Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we know that only about 22 percent of the American people who are on minimum wage are people who have households to support. Almost every job on minimum wage is given to somebody who literally needs a job, would not otherwise have that opportunity and probably would have his or her job chances diminished if the minimum wage is increased. We found that to be the case year after year after year. You cannot mandate increased labor costs without adverse impacts. What are those impacts? Decreased employment opportunities, particularly for teenagers, and others, who are in the worst condition, with few skills and employment barriers. In large part, these reductions will be fewer jobs created, the elimination of certain services, such as bagging groceries or having them loaded in your car, or having services performed less frequently. Higher prices for goods and services. The minimum wage is an ineffective antipoverty policy. Why? Because three-quarters of those earning the minimum wage are not heads of households or do not live in poor families--three-quarters of them. Most of these jobs are taken by people who are not from the poorest of the poor. Since the minimum wage increase cannot be targeted only to those who need it, the likelihood is that those with more experience, maturity, or skills will get or retain entry-level jobs and those who need a first-chance job the most are going to lose out. Also, higher minimum wages stifle entry-level training opportunities. Workers have typically ``paid for'' their training and introductory work experience by working at entry-level wages. Mandating a higher minimum wage makes entry-level opportunities less available and our workforce less prepared for greater skills and opportunities down the line. It is a myth that workers get ``stuck'' at minimum wages. Within a year, the average minimum wage earners get a 20 percent increase or even higher wage increase based on his or her greater skill level and experience. Higher wages act as an incentive for some youth to leave school to take jobs. So what is worse is that this adverse impact is for nothing. Those very individuals who need entry-level jobs the most are the ones most likely to be displaced by the increased competition for them. Frankly, hiking the minimum wage is not the only way to assist working Americans and those struggling to make ends meet. Let's work on some of these ideas. Personally, I would like to raise people's paychecks by cutting their taxes. That would increase their paychecks without the risk that they might lose their jobs. And I think we can work together on education. We passed the A+ education bill. Let's tackle illiteracy, and let's do it this way rather than through this really untried procedure.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have all heard the shocking accounts of teenaged girls giving birth and then dumping their newborns into trash cans. One young woman from Delaware gave birth in a bathroom stall during her prom, and then proceeded to strangle and suffocate her child, leaving his body in the garbage. Cases in Maryland and Arkansas tell similar stories. Criminal charges were recently brought against a young woman in my home state of Utah for secretly giving birth in her parent's Salt Lake City home and then leaving the baby to die in a drawer. As I read these accounts, I find myself wondering about the blurry line which exists between late-term abortions and infanticide. William Raspberry argued in a July 13, 1998, column in the Washington Post: a ``short distance [exists] between what [these teenagers] have been sentenced for doing and what doctors get paid to do.'' Few people would dispute that such incidents constitute murder. Any cruelty or intentional harm inflicted on a defenseless child causes anger to rise in all of us, particularly when a variety of services exist to assist the parents with their responsibilities--or even, through foster care or adoption, to relieve them entirely. I have sympathy for any young woman who contemplates an abortion. Surely this is a difficult decision to make. The circumstances that drive a woman to it must certainly be complex and appear to her to be insoluble. But, the late-term partial birth abortion is not an ordinary abortion. It is not contemplated in the Roe v. Wade decision. That is why even pro-choice members of Congress were compelled to support this legislation. It is incomprehensible that any reasonable person could examine the evidence and continue to defend it. This procedure involves the partial delivery, in the late second or third trimester of pregnancy, of an intact fetus into the birth canal. The fetus is delivered from its feet through its shoulders, so that only its head remains in the uterus. Then, either scissors or another instrument is used to poke a hole in the base of the skull where a suction catheter is inserted to extract the baby's brain. If you are sickened and pained by that description as you listen to it--just as I am each time I read it--imagine what it must be like for the child who must experience it. This procedure is not done on a mass of tissue. It is performed on a living baby capable of feeling pain and, at the time this procedure is typically performed, capable of living outside of the womb with appropriate medical attention. So, then, I agree with William Raspberry and our colleague Senator Moynihan. The line between infanticide and partial birth abortion is very blurry indeed. Let me set out for the Senate one more time exactly what this bill does and does not do. This bill does not ban all abortions after a certain week of pregnancy. It does not dictate the circumstances under which late-term abortions would be permitted. H.R. 1122 bans this one, specific, abhorrent procedure. Opponents of this bill argue that partial-birth abortions are performed to preserve the health and life of the mother. This point of view, however, is based on false claims by advocacy groups and not on the facts. Such claims are a futile attempt at making this procedure appear less barbaric and thus more palatable to the American people. I think Americans deserve to hear the facts. They need to know the truth about a procedure which our esteemed colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan, has accurately described as ``close to infanticide.'' The former U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, described his opposition to the partial-birth abortion procedure in an interview with the American Medical News, which was published in its August 19, 1996 issue. Dr. Koop stated: . . . in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late- term abortion as described--you know, partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can't be a necessity for the baby. So I am opposed to . . . partial- birth abortion. Dr. Daniel H. Johnson, President of the American Medical Association, asserted the AMA's position on the issue in the May 26, 1997, edition of the New York Times. Dr. Johnson stated: [T]he partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians. Our panel could not find any identified circumstances in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method. Often the health of the woman is not even under consideration. Dr. Martin Haskell, one of a hand full of doctors who perform this procedure, admitted in testimony given under oath in Federal district court in Ohio that he performs the procedure on second trimester patients for ``some medical'' and ``some not so medical'' reasons. The record in support of this legislation is long. In November 1995, I presided over a 6\1/2\-hour Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the issue. At the March 1997 Senate-House joint hearing, we heard from 10 witnesses, including representatives of the major organizations on both sides of this issue and a medical doctor who specializes in maternal- fetal medicine. As testimony from the hearings demonstrated, this procedure is not performed primarily to save the life of the mother or to protect her from serious health consequences. Instead, the evidence shows that this procedure is often performed in the late second and early trimesters for purely elective reasons. I acknowledge that there may have been rare cases where this awful procedure was performed and where there was a possibility of serious, adverse health consequences for the mother. However, even in those cases, a number of other procedures could have been performed. In fact, other procedures would have been performed had the mothers gone to any doctor other than one of the handful of doctors who perform these awful partial-birth abortions. I understand that many people on both sides of the abortion issue have very strongly held beliefs. I respect those whose views differ from my own. And I condemn, as I know every other Member of this body does, the use of violence or any other illegal method to express any point of view on this issue. It is critical to remember, however, that this bill is not about the right of a woman to choose an abortion. That is a debate for another day. The only bill we are voting on today is H.R. 1122, a bill that seeks to make a particularly gruesome, and I believe inhumane, abortion procedure illegal. I would like to express my appreciation to Senator Santorum for his leadership on this issue and join him in urging our colleagues to support this bill and override the President's veto.