' The reasons given for this ominous prediction are that methamphetamine can be produced easily in small, clandestine laboratories, and that the chemicals used to make methamphetamine are readily available. This threat is real and immediate, and the numbers are telling. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration--DEA, the number of labs cleaned up by the administration has almost doubled each year since 1995. Last year, more than 5,500 amphetamine and methamphetamine labs were seized by DEA and State and local law enforcement officials, and millions of dollars were spent on cleaning up the pollutants and toxins created and left behind by operators of these labs. In Utah alone, there were 266 lab seizures last year, a number which elevated Utah to the unenviable position of being ranked third in the Nation for highest per capita clandestine lab seizures. The problem with the high number of manufacturing labs is compounded by the fact that the chemicals and substances utilized in the manufacturing process are unstable, volatile, and highly combustible. The smallest amounts of these chemicals, when mixed improperly, can cause explosions and fires. And of course, most of those operating methamphetamine labs are not scientists, but rather unskilled criminals, who are completely apathetic to the destruction that is inherent in the manufacturing process. It is even more frightening when you consider that many of these labs are found in residences, motels, trailers, and even automobiles, and many are operated in the presence of children. I will never forget the tragedy of the three young children who were burned to death when a methamphetamine lab, operated by their mother in a trailer home in California, exploded and caught fire, as reported in an article: ``Meth Madness: Home deaths ruled felony murder,'' in the San Diego Union Tribune, 11/30/96. I honestly do not know which is worse: using methamphetamine or manufacturing it. Either way, methamphetamine is killing our kids. Another problem we face is that it doesn't take a lot of ingenuity or resources to manufacture methamphetamine. This drug is manufactured from readily available and legal substances, and there are countless Internet web sites that provide detailed instructions for making methamphetamine. Anyone who has access to the Internet has access to the recipe for this deadly drug. In fact, one pro-drug Internet site contains more than 70 links to sites that provide detailed information on how to manufacture illicit drugs, including methamphetamine. Let me take a moment to highlight some of the provisions of this amendment that will assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement in preventing the proliferation of methamphetamine manufacturing in America. This amendment will bolster the DEA's ability to combat the manufacturing and trafficking of methamphetamine, by authorizing the creation of satellite offices and the hiring of additional agents to assist State and local law enforcement officials. More than any other drug, methamphetamine manufacturers and traffickers operate in small towns and rural areas. Unfortunately, rural law enforcement agencies often are overwhelmed and in dire need of the DEA's expertise in conducting methamphetamine investigations. In addition, this amendment will assist State and local officials in handling the dangerous toxic waste left behind by methamphetamine labs. Another important section of the bill will help prevent the manufacture of methamphetamine by prohibiting the dissemination of drug recipes on the Internet. As mentioned earlier, there are hundreds of sites on the Internet that describe how to manufacture methamphetamine. These step-by-step instructions will be illegal under this bill if the person posting the information or the person receiving the information intends to engage in activity that violates our drug laws. In 1992, Congress passed a law that made it illegal for anyone to sell or offer for sale drug paraphernalia. This law resulted in the closing of numerous so-called ``head shops.'' Unfortunately, now some merchants sell illegal drug paraphernalia on the Internet. This bill will amend the anti-drug paraphernalia statute to clarify that the ban includes Internet advertising for the sale of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. The provision will also prohibit a web site that does not sell drug paraphernalia from allowing other sites that do from advertising on its web site. This amendment contains many references to the drug amphetamine, a lesser-known, but no-less dangerous drug. Other than for a slight difference in potency, amphetamine is manufactured, sold, and used in the same manner as methamphetamine. And, amphetamine labs pose the same dangers as methamphetamine labs. Indeed, every law enforcement officer with whom I have spoken agreed that the penalties for amphetamine should be the same as those for methamphetamine. For these reasons, this amendment seeks to equalize the punishment for manufacturing and trafficking the two drugs. To counter the dangers that manufacturing drugs like methamphetamine inflict on human life and on the environment, this amendment imposes stiffer penalties on manufacturers of all illegal drugs when their actions create a substantial risk of harm to human life or to the environment. The inherent dangers of killing innocent bystanders and contaminating the environment warrant a punitive penalty that will deter criminals from engaging in the activity. This amendment also seeks to keep all drugs away from children and to punish severely those who prey on