Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller). (Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I hate to keep doing this to the gentleman from Hollywood, but people keep wandering up and wanting a little time. Would the gentleman endure one more unanimous consent request for 2 more minutes on each side?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is an unfortunate fact that it often takes a tragedy such as happened recently in Colorado to get our attention to help us focus on a festering problem. In the light of the recent rash of school shootings and the continued prevalence of youth violence in America, I think it is crucial that Congress address some of the cultural issues that influence the behavior of America's young people, factors that may actually be causing kids to find a gun and commit a violent act. The fact is new gun laws and tighter control of the juvenile justice system are not by themselves a cure for the epidemic of youth violence. Although gun legislation has its utility, the real problem is what is going on in our kids' minds and hearts and souls. The young assailants in Colorado violated 15 Federal gun and explosive laws and 7 State laws. So passing a few more laws and piling them on does not seem to me to get at the heart of the problem. In order to be truly responsive to the issues of youth violence, Congress must address the cultural influences that cause young people to become violent. We need to get at the issues of the heart. Part of the problem is that children have been overexposed to violence and, this, coupled with a spiritual vacuum leaves many youngsters desensitized to violence and unable to fully appreciate the consequences of their sometimes brutal actions. As popular entertainment becomes more violent and more sexually explicit and as it depicts more and more disrespect for life, and the rights and well-being of others, some of our children are starting to believe this behavior is normal and acceptable. They do not seem to understand that acts of violence have real life tragic consequences. We know as a result of several hundred studies, there is a link between media violence and violent behavior in our country, particularly among young people. Both the American Medical Association and the American Association of Pediatrics have warned against exposing children to violent entertainment. One 1996 AMA study concluded that the link between media violence and real life violence has been proven by science time and time again. Another American Medical Association study concluded that exposure to violence in entertainment increases aggressive behavior and contributes to America's sense that they live in a mean society. Much of the make- believe violence that kids are exposed to today is presented not as horror with devastating human consequences but simply as entertainment. This is enormously harmful to young people whose values and conscience are still being developed. Well, what can we do about this? Are we impotent? Are we paralyzed? It is not easy, but I believe my amendment, which includes five specific proposals addressing this cultural breakdown, is a beginning and gets at some of the worst influences on our children. The first and most important section of my amendment creates a new Federal statute to protect minors from explicit sexual and explicit violent material. The First Amendment is not absolute and does not protect obscenity. That has been the law for 40 years. There is an exception to the First Amendment, and it is obscenity. Furthermore, under current law, it is constitutionally permissible to adopt an obscenity standard which restricts the rights of minors to obtain certain sexually-related materials that are not considered obscene for adults. In other words, there is a double standard and it is a tougher standard for minors than for adults, and that is the constitutional law. Currently, many States do this through harmful to minor statutes that prohibit the sale of sexually explicit material to minors that would not necessarily be considered obscene for adults. Thus, in most States with harmful to minor statutes adults can buy certain pornographic magazines but minors cannot. Right now, there is no Federal law that prohibits the sale of material that is considered too explicit for minors but not for adults. My amendment would change that by creating a Federal law that would prohibit the sale of certain explicit sexual and explicit violent material to minors under the age of 17. My amendment covers violent material because I believe if the Constitution permits us to restrict the type of sexual material kids can purchase, then it makes sense that we can also prohibit the distribution of material to minors that is graphically violent and glorifies this violence to a level that is harmful. I believe certain extremely violent movies, video games and music can have just as much or more of a detrimental effect on the development of kids than some explicit sexual material that many States currently try to protect them from. In other words, at their worst, violence and pornography are equivalent evils, especially where minor children are concerned. This new obscenity for minors statute does not restrict the rights of adults or parents to view certain sexual or violent material. It does not prohibit anyone from producing such items and does not provide an unworkable standard. Rather, it empowers parents to make decisions about what type of material is appropriate for their children. With enactment of this legislation, parents, not merchants, many of whom are responsible, but there will always be some who without the threat of law will pursue profit over decency and sell harmful materials to minors, will decide whether their kids can see explicit sexual or violent material. Some, of course, have questioned the constitutionality of this proposal. It is clear that this proposal is going to be challenged in the courts should it become law. However, I submit that those who assert that the statute is patently unconstitutional are engaging in knee-jerk