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment cosponsored by Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa on our side and Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Senator Dick Durbin on the Democrat side, all of whom I would like to thank for their hard work on this important matter. The Hatch-Graham-Grassley-Durbin pension amendment, among other things, is designed to do the following: Provide a uniform exemption for all types of tax-favored qualified pension plan assets in bankruptcy including Roth IRAs whose status under current bankruptcy law is uncertain, protect retirement assets that are in the process of being rolled over into a new qualified plan, and protect loans from pension funds in bankruptcy. Under present law, retirement plans which have received a determination letter from the IRS pursuant to section 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, which have not been revoked by a court or by the IRS have, in many instances, been held by the bankruptcy courts not to be qualified plans. This holding allows the trustee for the bankruptcy estate to seize the interest of the bankrupt participant in the plan. Similarly, if a retirement plan that is not eligible to receive a favorable determination letter but has in all other respects operated under the ERISA provisions and has not had its status revoked by a court or by the IRS, such a plan has been found by the bankruptcy court not to be a qualified plan. This amendment addresses this problem by providing, 1, that if a plan has received a favorable determination letter that is in effect, the plan is presumed to be exempt from the bankruptcy estate; and, 2, if a plan is not eligible for a determination letter, the plan may be exempt from the bankruptcy estate if there has been no prior determination by a court or the IRS to the contrary and the plan is in substantial compliance with the applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Further, Mr. President, under present law, if there is a direct transfer of an individual's retirement funds by the trustee of a plan exempt from the bankruptcy estate to the trustee of another retirement plan that is exempt from the bankruptcy estate, there is a question as to whether these retirement funds are exempt while in transit. It is possible that a bankruptcy court may hold that such funds are in a ``pay status'' and thus subject to attachment by the bankruptcy trustee. If there is a distribution of a plan's assets to a distributee and the latter within 60 days transfers them to another qualified plan, ERISA rules do not treat that as a distribution. There is some question whether these funds in transit are protected from the bankruptcy estate. If a participant is in bankruptcy when either of these types of transit occur, the bankruptcy trustee may be authorized by the bankruptcy court to seize the funds. The result would be to severely reduce or wipe out the participant's retirement funds. This is contrary to sound public policy. The proposed amendment provides that a direct transfer of retirement funds from one qualified retirement plan to another shall be exempt from the bankruptcy estate. In addition, it provides that eligible ``rollover'' funds from a qualified retirement plan shall be exempt from the estate if rolled over to another qualified plan within the allowed 60 days of the initial distribution. Finally, on the issue of qualified plan loans, the amendment provides that qualified plan loans outstanding when the participant is in bankruptcy are not dischargeable, and that payroll deductions used to repay plan loans are not stayed by the court. The retirement savings of hundreds of thousands of elderly Americans are at risk in bankruptcy proceedings. In 1997, an estimated 280,000 Americans age 50 and older filed bankruptcy. Almost one in five bankruptcy cases involve one or both petitioners who are 50 or older. This amendment has the full support of the AARP, which has stated that: The accumulation and preservation of retirement funds represents an important national goal. I could not agree more. With this national goal in mind, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am glad to stand with the distinguished Majority Leader and the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee to explain how we plan to proceed with respect to reform of the copyright compulsory license governing the retransmission of broadcast television signals by satellite carriers. Let me thank them for their interest in these important issues and their cooperation in this process. The Majority Leader has been particularly helpful in facilitating a process allowing for a joint reform package from our two committees. Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee has been working on these issues for more than 2 years. We have always recognized that some of the reforms we need to undertake in relation to the compulsory copyright license would require reforms in the communications law which has traditionally been dealt with in the Commerce Committee. I am glad that we have been able to work out a process whereby we can move a bill to the floor that will be the joint work product, and thus using the joint expertise, of both the Judiciary and Commerce Committees. We will proceed in the Judiciary Committee by working on a bill on the subject that has already been referred to the Judiciary Committee, S. 1720, which Senator Leahy and I introduced earlier in this Congress. We will mark up a Chairman's mark substitute amendment of that bill which will cover the copyright amendments, including the granting and extension of the local and distant signal licenses, respectively, as well as the copyright rates for each of those licenses. Other important reforms include eliminating the current waiting period for cable subscribers before getting satellite service, and postponing the date of the enforcement of the so-called white area rules for a brief period. As of today, a large number of satellite subscribers who have been found to be ineligible for distant network signals will be turned off in early October. Our bill will delay any such terminations to allow subscribers and satellite carriers to adopt other service packages, including local service packages where available, to work with local affiliates to work out a coverage compromise, and to allow the FCC to review the rules governing the eligibility for the reception of distant network signals. The text of this Chairman's mark will be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks and is supported and cosponsored by the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, as well as Senators Leahy, DeWine, and Kohl. While the Judiciary Committee works on these copyright reforms, our colleagues in the Commerce Committee will be working on related communications amendments regarding such important areas such as the must-carry and retransmission consent requirements for satellite carriers upon which the copyright licenses will be conditioned, and the FCC's distant signal eligibility process. Chairman McCain will be introducing this legislation today as well. It is our joint intention to combine our respective work product as two titles of the same bill, S. 1720, in a way that will clearly delineate the work product of each committee, but combine them into the seamless whole necessary to make the licenses work for consumers and the affected industries. In conclusion, let me again thank the Majority Leader for his interest in and leadership with respect to these issues, and I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee for his collegiality and cooperation in this process. I look forward to working with them and with our other colleagues on these important issues. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Chairman's mark substitute for S. 1720 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce S. 2491 the Hatch-Leahy-DeWine ``Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998.'' I want to especially thank Senators Leahy and DeWine for their cooperation in drafting this exemplary piece of legislation. S. 2491 strengthens the ability of law enforcement and the courts to respond to high-tech sexual predators of children. Pedophiles who roam the Internet, purveyors of child pornography, and serial child molesters are specifically targeted. The Internet is a wonderful creation. By allowing for instant communication around the globe, it has made the world a smaller place, a place in which people can express their thoughts and ideas without limitation. It has released the creative energies of a new generation of entrepreneurs and it is an unparalleled source of information. While we should encourage people to take full advantage of the opportunities the Internet has to offer, we must also be vigilant in seeking to ensure that the Internet is not perverted into a hunting ground for pedophiles and other sexual predators, and a drive-through library and post office for purveyors of child pornography. Our children must be protected from those who would choose to sexually abuse and exploit them. And those who take the path of predation should know that the consequences of their actions will be severe and unforgiving. How does this bill provide additional protection for our children? By prohibiting the libidinous dissemination on the Internet of information related to minors and the sending of obscene material to minors, we make it more difficult for sexual predators to gather information on, and lower the sexual inhibitions of, potential targets. And by requiring electronic communication service providers to report the commission of child pornography offenses to authorities, we mandate accountability and responsibility on the Internet. Additionally, law enforcement is given effective tools to pursue sexual predators. The Attorney General is provided with authority to issue administrative subpoenas in child pornography cases. Proceeds derived from these offenses, and the facilities and instrumentalities used to perpetuate these offenses, will be subject to forfeiture. And prosecutors will now have the power to seek pretrial detention of sexual predators prior to trial. Federal law enforcement will be given increased statutory authority to assist the States in kidnaping and serial murder investigations, which often involve children. In that vein, S. 2491 calls for the creation of the Morgan P. Hardiman Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center. That center will gather information, expertise and resources that our nation's law enforcement agencies can draw upon to help combat these heinous crimes. Sentences for child abuse and exploitation offenses will be made tougher. In addition to increasing the maximum penalties available for many crimes against children and mandating tough sentences for repeat offenders, the bill will also recommend that the Sentencing Commission reevaluate the guidelines applicable to these offenses, and increase them where appropriate to address the egregiousness of these crimes. And S. 2491 calls for life imprisonment in appropriate cases where certain crimes result in the death of children. Protection of our children is not a partisan issue. We have drawn upon the collective wisdom of Senators from both sides of the aisle to draft a bill which includes strong, effective legislation protecting children. I call