our children, especially while at school away from their parents. Indeed, studies indicate that drug use goes hand in hand with poor academic performance. To this end, this amendment would increase the penalties for distributing illegal drugs to minors and for distributing illegal drugs near schools and other locations frequented by juveniles. The amendment also would require school districts that receive Federal funds to have policies expelling students who bring drugs on school grounds either in felonious quantities or with an intent to distribute in the same manner as students who bring firearms to school. Additionally, this amendment would allow school districts to use Federal education funds to provide compensation and services to elementary and secondary school students who are victims of school violence as defined by state law. While we know that vigorous law enforcement measures are necessary to combat the scourge of illegal drugs, we also recognize that we must act to prevent our youth from ever starting down the path of drug abuse. We also must find ways to treat those who have become trapped in addiction. For these reasons, the amendment contains several significant prevention and treatment provisions. Arguably, the most important treatment provision in this amendment offers an innovative approach to how opiate-addicted patients can seek and obtain treatment. As science and medicine continue to make significant strides in developing drugs that promise to make treatment more effective, we must pave the way to ensure that these drugs can be prescribed in an effective manner and in an appropriate treatment setting. Indeed, this provision does exactly this, by fostering a decentralized system of treating heroin addicts with the new generation of anti-addiction medications that are under development. By cutting the existing redtape that serves as a substantial disincentive for qualified physicians to treat drug addicts, this amendment acts as a spur for private sector pharmaceutical firms, working in close partnership with academic and government researchers and the drug abuse treatment community, to develop the next generation of anti-addiction medications for opiate addicts. This new system to treat heroin addicts can also act as a model that can be expanded in the future, as anti-addictive medications are developed, to encompass the treatment of other forms of drug addiction. I want to commend Senators Levin, Biden, and Moynihan who have worked tirelessly with me in the best spirit of bipartisanship to bring about not just this measure but also to bring about the day in the future that this new treatment paradigm becomes the norm for treating patients addicted to drugs. I also want to recognize the efforts of the experts at the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services for providing their views on this measure. Learning how to treat drug addiction is an essential component in America's battle to conquer drug abuse. I am proud to have worked with my colleagues in creating this new approach that undoubtedly will improve the ability for many to obtain successful treatment. I also support the provision of this amendment that contains the Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act of 1999. This measure strengthens Federal law by increasing the penalties against powder cocaine dealers by reducing from 500 to 50 grams the amount of powder cocaine a person must be convicted of distributing in order to receive a mandatory 5- year minimum sentence in Federal prison. By increasing the penalty for powder cocaine offenses, this measure fairly and effectively reduces the sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine. It is important to our criminal justice system that the disparity in sentences between powder and crack cocaine be reduced. Many people whom I respect, including law enforcement officials and academics, believe that the harsher penalties for crack cocaine generally unfairly affect minority Americans and the poor. Senator Sessions, whom I admire a great deal, was an accomplished Federal prosecutor for 12 years. He believes passionately that Congress should reduce the disparity in sentences between powder and crack cocaine. While my own solution for reducing the disparity differs somewhat from that suggested by Senator Sessions, he offers a prominent example of an experienced prosecutor who believes that this disparity should be reduced. This legislation will reduce the differential between the quantity of powder and crack cocaine required to trigger a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence from 100 to 1 to 10 to 1--the same ratio proposed by the administration. But this legislation will accomplish that goal--not by making sentences for crack cocaine dealers more lenient--but rather by increasing sentences for powder cocaine dealers. We should not reduce the Federal penalties for crack cocaine dealers. It would send absolutely the wrong message to the American people, especially given the disturbing increase in teenage drug use during much of the Clinton administration. This measure is the right approach at the right time. I commend Senator Abraham for his tireless efforts in this matter. Reducing the disparity between crack and powder cocaine will help maintain the confidence of all Americans in the Federal criminal justice system and will provide more appropriate punishment for powder cocaine violations. The amendment I have offered also contains a provision that requires the FBI to prepare a report assessing the threat posed by President Clinton's grant of clemency to FALN