analysis and have not thoroughly studied the law in this area. This statute, this amendment, was carefully drafted to comply with the Supreme Court's precedent. First, a detailed definition of sexual and violent material is included to address the constitutional concern of vagueness. The definition of sexual material was taken almost verbatim from a New York statute that was upheld by the Supreme Court in a case known as Ginsberg versus New York. The definition of violent material is new, but I believe it is sufficiently precise that if someone challenges the bill on vagueness grounds it will survive the challenge. Secondly, the statute incorporates the standard three-prong test validated by the Supreme Court and used to determine if the sexual or violent material as defined by the statute does or does not qualify for First Amendment protection. I am confident the Court will uphold this test. Third, someone may argue to the courts that violent material can never be obscene. The Supreme Court has never held directly that extremely violent material may not, for that reason only, be banned. I submit that extreme violence, properly defined, can be obscene. If sexual images may go sufficiently beyond community standards for candor and offensiveness and hence be unprotected, there is no reason why the same should not be true of violence. I understand some people may disagree with the Court's decision to carve out an exception to the First Amendment freedom of speech for obscenity, but if one believes the Supreme Court is justified in maintaining a First Amendment exception for obscenely sexual material, then what are the policy arguments that justify this exception that do not also apply to violent material? There are no theories of the First Amendment that justify an exception for sexual obscenity that can't reasonably be extended to justify an exception for violent obscenity. It is also important to remember that this amendment would not declare any violent materials as obscene for adults only; only for minors under the age of 17. The Supreme Court has recognized there is a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors. This interest extends to shielding minors from the influence of literature that is not obscene by adult standards. Under my proposed amendment it would still be legal to produce and distribute any explicitly violent material but some of it would not be permitted to be sold to minors. I think this new provision is exceedingly important. It says that we are on the side of parents and not the purveyors of harmful material to our children. I realize the big money of the entertainment industry is on the other side of my argument, but I believe the parents of America are on my side. This legislation is not an attack on the First Amendment, despite what has been charged by many of my colleagues. Rather, it is simply saying that some material is beyond the pale and should not be sold to minors. We are not trying to ban anything or censor anyone. We are just saying one cannot sell some of this horrible stuff to kids. If my colleagues do not believe that parents should have more control over their kids' access to these harmful materials, then by all means vote against my amendment. However, if they believe we should do something to slow the flood of toxic waste into the minds of our children, then please do vote for my amendment. There are four other parts to this amendment that will make a difference in addressing the culture of violence, and I would like to take a few moments to explain them. I have included as a second section a provision whereby Congress, through merely a sense of Congress resolution, asks retail establishments that sell music to allow parents to review, in their store, the lyrics accompanying the sound recordings they offer for sale. This is a simple way for parents to read the lyrics accompanying the CDs they are considering buying for their kids. It is my hope that retailers can take this responsible step on their own and allow parents to review in their store a copy of the lyrics. We are not asking them to give away copies of lyrics. We are merely asking them to give the parents a right to look at them so they can determine for themselves whether the lyrics are appropriate for their own children. Many CDs contain foul language. While others contain vulgar and graphic lyrics describing and glamourizing murder, gang violence, suicide and sex, many lyrics are hateful, racist or misogynistic. Although there is a voluntary labeling system within the recording industry that calls for placement of a sticker on CDs that contain explicit language, there is still no way prior to purchase for the parents to review the lyrics in the store. Hopefully this section will result in establishment of a right to review in the stores. The third section of this amendment essentially mirrors part of an amendment sponsored by Senator Brownback that was included in the juvenile justice bill passed by the Senate. This section requires the National Institutes of Health to conduct the study of the effects of violent video games and music on child development and youth violence. The NIH is directed to address in the study whether and to what extent video games and music affect the emotional and psychological development of juveniles and whether violence and video games and music contributes to juvenile delinquency and youth violence. While numerous studies, one counts it at over 300, have been conducted regarding the impact of violence in television and movies, there have been very few studies done on the impact of music and video games on young people. The popularity of video games is rapidly increasing. One study, conducted by Strategy Records Research, found that 64 percent of young people play video games on a regular basis, and many are nothing more than a contest to see which competitor can kill the most efficiently. The graphics are startling. Some advertisements for these games make pitches like ``Psychiatrists say it is important to feel something when you kill.'' This game is ``more fun than shooting