upon my colleagues to support this bill and speed its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce S. 2491 the Hatch-Leahy-DeWine ``Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998.'' I want to especially thank Senators Leahy and DeWine for their cooperation in drafting this exemplary piece of legislation. S. 2491 strengthens the ability of law enforcement and the courts to respond to high-tech sexual predators of children. Pedophiles who roam the Internet, purveyors of child pornography, and serial child molesters are specifically targeted. The Internet is a wonderful creation. By allowing for instant communication around the globe, it has made the world a smaller place, a place in which people can express their thoughts and ideas without limitation. It has released the creative energies of a new generation of entrepreneurs and it is an unparalleled source of information. While we should encourage people to take full advantage of the opportunities the Internet has to offer, we must also be vigilant in seeking to ensure that the Internet is not perverted into a hunting ground for pedophiles and other sexual predators, and a drive-through library and post office for purveyors of child pornography. Our children must be protected from those who would choose to sexually abuse and exploit them. And those who take the path of predation should know that the consequences of their actions will be severe and unforgiving. How does this bill provide additional protection for our children? By prohibiting the libidinous dissemination on the Internet of information related to minors and the sending of obscene material to minors, we make it more difficult for sexual predators to gather information on, and lower the sexual inhibitions of, potential targets. And by requiring electronic communication service providers to report the commission of child pornography offenses to authorities, we mandate accountability and responsibility on the Internet. Additionally, law enforcement is given effective tools to pursue sexual predators. The Attorney General is provided with authority to issue administrative subpoenas in child pornography cases. Proceeds derived from these offenses, and the facilities and instrumentalities used to perpetuate these offenses, will be subject to forfeiture. And prosecutors will now have the power to seek pretrial detention of sexual predators prior to trial. Federal law enforcement will be given increased statutory authority to assist the States in kidnaping and serial murder investigations, which often involve children. In that vein, S. 2491 calls for the creation of the Morgan P. Hardiman Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center. That center will gather information, expertise and resources that our nation's law enforcement agencies can draw upon to help combat these heinous crimes. Sentences for child abuse and exploitation offenses will be made tougher. In addition to increasing the maximum penalties available for many crimes against children and mandating tough sentences for repeat offenders, the bill will also recommend that the Sentencing Commission reevaluate the guidelines applicable to these offenses, and increase them where appropriate to address the egregiousness of these crimes. And S. 2491 calls for life imprisonment in appropriate cases where certain crimes result in the death of children. Protection of our children is not a partisan issue. We have drawn upon the collective wisdom of Senators from both sides of the aisle to draft a bill which includes strong, effective legislation protecting children. I call upon my colleagues to support this bill and speed its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I know this amendment is well intentioned, but, look, I was a building tradesman as a young 16-year-old. I made a pretty good living as a building tradesman. I could have wound up as a building tradesman, which I was very proud to be. In fact, I have had some colleagues say I should have stuck with it. In fact, one of them, when they found out I was a janitor at one time putting myself through college, said I should have stuck with it. Maybe so. But I would hate like heck to have some artificial rule or some regulatory rule by some regulatory agency of Government say that I, as a hard-working carpenter, would not be able to get a credit card and get credit that I might need for my family to make our lives a little easier because of artificial rulings like what happens as a result of this well-intentioned amendment. This is a slap in the face of every 18-, 19-, 20-year-old--and 17- year-old, 16-year-old even--people who can work; 16-, 17-, 18-, 19- year-olds who work hard, who are supporting their families. They may not be college graduates, they may not look like they quite have the future of some who have gone to college and done the things that they have done--might look like--but they are not going to be able to get credit cards under this without going through some big rigmarole decided by Government. This amendment would unfairly discriminate against young adults. I think it has to be opposed. I hope our colleagues will think about this. The amendment would require parental consent for extensions of open-ended credit to young adults under the age of 21--think of that--a lot of young adults who are supporting their families and doing what is right but have not been to college, or even those who have been to college or who are working well in college, as I had to do, unless they could demonstrate ``an independent means of repaying'' the obligation. While it is not entirely clear what would constitute an ``independent means of repaying'' a debt, one thing is clear: This amendment would have the bizarre effect of requiring an emancipated but temporarily unemployed 20-year-old mother to obtain her parent's consent before receiving a credit card, or an unemployed 20-year-old carpenter who, because of seasonal layoffs, might not have a job for a couple of weeks, or maybe 3 weeks or maybe a month or two. I understand that life; I understand how difficult it is. The same would be true with respect to a 20-year-old plumber or a construction worker, like I have mentioned, who is between jobs, in between jobs, and with respect to a 20-year-old recently discharged from the U.S. military and looking for civilian employment--somebody who is honorable and decent, would pay back any debt no matter what happened but could not get a credit card because of these artificial restraints. Moreover, the amendment makes no provision whatsoever for a young adult whose parents or guardians may be deceased. It is also not clear what responsibility, if any, the amendment would impose on a lender to verify that the signature of a parent or a guardian was authentic. In short, discriminating against individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 when it comes to obtaining credit simply cannot be justified just because we know it is pretty easy to get a credit card out there and it is abused from time to time. But this amendment furthers the abuse only in the opposite direction. Also, it is important to note that individuals under 18 cannot enter into binding contracts and, therefore, any credit inadvertently extended to them is unenforceable. I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, notwithstanding some of the arguments on the other side of the aisle. It is important to note that not all 18-, 19- or 20-year-old kids are college students or unemployed or irresponsible or bums, if you want to say it. Some have families, some serve in the military and are asked to defend our country. It puts their ability to gain credit in doubt. Or should we just call it the way it is? In the hands of Federal regulators. You know, there is a limit to everything. Yes, there are some abuses here. Yes, some of these credit card companies get some of these young people hooked on credit cards just thinking they can live with that credit card. But in the interest of solving that problem, do you abuse all the other honest, hard-working, decent young people between the ages of 18 and 21? Do you discriminate against them so that they cannot get a credit card that might make their lives maybe a little bit better or a little more livable or a little more sustainable? My attitude is that this amendment ought to be defeated because it is a one-sided amendment that, in my opinion, has not been well thought through. That is not a knock at my colleague because I know he is sincere. I know he has good intentions here. I know there are some values that he is trying to defend. But I think the overwhelming weight of maturity is on the side of young people in that age group who deserve to have a credit card, who would pay back their credit card, who are responsible citizens, and who do not need the Federal Government to tell them what they can or cannot do in this area. The fact that we have a few credit card companies that abuse the system does not mean we should pass this type of an amendment. I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield our remaining time to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I find it somewhat ironic and, frankly, indefensible that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are now arguing for parental consent here in order to obtain a credit card, would also argue against requiring parental consent for children who want to get an abortion. I have spent 22 years listening to that. Now, Mr. President, they are arguing for parental consent for young adults between the ages of 18 and 21. Look, if they are willing to amend the amendment--every State in this Union, to my knowledge, refuses to give credit or allow credit to be granted to young people less than 18 years of age. So I think Senator Dorgan's son already fits within that category. We are talking about 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds who work, who are in the service, are capable of doing this, who should not have to get parental consent, should not have to justify it. I am talking against discrimination against young people of that age. My friends on the other side argue for parental consent for young adults between 18 and 21. These are not even minor children. How can anybody argue, on the one hand, that if you are between 18 and 21 and you want a credit card, you have to get your parents' consent, and on the other hand you should not have to get