and Los Macheteros terrorists. As is now well known, the grant of clemency freed terrorists belonging to groups that openly advocate a war against the United States and its citizens. And, the FALN and Los Macheteros--including the clemency recipients--have actively waged such a war by, among other acts, planting more than 130 bombs in public places, including shopping malls and restaurants. Those bombs killed several people, maimed others, and destroyed property worth millions of dollars. Over the past several months, the Judiciary Committee has sought answers to the many questions raised by the President's clemency grant. Unfortunately, we have been repeatedly stymied by this administration's decision to deploy Executive privilege as a shield against public accountability. Despite this stonewalling, the committee's investigation has led to the troubling conclusion that the release of these individuals may well have increased the risk of domestic terrorism posed by the FALN and Los Macheteros. This amendment insures that the FBI can fully assess this risk, and that the Congress and the American people are fully apprised of the FBI's findings. In conclusion, I believe that this amendment contains many tools essential to our struggle against illegal drug manufacturing and use. We can defeat those who make and sell illicit drugs, and we must fight this plague for the sake of our children and grandchildren. Drug use is a poisonous, nationwide epidemic; it is a battle we must fight until we have succeeded. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on November 11, 1918, an armistice was signed to end the ``War to end all wars.'' The country rejoiced. Then, as the jubilation subsided, the reality of what had occurred slowly entered the consciousness of the nation and shouts of joy turned to tears of grief and thanksgiving. For many who had gone to fight would never return to their homes. And those who did come home would forever be scarred by the sights, sounds, and atrocities of war. How could we, as a nation, show our gratitude to those who had given so much? The answer, insufficient though it was, was to set aside a day to honor all those who had served--heroes and patriots--and to give thanks for their sacrifices for freedom. Tomorrow is the day we have set aside. Tomorrow is the day we should take special care to remember our veterans. Throughout our nation's history there have been men and women willing to wear the uniform of the United States of America --willing to give their lives for freedom. Some people have asked ``why?'' The answer is, in the words of President Reagan, spoken at the 40th anniversary of D- Day: ``It is because you all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.'' Our nation depends on our armed forces. We depend on highly motivated and highly skilled men and women who are willing to go into harm's way at any time to defend American interests. And, when our troops leave the service, we should not forget them. Although the nation may only officially recognize the sacrifices of veterans every November on Veterans Day or every May on Memorial Day, I know, personally, that in the hearts of the individual Americans, our veterans are remembered everyday. They are the husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of us all. Almost one-third of the nation's population--approximately 70 million persons--are veterans, dependents of veterans, or survivors of deceased veterans. I and my family honor and remember my brother Jess who died in World War II and my brother-in-law Neil Brown, who died in Vietnam. In the decades before the all-volunteer army and sophisticated high- tech weaponry, our military was made up of ordinary people. School teachers, ministers, machinists, truck drivers, bankers, and nurses, enlisted not just in the military, but in a noble enterprise. The story of America is the story of ordinary people doing extraordinary things and demonstrating uncommon endurance and valor. Today, our armed forces are comprised of dedicated soldiers and sailors who have chosen to make the military a career or to contribute their skills for a time in an all-volunteer, professional fighting force. But, the fact that our nation's Army and Navy have become more reliant on technology does not negate the risks of warfare. Nor does it compensate for family separations, holidays spent thousands of miles from home, or meals eaten out of carton. For Veterans' Day in 1954, President Eisenhower called upon us to ``solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain.'' On this Veterans Day, I echo the words of President Eisenhower. I salute all our veterans. I know that as long as there are Americans willing to stand up and fight for our values, we will remain a free and just nation. A while ago, I was moved to write a song about those who have sacrificed so much for our country. It is entitled, ``Morning Breaks at Arlington.'' It is an expression of the emotion and pride I feel whenever I think about the courage and dedication of our service men and women. Let me conclude with the lyrics: Morning breaks on Arlington, Warmed by rays of golden sun, And all who pause in homage there Feel a soft hush in the air. Those who love their liberty Bow the head and bend the knee, And from their hearts they breathe a silent prayer. ``Thank God for those who rest in honor there.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Dodd and others, which has many components that undermine the kind of bankruptcy reform we are seeking to accomplish in this bill. The amendment creates new windfalls for debtors in bankruptcy. It imposes an artificial definition of gross income which excludes major sources of income. This would undermine both the means test and the obligation that debtors pay all their disposable income to creditors in chapter 13 plans. Furthermore, the amendment undercuts the bill's definition of household goods, allowing virtually any frivolous item a debtor owns to qualify as a ``household good''. The amendment claims to be ``pro-family'', but it takes a tremendous step backward with respect to families--particularly those who work hard to pay their bills every month. I have worked very hard, along with Senator Torricelli, provision by provision, to ensure that this bill is an important for families over current bankruptcy law. I described in considerable detail last week the particular provisions in the bankruptcy bill that are designed to help families, along with the amendment Senator Torricelli and I developed to further enhance these provisions. Therefore, I am deeply concerned by the fact that this amendment inexplicably allows debtors to discharge debts without being responsible to repay what they can afford. A practical effect of this amendment is to allow rich debtors to defraud their creditors. Debtors with high income who are receiving child support could subtract child support from the calculation of their ability to repay. Thus, a debtor who earns $100,000 per year and receives an additional $25,000 in child support, and who has mortgage, car, and household expenses equaling $100,000, can go bankrupt in chapter 7 and walk away with $25,000 a year. This windfall to the debtor is passed on the hardworking families that end up subsidizing the cost of bankruptcies of others. Furthermore, the definition of household goods in the amendment allows debtors to avoid a security interest in expensive items like $2,000 stereo systems. I am mystified by why windfalls to debtors of this kind are viewed as pro-family. I have been reminded many times during the course of this debate that bankruptcies end up costing every American family at least $400 per year. When these windfalls are incorporated into our bankruptcy laws, hardworking American families end up paying for them.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2536, a Hatch-Dodd-Gregg amendment relating to the protection of educational savings accounts.

Mr. HATCH. Yes.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent I be given an extra minute and a half.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator. I will certainly make that correction. I still believe we ought to treat them as young adults. We ought to recognize that many people who really qualify for credit cards in these age groups ought to be able to get them with or without anybody else's consent. Many of them live up to the obligations that they incur; in fact, most of them do. I don't think we should, as a public policy matter, make this particular change that my dear friend from Connecticut has suggested. We are sending these young men and women over 18 years of age to war. They can vote at 18. They can do almost anything. Now we want to take away their right to have a credit card. I think that is bad public policy. I hope our colleagues will defeat this amendment when it comes up for a vote. With that, I believe we are ready to recess.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have to rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. It would require young adults under the age of 21 to obtain parental consent or demonstrate an ``independent means of repaying'' in order to get a credit card. This amendment also caps the amount of credit a young adult can get to $1,500. Mr. President, I believe this amendment is well-intentioned. However, if adopted, it would unfairly put young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 at a disadvantage by putting serious obstacles in their way, or, in some cases, bar them from obtaining credit cards altogether. Young adults today, whether they are serving in our Nation's military, or going to college, or trying to support a young family, do not need these hurdles placed in their path. This amendment would have an adverse effect on temporarily unemployed adults over the age of 18 who are independent of their parents, the twenty-year-old single mother, the twenty-year-old discharged from the military service, or a twenty- year-old worker between jobs--often the very person most needing the extension of credit. I understand how difficult times can be for young adults. When I was 16 years of age, I was a skilled building tradesman. I knew a trade. I went through a formal apprenticeship and became a journeyman. I was proud of it. I was capable of supporting my family at that time. I worked as a janitor to put myself through college. I believe it is an insult to young adults to put in doubt their ability to get credit. In addition, this amendment does not appear to be well thought out. For example, it makes absolutely no provision for young adults who may be estranged from their parents or whose parents or guardians may be deceased. It is also unclear what new burdens will be placed on lenders to verify the authenticity of a parent's or guardian's signature. I also can't resist pointing out that many of the very same folks who oppose parental consent for abortion are in favor of parental consent for getting a credit card. That seems a little odd to me. I can appreciate that there have been some instances when young adults have been extended credit beyond their ability to repay. But it does not strike me as a reasoned public policy, in an effort to