parental consent if a minor wants to get an abortion? I don't know about you, Mr. President, but to me that sounds a little bit inconsistent--maybe a smidgen. Every State in the Union, to my knowledge, refuses to give the right to grant credit to young people below 18 years of age. At least that is my understanding. So that is not even an issue. Despite all of the enjoyment we had from the remarks of the Senator from North Dakota, that isn't an issue. Are we going to discriminate against hard-working young people who are 18, 19 and 20 years of age, who should have a right to credit, just because we have some excesses in our society that really are not justified? Mr. President, one of the arguments that I hear again and again is that the bankruptcy crisis in this country is the fault of credit card companies because they offer credit too freely to low- and moderate- income Americans. Opponent of reform have, during the hearing process, shown us piles of credit card solicitations to make their point. They want us to believe that the nation's bankruptcy crisis is the fault of easy access to credit, and not of the individual who abuses the bankruptcy system with all of its present loopholes. First, I would like to say a few words about taking personal responsibility for our actions. In a free world, each of us is confronted with a variety of offers on a daily basis, some of which we should accept, and some of which we should not. It is the responsibility of the individual to decide whether or not to take on debt and it is the responsibility of the individual to live with the consequences of that decision. Before we can begin to make meaningful reform to the bankruptcy laws, we simple must stop the finger pointing and accept personal responsibility for our spending and borrowing practices. That said, if we look at the objective facts, it is apparent that credit card debt is only a small fraction--about 16 percent--of the debt of a typical bankruptcy filer. The reason I have this chart up is because the yellow part of that, the higher part of it, shows the total consumer debtload. You will notice that between 1980 and 1997 the consumer debtload has remained about the same. But look at the red part, increase in consumer bankruptcy filings, which this bill would help to resolve. The increase in consumer bankruptcy filings has continued to go up off the charts. So the debtload doesn't appear to be the major problem. What is the major problem is the abuse of the bankruptcy system, which this bill would correct. Surprisingly, as Americans continue to use consumer credit at about the same level as they have historically over the last few years, bankruptcy filings have more than quadrupled. In other words, as this chart demonstrates, the debt load that individuals carry has not changed very much. What has changed is the attitude of Americans toward bankruptcy. People turning to bankruptcy today are not in significantly more difficult debt that those in the past. But rather than taking responsibility and working their way out of debt, too many people are choosing bankruptcy as a first resort. As I have said before, excessive bankruptcy filings hurt all of us. When someone who could pay their debts instead opts for bankruptcy, the rest of us effectively pay their unpaid bills for them. Bigger businesses and creditors raise prices and interest rates to offset their losses, and small businesses may actually be forced into bankruptcy themselves. But his issue is not just about the impact of bankruptcy on the rest of us. It is about personal integrity and personal responsibility. When you borrow money from someone else, you make an implicit promise to do whatever you can to pay that money back. Our present bankruptcy laws undermine this basic principle. This bill will help solve that. They allow people who can repay their debts to avoid doing so because they find their debts ``inconvenient'' or because repaying their debts would require them to change their lifestyle. Ironically, many of the people who say that we do not need to reform the bankruptcy code because easy access to credit is to blame, are the very same people who argue that poor and moderate income individuals desperately need, and should not be denied, credit. These are the same groups who, fifteen years ago, complained that the credit industry granted credit only to the elite and wealthy, and deprived lower-income Americans of the important opportunity to use credit. And, these are the same people who vociferously argued just a few weeks ago in favor of the Community Reinvestment Act or CRA, which requires banks to extend loans and credit to low and moderate income Americans who live in low income areas. Rather than reform the bankruptcy code, some have suggested imposing burdensome credit qualification standards on the credit card companies. Let me be clear: amending this bill to require onerous credit qualification standards will result in an immediate reduction in the availability of credit to lower-income individuals. And, imposing burdensome requirements on credit card companies that do nothing to help consumers--and that in fact hurt consumers by adding to the cost of being a credit card holder--is nothing more than an obvious attempt to derail bankruptcy reform. On the other hand, I remain open to measures that will help people become fully aware of the implications of debt before they incur it. Mr. President, the explosion in bankruptcy filings has less to do with causes and more to do with motivations. The stigma of bankruptcy is all but gone. Bankruptcy has become a routine financial planning device used to unload inconvenient debts, rather than a last resort for people who truly need it. The rest of us end up footing the bill for abuses in the bankruptcy system in many forms, including higher prices and higher interest rates. What this legislation will accomplish is straightforward: If a person is able to repay some of what they owe, they will be required to do so. We must restore personal accountability to the bankruptcy system. If we do not, every family in America, many of whom struggle to make ends meet but manage to live within their means, will continue to shoulder the financial burden of those who abuse the system. Mr. President, I do not mean to suggest that the bankruptcy system has failed us altogether. It provides a way for individuals who have experienced a a financially devastating event to get back on their feet. The problem we face is that current law does not simply allow bankruptcy filers to get back on their feet * * * it allows abusers of the system to get ahead of Americans who make good on their debts. S. 1301 is a common-sense bill that will provide a much needed adjustment to the bankruptcy system. Again, I will end with what I started with. If my colleagues on the other side want to exclude those below 18 years of age, as the States basically do, so that credit card companies cannot solicit them, I would be more than happy to do that. I would be more than happy to grant that right now, right here on the floor. But if they are going to discriminate against 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old people who are hard- working, decent kids, some of them working at trades in society as I did, some of them working in the military, some of them who may be temporarily out of work but are good, honest people, then I have to say we have to fight against this amendment. Last but not least, I will say that I find it ironic that they would require parental consent to get credit card credit while at the same time not requiring parental consent with regard to getting an abortion. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been to Puerto Rico. I have to say it is a beautiful land. These are our fellow citizens. They have to make this determination. Of course, we should give them that right. I have heard both arguments within Puerto Rico. Some feel it is a great idea to have statehood. Others don't think it is quite so great. There are disadvantages to becoming a State. There is no question about it. But there are great advantages as well. All we are doing here this evening is acknowledging as Members of the U.S. Senate the right of our fellow U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico to express democratically their views regarding their future political status through a referendum or other public forum, and to communicate those views to the President of the United States and to the Congress. That is the least we could do. These are good people. These are proud people. These are people who have contributed to this country--and who will contribute to this country--even though their status has been different from other citizens. I personally endorse and support this resolution here this evening. I hope and I know that it will pass. It will pass unanimously, which I think is the high tribute to the people of Puerto Rico and to those on both sides of this issue down there. I congratulate all of those who have worked so hard to get this done, especially Senator Murkowski, Senator Torricelli, the others who have been mentioned, Senator D'Amato and Senator Domenici. This is a wonderful evening, a wonderful day, and something that is long overdue. I congratulate my colleagues for having accomplished this today. I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I offer the following statement on behalf of myself and my colleagues Kay Bailey Hutchison, John McCain, Pete V. Domenici, Spencer Abraham, Christopher S. Bond, and Charles E. Grassely. Our purpose is twofold: to join our colleagues in recognizing the start of Hispanic Heritage Month, an to submit a resolution designating April 30, 1999, as ``Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans.'' Since 1968, we have formally recognized and celebrated the tremendous contributions of Hispanic Americans to the history, strength, security, and development of our great nation. This year, we once again embark on this month-long celebration. It is right to honor more than five centuries of contributions by Hispanics to the development not only of our great nation, but of the Western Hemisphere and the world. It is also imperative that we recognize that the health and vitality of the Hispanic American community is pivotal to the strength and future of this nation. Our own experience has shown us that Hispanic Americans are a strong and proud