tackle the occasional abuse, to discriminate against the many honest, hard- working, decent young people between the ages of 18 and 21 who rely on credit to make their lives a little bit more livable, or even sustainable. I also must point out that individuals under age 18 cannot enter into binding contracts, and therefore any credit inadvertently extended to them is unenforceable. The amendment would undermine a fundamental purpose of bankruptcy reform: to make individuals take more responsibility for their personal finances. I believe that the vast majority of young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 are responsible citizens, and they do not need the big Government to tell them what they can or cannot do in this area. I oppose treating adults as if they are children; therefore, I have to oppose this amendment. Let me make a correction. This amendment does not place a cap on the amount of credit a minor can get. I misspoke and I confused it with an amendment filed that was identical to this, only it does have the cap. So I will make that clear and make that correction.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dodd for his efforts and cooperation in working on this important amendment. I am pleased to offer along with Senators Dodd and Gregg, an amendment to S. 625, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, that will protect education IRAs and qualified State tuition savings programs in bankruptcy. Education IRAs and qualified State tuition savings programs permit parents and grandparents to contribute funds for the tuition and other higher education expenses of their children and grandchildren. Under current bankruptcy law, creditors may access such accounts to satisfy debts owed by parents and grandparents. The amendment I offer today balances the interest of encouraging families to save for college, with the interest of preventing the potential abuse of transferring funds into education savings accounts prior to an anticipated bankruptcy. Specifically, the amendment provides that contributions to education savings accounts made during the year immediately prior to the bankruptcy filing are not protected in bankruptcy and may be accessed by creditors; contributions up to $5,000 per beneficiary made in the second year prior to filing, however, are protected, as are all contributions made more than 2 years prior to the bankruptcy filing. To combat potential abuse, debtors must disclose their full interest in such accounts in the statement of financial affairs filed with the bankruptcy court. With respect to education IRAs, there is no limit on the amount that may be excluded from the bankruptcy estate, though the size of education IRAs are effectively limited by the $500 annual contribution limit. With respect to qualified State tuition savings programs, the excluded amount is the full, State-established amount deemed necessary to provide for the qualified education expenses of a beneficiary. College savings accounts encourage families to save for college, thereby increasing access to higher education. In my home State of Utah, 775 children, with account balances nearing $1.2 million, are beneficiaries of such accounts. Nationwide, over one million children benefit from such accounts. Bona fide contributions to such college savings accounts, which are made for the benefit of children, should be beyond the reach of creditors. The ability to use dedicated funds to pay the educational costs of current and future college students should not be jeopardized by a bankruptcy of their parents or grandparents. The amendment I offer today prevents bona fide educational accounts of children from being accessed by their parents' or grandparents' creditors, while also protecting this exclusion from being abused as a means of sheltering assets from the bankruptcy estate. I urge your support of this amendment.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent to set the Dodd amendment aside.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this amendment unfairly discriminates against young adults, and I think it should be opposed. Adults between the ages of 18 and 21 can defend our country in the military. Yet under this amendment, they will not be able to even get a credit card without overcoming regulatory obstacles in their way. Many young adults, some of whom are students and are supporting young families, need access to credit cards to make their lives just a little bit easier. So I oppose this paternalistic amendment. I remember what it was like to work in a low-paying job as a janitor. I can appreciate the benefits that being able to obtain credit will provide to hard-working young adults. Keep in mind, many in this group oppose parental consent for abortion, and you are going to impose parental consent on young adults who may be working, who may have families, who may be in the military, who may be as responsible as anybody else. It just plain isn't right. I do not think we should vote for that. So I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. I intend to make it even more important by calling up amendment No. 1729 and asking for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his excellent presentation and the work he has done on the Judiciary Committee on this very important bill. It is a very important bill. Amendment No. 1729 (Purpose: To provide for domestic support obligations, and for other purposes)