people, loyal, patriotic, courageous, and dedicated to their families, their country, and their communities. Hispanics have a strong work ethic and tremendous faith in the American dream. They have made great contributions to the advancement of all people in every area, to music, the arts, science, engineering, mathematics, and government. I am thrilled to see so many wonderful Hispanic role models help light the way for Hispanic youth to attain the American Dream. Jaime Escalante, a high school mathematics teacher, has been helping an unprecedented number of Hispanic students prepare for and pass advanced placement tests in calculus. Amalia V. Betanzos, president of an alternative high school with tremendous success rates, has helped us all see what faith and encouragement can do for the soul. And Abraham Chavez, who established the El Paso Symphony, shares his musical talent with children on both sides of the U.S. border. Even with limited funds, he finds various ways to put instruments into the hands and music into the lives of young children. Such great recording artists as Celia Cruz, Tito Puente, Los Lobos, the late Selena, Freddy Fender, and Gloria Estefan have brought joyous Latin rhythms into our homes and our hearts. Great authors, like Luis Valdez, Victor Villasenor, Nicholasa Mohr, and Luis Rodriguez and great screen artists like Andy Garcia, Jimmy Smits, Edward James Olmos, Rita Moreno, Martin Sheen, and the late Raul Julia have entertained while they inspired us. The patriotism and courage of great Americans like Alfred Rascon, who immigrated to the United States from Mexico, should also be recognized. At age 20, a lawful permanent resident, he volunteered to serve in Vietnam. As a paratrooper combat medic, he twice used his own body to shield wounded comrades from enemy guns. Severely wounded, he refused to be evacuated until all the wounded were safe. He kept working until he collapsed, so hurt that a priest at the scene gave him last rites. Dr. Antonia Novello, former U.S. Surgeon General, Raul Izaguirre, President and CEO of National Council of La Raza, Carmen Zapata, director and co-founder of the Bilingual Foundation of the Arts, and Astronauts Ellen Oschoa and Franklin Chang Diaz have helped lead the way for our children as they enter the 21st century. Of course, Sammy Sosa, Rebecca Lobo, Nancy Lopez, ChiChi Rodriguez, Pedro Morales, Gigi Fernandez, and Trent Dimas are but seven of the many great athletes who have shared with us the pride and success born of great sacrifice and a hunger for perfection. We are proud of their accomplishments. When they win, all America cheers and shares in their victory. Most importantly, let us not forget the many, many other Hispanic Americans, whose daily contributions often go unrecognized, but whose legacy continues to demonstrate the viability of the American dream. But for all their contributions to the strength of our nation, many Hispanics have not yet fully shared in the dream. The national drop-out rate for Hispanics exceeds 30 percent (for non-Hispanics the rate is 11 percent, and for blacks, the rate is 12 percent), the highest for any ethnic group, and their educational attainment levels are among the lowest for any ethnic group. Hispanic children are most likely to be among America's poor, even though Hispanic males have the highest labor participation rates. Hispanics are most likely to lack health insurance and access to regular health care, yet suffer disproportionately from certain diseases. We must do better. As the youngest and fastest growing minority community in the nation, Hispanics must share equally in the benefits and opportunities of this great nation, so that our country grows stronger and can better compete in global markets. Indeed, by 2050, according to the latest census projections, one in four Americans will be of Hispanic descent. One thing is clear, the health and vitality of this nation depends in large part on the degree to which Hispanic Americans are prepared to meet the global market demands of the next century. For this reason, in 1987, Senator John Chafee and Orrin G. Hatch established the U.S. Senate Republican Conference Task Force on Hispanic Affairs, which now numbers 27 senators. The task force provides a unique forum for Hispanic leaders to raise awareness and support on the national level for key issues facing the Hispanic community in the areas of education, economic development, employment and health. The task force is aided by a bipartisan, volunteer advisory committee, for whose service we are very grateful. We acknowledge their tremendous contributions, commitment, and dedication to this effort. We thank each of the members publicly for they are truly great Americans. It was with their help and guidance this Congress that we were able to make small advances in addressing the needs of the Hispanic community, including providing access to health insurance to large numbers of children in poverty, making changes to the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, and supporting increased appropriations to strengthen institutions that provide higher education to low income and disadvantaged students, and reforming job training programs to better serve the latino community. We were also able to establish a federal charter for the American GI Forum, a national Hispanic Veterans organization. Indeed, we owe no small debt of gratitude to the men and women who have sacrificed and continue to sacrifice daily to preserve our freedoms and democratic government. Hispanic Americans are very proud of their record of military service--the highest number of medals of honor earned per capital for any ethnic community. Additionally, we submitted an ``English Plus'' Resolution, encouraging citizens to master not only the English language, but other foreign languages. Enhancing our linguistic abilities will make for a more skilled and competitive labor force, and improve our communications. We hope to be able to pass the resolution before the end of the Congress. It was our Advisory Committee that recommended we join the National Latino Children's Institute in calling upon the nation to designate April 30, 1999, as ``Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans''--a recommendation with which we wholeheartedly concurred. In contributing to the celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month, we think it is most fitting to introduce a resolution calling on the citizens of our great nation to join with other nations of the world, and especially those of the western hemisphere in setting a day aside to honor our children. Much in the same way that we celebrate Mother's Day and Father's Day, we urge the American people to set aside a day to uplift children, to encourage them to dream, and help them to acquire the skills necessary to make those dreams come true. It is a custom throughout Latin America to celebrate ``Dia de los Ninos'' on the 30th of April each year. Let us share in this tradition. Indeed, if we take time to listen, to encourage children to read, to stay in school, to dream, to plan and work hard to achieve their dreams, then America's future is guaranteed to be brighter. Latinos have made great strides, and they continue to progress. They have joined the ranks of public officials, managers, CEOs and presidents of corporations, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and congressmen. But there is much yet to be done. Let us take pride in the contributions of Hispanics to the history of this nation, let us recognize their gifts to America--their patriotism, devotion to family, love of God, and faith in the American dream--and let us invest in the dreams of their children. Let us extend Hispanic Heritage Month to include a day to honor and celebrate the gifts of all of the nation's children, a day in which we devote ourselves to uplifting and encouraging them to pursue their dreams. We invite our colleagues to join us as co-sponsors of this worthy resolution designating April 30, 1999, ``Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of the volunteer advisory committee be printed in the Record, in recognition of their contributions. there being no objection, the names were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: United States Senate Republican Conference Task Force on Hispanic Affairs--105th Congress Advisory Committee The Members of the U.S. Senate Republican Conference Task Force on Hispanic Affairs wish to record their high esteem, gratitude and appreciation for the members of the advisory committee to the task force (listed below), for their expertise, hard work, and dedication to assisting task force Senators in better meeting the needs of the nation's Latino community. Loretta Adams; Antonio Amador; George Antuna; Rodolfo Arredondo, Jr.; Patricia Asip; Zulma X. Barrios; Richard Bela; Philip Vincent Bernal; Rudy M. Beserra; Victor G. Cabral; Lorenzo Cervantes; Roxana Chahin; Adam Chavarria; Ana Colomar-O'Brien; Elaine Coronado; Mariam Cruz; Rafael Davila; Chris Diaz; Guarione Diaz; Rita DiMartino; Ingrid Duran; Alma Rojas Esparza; Rafael Franchi; Tony Gallegos; Jane C. Garcia; Rafael Garcia; President; San F. Garza; Mary George; Steve John Gonzalez; Arthur Granado; Sheila Guaderas; Carmen Hansen-Rivera; Alida Hernandez; Farah Jimenez; Ed Juarez; Ben Lopez; Mimi Lozano Holtzman; Raymond Lozano; Herminio A. Martinez; J.V. Martinez; Julian Martinez; Kenneth A. Martinez; Robert Martinez. Zaida L. Martinez, Ph.D.; Teresa McBride; John Medina; Denise Mendoza; Mike Montelongo; Velma Montoya, Ph.D.; Dionicio Morales; Isreal Moran; Emma Moreno; Pete Moreno; Anna Muller; Alfonso J. Perez; John Perez; Juan Perez; Jaime Ramon; Grace Ramos; Jorge Ramos; Salvador Ramos; Ramon E. Rasco; Ana Rivas-Beck; Jose Rivera; Nena Robreno; Ana Rodriguez de Sanchez; Edwin A. Rodriguez; Eric Rodriguez; Fred Rodriguez; M.J. Rodriguez; Marcos ``Mark'' Rodriguez; Mark Rodriguez; Rene F. Rodriguez; Rose Marie Rodriguez; Nelson Roman; Phil Roman; Margo Salazar; Celia M. Salomons; Orlando Sanchez; Angelica Santacruz; Marta Sotomayor; Thomas Tewksbury; Esteban Torres; Joyce Valdez; Diana M. Valverde; Selso Vargas; Octavio J. Viveros, Jr.; Sofia Garcia-Conde Zuckerman.