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to express my commitment again this year to reforming the bankruptcy laws in order to adequately protect children and ex-spouses that are owed domestic support. I am grateful that S. 625 includes the language I offered last year along with Senators Grassley and Kyl, providing extensive reforms to the bankruptcy laws in the area of child support. Also, I introduced additional enhancements to the bill's protection of domestic support obligations at the Judiciary Committee markup, and I accepted further changes by Senator Torricelli, with the agreement that we would continue working on the development of even further enhancements to the bill in this important area. I would like to express my gratitude to Senator Torricelli for working with me on these important provisions. I have continued to work with domestic support enforcement groups and Senator Torricelli to improve the bankruptcy laws, and I offer this amendment, along with Senator Torricelli, to make a series of additional enhancements to the bill so that we can be certain that this important legislation enables women and children to collect the support and alimony payments they are owed. Current bankruptcy law simply is not adequate to protect women and children. I have been outraged to learn of the many ways deadbeat parents are manipulating and abusing the current bankruptcy system in order to get out of paying their domestic support obligations. I have in front of me a how-to book called ``Discharging Marital Obligations In Bankruptcy.'' This is why we need to reform our bankruptcy laws. I am proud of the improvements we are making over current law in terms of ensuring that parents meet their child support and other domestic support obligations in bankruptcy. This chart indicates: The Support Provisions Of This Bill Certainly Justify The Praise Given Them By The Most Significant National Public Support Collection Organizations In This Country. That is a statement made by Phillip Strauss, Legal Division of the Family Support Bureau, the Office of the District Attorney of San Francisco on March 18, 1999, in testimony before the House of Representatives. The bill's improvements over current law have the support of the country's premiere child support collection organizations. As you can see, the bill's child support provisions are endorsed by the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Child Support Enforcement Association, and all of them, and many others, support what we are trying to do today. I would also like to point out that literally dozens of ex-spouses who are owed domestic support obligations have expressed to me their support for these improvements to bankruptcy law. We have all heard complaints by those who would attempt to politicize this issue that the bankruptcy bill is somehow harmful to families. I have worked tirelessly, provision by provision, both last year and this year to make this a bill that dramatically improves the position of children and ex-spouses who are entitled to domestic support. No one who actually looks at what the bill says can, in good conscience, say that this bill is not a tremendous improvement for families over current law. There may be those who do not want to see bankruptcy reform, but they cannot, with a straight face, argue that this bill is anything other than a huge positive step for our children. I believe that criticizing this bill without regard for what is in it, and using our children as pawns in the process, is shameful. I challenge critics of the bill to stop with the vague allegations and take a look at what the bill itself actually does. First, here is what S. 625 does apart from the additional improvements I have offered in the manager's amendment: The bill prevents the use of the automatic stay from being used to avoid family support obligations: S. 625 stops deadbeat parents from using bankruptcy to avoid family support obligations. For example, the bill prevents the automatic stay from being used to put a hold on the interception of tax refunds to be used to pay a domestic support obligation. The bill enables revocation of driver's licenses and other privileges from deadbeats: The bill prevents the automatic stay from being used to prevent the withholding of driver's licenses when debtors default on domestic support obligations. This is a particularly important provision, given recent news reports about the effectiveness of suspending driver's licenses of people who aren't paying their child support. A Maryland initiative has resulted in $103 million in child support collections just since 1996. We do not want our bankruptcy laws to work as an impediment to effective programs like the one in Maryland. Without these changes, a person could use current bankruptcy law to stave off a driver's license suspension by using the automatic stay, and undermine the effectiveness of these programs at getting child support to the kids who need it. The bill gives child support first priority status: Domestic support obligations are moved from seventh in line to first priority status in bankruptcy, meaning they will be paid ahead of lawyers and other special interests. The bill makes debt discharge in bankruptcy conditional upon full payment of past due child support and alimony. It requires payment of domestic support obligations for plan confirmation: And, S. 625 makes domestic support obligations automatically nondischargeable. This lets ex-spouses seeking to enforce domestic support obligations avoid the legal expenses of litigation that they incur under present law. The bill provides single parents with new tools to help them collect from an ex-partner in the bankruptcy system. The bill provides better notice and more information for easier child support