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise this morning to express strong opposition to the Bumpers amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. This amendment is a step backwards, Mr. President. It is a step back toward more centralized government; it is a step back toward more heavy handed regulations; and it is a step back toward making environmental policy with emotion and politics instead of science and common sense. Mr. President, this argument really comes down to whether or not we want environmental regulations to be determined on the state level by those who have the greatest stake in a healthy environment and a strong economy, or do we want to keep all the power inside the Washington beltway and in the hands of federal politicians and bureaucrats. This amendment would strike section 117 of the fiscal year 1999 Interior appropriations. What is so disturbing about this section that it must be struck, Mr. President? Section 117 is simply an attempt to replace the emotionally and politically charged controversy surrounding the revised 3809 regulations with good science. Section 117 would require that the National Academy of Sciences--hardly an organization in the pocket of the mining industry--perform a study of the adequacy of federal and state regulations governing hardrock mining on our public lands before the Secretary of Interior moves forward with the new regulations. I find it baffling, Mr. President, that a member of Congress would be opposed to introducing an impartial and nonpartisan element to this heated debate, such as a study by the National Academy of Sciences. Mr. President, this is not merely a philosophical debate. This debate is about jobs in rural America. We have learned by unhappy experience that regulations spewed forth from Washington, D.C., with no regard for those who are most affected by the regulations, often lead to a loss of competitiveness and jobs in rural areas. I wish all of my colleagues could visit the many rural areas of my state of Utah. They would find that opportunity has been whittled away from rural Americans who live among public lands. And why have these citizens lost their ability to grow and prosper, Mr. President? Has it been because of a lack of effort or creativity? Of course not--rural areas in Utah are struggling because government bureaucrats have systematically closed off opportunities to graze on public lands, to harvest timber on public lands, and to mine on public lands. I challenge anyone to tell me that this trend has not led to a major loss of rural jobs, Mr. President. Mr. President, the rural people of my state know that the source of their problems has been an onslaught of centralized government regulation. I would like to read a letter from a young constituent of mine, T.J. Seely. He sums up, better than I could, what the crux of this debate is really about. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be entered into the Record along with my remarks. Mr. President, T.J. asks me in his letter, ``What are you doing about jobs in rural Utah?'' Well, Mr. President, an important part of my answer to T.J. will be that I voted against this amendment today, and that I urged my colleagues to do the same. There being no objections, the letter was ordered to be printed in

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in tribute to a great Utah man of science, Dr. Roger R. Williams, whose life came to a tragic end last Wednesday in the horrific crash of Swissair Flight 111. Tomorrow, Dr. Williams' remarkable life will be celebrated at a memorial service in Salt Lake City. In the wake of this solemn occasion, I ask that my colleagues pause for a few moments in remembrance of those husbands and wives, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters who perished in this terrible crash. (Moment of silence.) Like Dr. Williams, each had abundant potential which was so unfairly cut short. Dr. Roger Williams was known throughout the world, not only as a distinguished professor of internal medicine at the University of Utah, but also as a leading expert in the field of cardiovascular genetics. In fact, at the time of his death, our Utah scientist was on his way to Geneva to chair an international panel of the World Health Organization, which is working to promote the prevention of premature death through early diagnosis of genetic cholesterol abnormalities. Dr. Williams was the founder and director of the University of Utah's Cardiovascular Genetics Research Clinic, which fosters collaborative investigations involving numerous fields of medicine. He was the author of more than 200 professional publications and a frequent chair of National Institutes of Health advisory committees. But what I remember most about Dr. Williams was his abundant spirit, his tremendous enthusiasm for life and for his work, an exuberance that was virtually impossible not to get caught up in. I can recall many occasions when he visited my office to educate, cajole-- and even plead--for an enhanced Federal commitment to research on the genetic basis of familial cholesterol problems. In fact, earlier this year, Dr. Williams' and I began work to design a program leading to the diagnosis and treatment of the unmet needs of many thousands of persons with strong familial predisposition to preventable early deaths. It is ironic that Dr. Williams' promising research was so abruptly halted by his own premature death. Mr. President, I am grateful for these opportunities to have worked with such a fine man, a man who did so much for our State, our country, and indeed, the world at large. Dr. Roger Williams will truly be missed--not only because of his contributions to science and medicine, which brought him international acclaim--but also because he was simply a good, decent man who always wanted to be fair. It is hard to forget a statement made by his son last week that captured the true essence of Roger Williams. Tom Williams remarked that his father was known to say ``If you wouldn't do it for the guy on the bottom, you can't do it for the guy on the top.'' I think we can all learn a valuable lesson from the life and work of Roger Williams, a man who always lived his life with the highest possible integrity and kindness, a man who regarded his happy marriage and seven children as his most important accomplishment and responsibility. Dr. Williams' passage is a tremendous loss to the State of Utah, the world of medical research, and to all those who knew him and knew him well. My heart goes out to his wife Linda, to his children, and to his extended family, including his colleagues, during what I know is a most difficult time. They will all be in our thoughts and prayers. We know that they will be blessed because of the lives that they live as well. This was a great man, a person who had unlimited potential. It is hard to understand why a life like this--indeed lives like all the others on that plane--were snuffed out. The fact of the matter is that, believing in a life hereafter and believing that there is a God who rewards people for the works that they do on this Earth, I have no doubt that Roger Williams will be with our Father in Heaven as one of his chosen people. It is my prayer all the passengers on flight 111 will be as well. I personally express my gratitude and appreciation for what Roger Williams has meant to this country, what he has meant to the University of Utah, what he has meant to our State, and what he has meant to so many other persons.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this morning there will be 30 minutes of debate prior to a rollcall vote on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the child custody protection legislation. If cloture is not invoked and if an agreement has not been reached with respect to the bankruptcy bill, there will be an additional 30 minutes of debate prior to a cloture vote on the Grassley substitute to the bankruptcy bill. If cloture is not invoked on that measure, it is expected that the Senate will resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill. Members are encouraged to come to the floor to offer and debate amendments to the Interior bill in an effort to make progress on this important legislation. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes throughout today's session, with the first vote occurring at 10 a.m. As a final reminder, Members have until 10 a.m. to file second-degree amendments to the bankruptcy bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, time is very limited this morning, so I will be brief. We are voting shortly on cloture on a Motion to Proceed. In other words, Senators will be deciding whether or not we can simply consider this important measure. We all know how contentious the issue of abortion can get around here, and across the country. But this matter is not really even about abortion. This bill is simply about protecting the health and safety of minor children and the rights that their own states have concluded their parents should have. Specifically, it simply seeks to enforce state laws requiring parental involvement in their minor daughter's abortion so that someone other than those parents cannot readily avoid those state laws by taking a young girl across state lines for an abortion, certainly not without the notification to their parents. But whether my colleagues agree or disagree with this bill, or whether, like the Clinton administration, that want to modify or limit it, there is simply no reason to vote no on just proceeding to a discussion. The concern has been expressed that there be an opportunity to offer relevant amendments. Mr. President, no one has suggested otherwise. Let's have at it. The only action that would preclude amendments is a no vote this morning. We are prepared to debate and vote on amendments. That opportunity was available at committee and it can be worked out here. In fact, the amendments offered or filed at committee would likely be germane post- cloture even if this were a cloture vote on the bill itself, rather than a motion to proceed. So let's not look for excuses here. I urge my colleagues to vote yes and allow us to consider this important legislation. American families--parents and their children--deserve no less. Having said that, I want to personally pay my respects to the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, for the leadership he has provided on this. Without him, we wouldn't be this far. I have to say he has been a great leader on the Judiciary Committee. I personally appreciate the efforts he has made on this bill thus far. I will support him every way I possibly can.