collection. The bill provides help in tracking deadbeats. For example, If there is non-payment of child support in a post-discharge situation, other creditors with non-dischargeable debt are required to provide the last known address of the debtor on request, a significant help in locating people who have skipped out on their child support obligations. And, the bill allows for claims against a deadbeat parent's property. In addition to these improvements over current law that have been part of the bankruptcy reform bill for months, I have worked with Senator Torricelli, the National Women's Law Center, and the National Association of Attorneys General to further enhance the domestic support provisions of the bill. I thank each of them for their commitment to further improving the bill, and I am proud of what we have accomplished. Our amendment has many enhancements over current law. For example, the amendment allows for the payment of child support with interest by those with means. The debtor can pay interest under the plan if he has sufficient income after paying all other allowed claims. The amendment prevents bankruptcy from holding up child custody, visitation, and domestic violence cases. Essentially, the amendment exempts proceedings not involving money from being subject to bankruptcy's automatic stay provisions. These include civil cases regarding child custody or visitation, divorce--unless it involves a division of property--and domestic violence. The amendment facilitates wage withholding to collect child support from deadbeat parents. It accomplishes this by adding a requirement that the trustee provide to the person owed support and the State child support collection agency the debtor's employer's last known name and address. Also, the amendment simplifies the ability of the person owed support to get information on the debtor's whereabouts from other creditors. These measures will assist greatly in the imposition of wage withholding orders if they are not already in effect. The amendment helps avoid administrative roadblocks to get kids the support they need. The amendment provides an expanded definition of ``domestic support obligation'' to cover those who have not been officially designated as a legal guardian, but who nonetheless are entitled to collect child support on a child's behalf. Also, the amendment gives priority to parents over government. It divided the new ``first priority'' status into two sub-parts, giving parents who are not receiving benefits the top priority--whether or not the benefits have been formalistically ``assigned'' to the government for collection purposes--and giving next priority to obligations assigned to and owed directly to the government in exchange for the payment of benefits--such as where parents are liable for the costs of treating a child in a mental facility. A key provision makes staying current on child support a condition of discharge. The amendment allows for conversion or dismissal of chapter 1, 12, and 13 cases where the debtor is not current on presently accruing domestic support obligations. Two checkpoints are imposed in the case at which the debtor must be current with payments: confirmation and prior to obtaining a discharge. This provides a new way of preventing debtors from not paying their domestic support obligations during the gap period between filing and confirmation. Moreover, the amendment makes payment of child support arrears a condition of plan confirmation. It provides that the Chapter 13 plan must pay all 507(3) arrears claims (those owed to families not receiving benefits) in full, unless the creditor--that is, spouse or child--agrees otherwise. The amendment puts responsible debtors over government. It permits the cram down of arrears claims over the objection of a 507(a)(4) government arrears claimant--that is, the government collecting in exchange for paying benefits, in Chapter 12 and 13 cases so long as the debtor agrees to commit all disposable income for a five-year period. This level of detail would ordinarily not be necessary in discussing provisions in a bill on the Senate floor, but I have done so to put the issue to rest once and for all. Let me be clear: With my provisions in the bill, bankruptcy will no longer be used by deadbeat parents to avoid paying child support and alimony obligations. If we take the time to look at the actual provisions in the bill, it is clear that the bankruptcy reform bill of 1999 provides enormous improvements over current law. I have had a long history of advocating for children and families in Congress, and I support a bill that moves the obligation to pay child support and alimony to a first priority status under S. 625, as opposed to its current place at seventh in line, behind bankruptcy lawyers and other special interests. I support a bill that requires debtors who owe child support to keep paying it when they file for bankruptcy. I support a bill that prevents debtors from obtaining a discharge from the court until they bring their child support and alimony obligations current. And, I support a bill that provides that if a debtor pays child support right before filing for bankruptcy, the child support payment can't be taken away from the kids. Let's take a stand for our nation's kids and pass the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999 out of the Senate. Again I thank my colleagues for the work they have done, especially Senator Torricelli, who has done a remarkable job working with Senator Grassley on this bill as a whole, but in particular working with me on this amendment. I yield the floor.