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 6 p.m. there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my colleague from Kentucky has, as usual, made a persuasive case why the McCain amendment is, as it has been for several years, flawed beyond salvage. I commend him for his leadership on this issue. Like most of my colleagues, I do not oppose reform of our campaign finance laws if it is done in a constitutionally sound manner. But, I do not think passing campaign finance reform--this McCain-Feingold amendment, for example--just to say we've enacted reform gives us any sort of bragging rights. There is no virtue in passing a bad bill. I would like to spend just a few minutes addressing what, in my mind, is a much greater issue: the investigation of the fundraising abuses during the 1996 election cycle. At a time when the supporters of McCain-Feingold are urging adoption of an unprecedented increase in federal regulation of campaigns and public discourse, which would be enforced by this administration, that same administration has made almost no progress in finding out whether the laws already on the books were trampled by the Clinton/Gore campaign, the White House, and the Democratic National Committee. Unfortunately, the Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno, has continued to refuse to do what the law compels her: appoint an independent counsel to conduct the investigation of the fundraising activities surrounding the 1996 reelection campaign. And her own investigation, mired in obvious conflict of interest, has been a dismal failure. Last week I met for almost three hours with Attorney General Reno and top officials and staff of the Justice Department, including Deputy Attorney General Holder and Former Task Force head Charles LaBella, along with House Judiciary Chairman Hyde, House Government Reform and Oversight Chairman Burton, and Ranking Member Waxman, regarding the campaign finance investigation and the application of the independent counsel statute to this widespread and dangerous scandal. I had requested this meeting in late July after the existence of the so-called LaBella memorandum had come to light. In that memo, Mr. LaBella, the handpicked lead investigator with the most extensive knowledge of the facts of this scandal, concluded that the facts and law dictated that a broad independent counsel be appointed to investigate campaign finance abuses by the 1996 Clinton/Gore reelection campaign, the Clinton administration, and the Democratic National Committee. This memo came several months after a similar written conclusion made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Louis Freeh. Under federal law, the Attorney General must apply to the special division of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for appointment of an independent counsel whenever, after completion of a preliminary investigation, she finds finds information that a high-ranking official included in a specific category of individuals within the executive branch may have violated federal law. More than one and a half years ago, all ten Republicans on the Judiciary Committee felt the time had come to request such an appointment. We sent a letter to the Attorney General, as we are authorized to do by the independent counsel statute, requesting that she make an application for an independent counsel and demonstrating the evidence which requires such an application concerning the campaign finance scandal. After reviewing redacted versions of the memos prepared by Mr. LaBella and Director Freeh, it is clear that both gentleman have advanced strong, convincing arguments in support of a broad-based independent counsel. Importantly, when I asked the Attorney General and her top advisors why those recommendations have, thus far, been rejected, the answers I received were vague, insufficient, or unconvincing. I have urged Attorney General Reno to appoint a broad-based independent counsel for campaign finance for well over a year. I have written the Attorney General numerous times to demonstrate how she is misapplying and misunderstanding the independent counsel law. The law allows her to appoint a independent counsel if she has information that a crime may have been committed, but she has read the law as requiring that the evidence shows without a doubt that a crime has been committed. By setting up this legal standard, she basically has required that a smoking gun walk in the doors of Justice Department before she appoints an independent counsel. As has been widely reported, numerous individual investigations are being handled by the task force. Yet, the task force has reportedly never conducted an investigation or inquiry into the entire campaign finance matter in order to determine if there exists specific and credible information warranting the triggering of the independent counsel statute. Indeed, as has been reported, the task force has been utilizing a higher threshold of evidence when evaluating allegations that may implicate the Independent Counsel Act or White House personnel. I have admired the courage of FBI Director Freeh and lead investigator LaBella in discussing, within applicable rules, their views on these important issues. They made it clear that the independent counsel is required under the law, that there are no legal arguments for the Attorney General to hide behind. Director Freeh stated that covered White House persons are at the heart of the investigation. Investigator LaBella said there was a core group of individuals at the White House and the Clinton campaign involved in illegal fundraising. Now some may attempt to defend the Attorney General by noting that she has gone through the process of legal reviews of many aspects of the campaign finance scandal. These actions are good, although clearly incomplete, steps. Each month that goes by sees the Attorney General lurch towards a real investigation of the campaign finance scandal. We now have action on several peripheral fronts, including the independent counsel investigating Bruce Babbitt, the reviews of potential false statements by the Vice President concerning his fundraising calls and by Harold Ickes regarding his involvement with unions, and now the review of the President's control of DNC advertising. My primary focus, however, has been and remains the infusion of foreign money and influence on our campaigns. Until we have a broad- based independent counsel investigation, we will only be looking at the loose threads of the scandal and not the most serious alleged violations. In addition, I hope that the Attorney General will not take the entire three months to make decisions on these latest matters. The campaign finance violations we are discussing happened two and three years ago and every day that passes means leads are drying up, evidence is lost, and statutes of limitations are running. While Lead Investigator LaBella and FBI Director Freeh recommended that the Attorney General appoint an independent counsel to look into the coordination issue, it is clear that they both think an independent counsel should be appointed to handle the whole scandal, not just these peripheral issues. Any independent counsel must be given authority to delve into the most important questions of the scandal. As the New York Times concluded, a limited appointment would be a ``scam to avoid getting at the more serious questions of whether the Clinton campaign bartered Presidential audiences or policy decisions for contributions. A narrowly focussed inquiry could miss the towering problem of how so much illegal foreign money, possibly including Chinese government contributions, got into Democratic accounts.'' I must also take issue with the Attorney General's assertions that the current investigation is not a failure because it has secured a limited number of indictments. Let's remember that the ongoing campaign finance investigation has only indicted the most conspicuous people who made illegal donations to the DNC or the Clinton/Gore campaign. It has made no headway in finding out who in the administration or DNC knew about or solicited these illegal donations. Until it does so, the investigation is a failure. In closing, let me quote the New York Times, which, I believe, captured the situation perfectly: ``Ms. Reno keeps celebrating her stubbornness as if it were some sort of national asset or a constitutional principle that had legal standing. It is neither. It is a quirk of mind or personality that has blinded her to the clear meaning of the statute requiring attorneys general to recuse themselves when they are sunk to the axle in conflict of interest.'' The inability of the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute the violations of existing laws is the real scandal here. That is what we should be talking about, rather than legislation which would represent an unconstitutional, unwise, and partisan trampling of our electoral system and First Amendment rights. One final note, Mr. President. I believe that the American people want accountability in the electoral market place--not more restrictions on what they can and cannot do to participate in it. Accountability is a desirable thing in campaigning. I have always favored disclosure, and I believe we can take steps to enhance the information available to the press and to the public. But, accountability is not the same as regulating, which is what we are debating here today. This measure imposes new restrictions without necessarily increasing accountability, and it does so at a time when there has been little effort to effectively enforce the campaign laws we already have on the books. I join the Senator from Kentucky in urging defeat of this amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Patricia Kramer, a congressional fellow in Senator Grassley's office, be given floor privileges during the consideration of debate of S. 1301, the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to again express my disappointment in the refusal of Members on the other side of the aisle to allow the Senate to proceed to S. 1301, the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998. This is a very important piece of legislation, and it will be an enormous disservice to the American people if we fail to act on it this year. We all know the time is short and the schedule is very crowded in these last few weeks of the session. I just hope that, when the time comes, my colleagues on the other side will vote for cloture on the motion to proceed tomorrow and provide the Senate a fair chance to debate this much-needed legislation. In fact, I hope that they will waive their filibuster on the motion to proceed and will invoke cloture on the bill itself, if that is needed. In recent years, personal bankruptcy filings have reached epidemic proportions in the United States. We simply cannot afford to continue down this path because excessive bankruptcy filings harm every one of us in America. Consumer bankruptcy ends up costing Americans almost $40 billion a year, or roughly $400 per household in this country. The negative repercussions associated with consumer bankruptcy go far beyond the debts owed to credit card companies and big businesses. The reality is, contrary to what the critics of reform would lead us to believe, this issue profoundly impacts the average American. Bankruptcies end up harming small business owners, senior citizens who rely on rental income to supplement their retirements, and of course members of credit unions. Even the person who files for bankruptcy can end up being hurt. Some filers, victims of so-called ``bankruptcy mills,'' are neither apprised of their options nor informed of the consequences of a bankruptcy filing. Ultimately, they suffer the consequences of having filed, when a better alternative may have been available to them. This legislation is guided by two main principles: No. 1, restoring personal responsibility in the bankruptcy system; and, No. 2, ensuring adequate and effective protection for consumers. There are individuals who can repay some of what they owe but, instead, choose to use--rather, ``abuse''--the current bankruptcy system or laws to avoid doing so. The bankruptcy laws need to be reformed to prevent this from occurring. S. 1301 does this, while delicately safeguarding the bankruptcy system so that it can provide a ``fresh start'' to those who truly need it. I note that according to statistics from the American Bankruptcy Institute, most States in this Union have seen a troubling rise in bankruptcy filings. This is at a time when our economy has been doing extremely well. While we must preserve bankruptcy for those who need it, as legislators we must recognize that there are some unscrupulous individuals who are able to repay some of what they owe but still use the current bankruptcy laws to avoid doing so. In fact, to go one step further, there are some people who can pay all of what they owe but opt out through the bankruptcy system because of current loopholes in the law itself. This balanced legislation deserves to be considered. It is time for the Senate to act on this legislation. We should not derail the fair and balanced reforms proposed by this bill due to petty, partisan politics. I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will vote to allow the Senate to proceed to S. 1301 tomorrow. Furthermore, I hope once we proceed to the bankruptcy legislation, they will not prevent its passage by attempts to offer extraneous, politically motivated amendments, all of which we are used to at this time of the year but which I hope will not be the case on this particular bill, as important as it is. There will be no greater failure to discharge our duty as Senators if this legislation is held hostage for petty political purposes or the petty political politics of the few. It is time to debate this bill, debate any relevant amendments, and it is time to vote on it. In the interests of all Americans and the future of our economy, we need to end these partisan efforts to delay consideration of this bankruptcy reform legislation. It is time to fulfill our commitment to the American people and end the abuse of the bankruptcy system and its attendant $400 tax on every American family. Finally, I want to pay particular tribute to the distinguished Senator from Iowa who has handled this matter through the Subcommittee on the Courts and Administrative Oversight. He has brought it through the full committee and on to the floor of the Senate, with the help of some of the rest of us, but he has done a particularly good job on this bill. Yes, there are things that perhaps need to be corrected and might need to be changed. Both Senator Grassley and I have been open to changes and good ideas to improve this bill. And when and if we finally get to debate this bill, we will remain open to new ideas. But the fact of the matter is, it is very difficult to get a bill of this magnitude through without listening to everybody and paying attention to everybody's ideas. I think the distinguished Senator from Iowa has done an excellent job in doing exactly that. I am very proud of the work he has done. It is just typical of his service here in the Senate that he not only grabs the bull by the horns, but he gets it done and he does the things that really have to be done. He is a very valued member of the Judiciary Committee, and is certainly valued by me, personally. I just want him to know how much I appreciate the work he has done on this legislation. There are others, as well, including the distinguished Senator from Illinois, on other side of the floor. I hope he will counsel the people on his side of the floor to quit playing games with this important bill. He has worked very hard on this bill as well and deserves a lot of credit for how far we have come on this. I hope that with the leadership of these two fine Senators, Members on both sides of the aisle will realize how important this legislation truly is. If we can get this up through cloture, I have no doubt this will pass overwhelmingly on the floor because it is that important. It is that well done. It has the kind of backing that really it needs from the people at large in the country, on all sides of the spectrum. It is the type of legislation where literally all of us can go home and say we did the right thing. There is no question that we have to go to conference should we pass this bill. Hopefully, through that process, we can perfect both the House bill and this bill even more than we have right now. But the fact is, these leaders on the committee have done a very, very good job in getting it to this point, and I compliment them for it. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in many respects, I have been pulling for the President to pull through this problem and one who had hoped that the speech he gave never would have had to have been given, and who still is very concerned about our country and how this matter is handled. I want to express my gratitude to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut and my dear friends from Nebraska and New York, as well, for the moral compass that they have brought to the U.S. Senate floor this day, and really for the fine work they have done through the years in some of these very difficult matters. When the distinguished Senator from Connecticut stands and speaks on these particular issues, he does so with authority because he has spoken out on so many moral issues in the past, and I think with good effect. I think it is important for all of us to reserve judgment on these matters until we have the report of Judge Starr. At that time, we can look at it and make determinations as to what should be done. There is no question that the President has been embarrassed by some of the things that have happened. There is also no question that these are difficult times for him, his wife, his daughter, and others in the administration--frankly, for all of us. Let's hope that we can approach this matter with kindness and deliberation and do the things that really need to be done in this area and, again, as the majority leader said, do what is in the best interest of our country. That may give us a number of alternatives that may be very just and worthwhile and beneficial to the country. Let's hope we choose the right path. In any event, I express my gratitude to these members of the other party because I know how difficult it is for them to come to the floor and speak on this issue. I respect them for having done so. It is a difficult set of issues, and certainly I feel very deeply about them as well. I express my gratitude.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed in my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts, who has chosen to object to even proceeding to the bankruptcy reform legislation. The fact is that this Grassley-Durbin legislation has broad bipartisan support. This particular bill passed the Judiciary Committee with a 16-2 vote. This piece of consensus legislation reflects the tireless efforts of both Democrat and Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, at subcommittee markup, no less than eight amendments were offered, all of which were adopted. Furthermore, at the full committee markup, 13 amendments were offered and eight of them were adopted. So there has been a real bipartisan effort to resolve the problems. A number of changes requested by my colleagues on the minority side were included in a comprehensive substitute amendment that was adopted at the markup. All during this process, I have been open to other changes. In fact, I worked with Senator Dodd to address his concerns that the legislation may have an adverse impact on the ability of ex-spouses and children to collect support payments. Along with Senators Grassley and Kyl, I introduced a comprehensive amendment that creates new legal protections for ex-spouses and children who are owed child support and all money payments. This amendment not only ensures that S. 1301 will have no adverse effect on child support and alimony payments, but also creates significant new legal protections that strengthen the ability of ex- spouses and children to collect the payments that they are owed. So we have made every effort to accommodate everybody here. Further, I want to respond to the suggestion that this legislation does not help real working families. Mr. President, this bill does exactly that. It is an important bill that will help millions of American families. In fact, abuses of the current bankruptcy system impose a $400 tax per family. Let me be clear. This is not $400 per family that declares bankruptcy; this is a tax on every American family. This legislation is designed to remedy that. Again, I am extremely disappointed that we have not been allowed to proceed with this important bill, and I hope we can invoke cloture on this.