your neighbor's cat.'' ``Kill your friends guilt free.'' Determining what impact video games like this might have on the decisions and behavior of young people is clearly in the public interest. By some estimates, the average teen listens to music around 4 hours a day. Between 7th and 12th grade, the average teen is going to listen to around 10,000 hours of music. That is more time than they will spend in school. Last month, Bill Bennett commented on the possible effects of music lyrics on child development by first quoting Socrates who wrote, ``Musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace.'' Mr. Bennett then stated that rhythm and harmony are still fastening themselves on to children's souls today. However, much of the music they listen to is imparting mournfulness, darkness, despair, and a sense of death. This is something many parents fear, and we ought to study if some modern music does indeed impart a sense of death upon America's youth. The fourth section of this amendment is very similar to a Senate amendment providing a limited antitrust exemption to the entertainment industry to enable the entertainment industry to work collectively to develop and implement voluntary programming guidelines that alleviate the negative impact of television programming, movies, Internet content, and music lyrics on the development of children. Nothing in this amendment curtails freedom of expression in any way. It gives, rather, the entertainment industry the freedom to enter into a voluntary code of conduct. The fifth section of the amendment, promoting grassroots solutions to youth violence, authorizes the Attorney General to award $5 million annually for 5 years to the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise for the purpose of funding direct demonstration operations and program development grants to community organizations in nine cities across the country. During the 105th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on a number of inner city programs that have succeeded in reducing youth crime and violence. One of the programs showcased was the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, based in Washington, D.C. Since 1981, this organization has successfully dealt with gang violence, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, and fatherless children. One of the most remarkable successes occurred in 1997, not far from the Capitol, where this organization helped broker a truce between warring gangs that had turned the Benning Terrace neighborhood into a combat zone. That truce has lasted to this day, and Benning Terrace has been transformed into a neighborhood where people can again walk their streets in safety. The Benning Terrace truce showcased what has made the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise approach to inner city violence so successful. Faced with an intractable problem, they stepped in, tapped local groups that understood the problem, and helped rival gang members recognize their mutual interests. This provision is an attempt to replicate this approach in nine violence-plagued cities across the Nation. If Congress is going to spend funds on social programs, it is important for us to try to direct Federal funds to community renewal organizations in our cities that actually have succeeded in reducing violence and putting kids on the right track. The National Center does this, as evidenced by their transformation of the Benning Terrace housing project, and helped prevent countless young persons from engaging in the life-style of violence. I know Congress does not have all the answers to the terrible problem of youth violence in America. Some of these proposals I have discussed are modest. But we ought to do what we can. Study after study has shown that exposure to violence adversely affects the development of children and leaves some of them more disposed to commit acts of violence. Even the most caring and responsible parents cannot prevent these influences from reaching their kids. Parents need our help. Let us stand with them. Nothing we do in this life is more important than how we raise our children. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for a very civil and I think enlightening debate, and some of the other, not all, but some of the other participants. I would like to read from Ginsberg v. New York, a Supreme Court case, 390 U.S. 629: ``A legislature could properly conclude that parents and others who have primary responsibility for children's well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility.'' I would like to tell my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) that ``Shakespeare in Love'' has redeeming artistic quality. It does not fit in this definition, although there is a gratuitous sex scene in it which, if your children saw it, they might think it is normal and acceptable, and I guess maybe the gentlewoman might think it is too. I do not. But the movie could be shown without any problem because if you read the bill, if you read the definition, it would have to be utterly without any redeeming social value. Now, for 40 years Congress has been wrestling with this problem, 40. Do Members know what it has come up with? Nothing. Nothing. We posture, we pass resolutions, viewing with alarm, but the entertainment industry gets away literally with murder. All we are doing is saying that obscenity for 40 years has not been protected by the First Amendment. We are saying some of this violence is as egregious and horrible and vulgar and harmful as sexual obscenity. Why confine the proscription just to sexual obscenity? Why not to mutilation? Why not to sadomasochism? Why not to flagellation? Why not to rape? Those are four specific categories, and only four, that we say ought not to be protected by the First Amendment. If that is doing violence to the Constitution, I have never read that document. So let us do something, not do nothing. It is my opinion that what happened in Littleton, Colorado, and what happened in Conyers, Georgia, cannot be solved by one more gun law. There were 15 Federal laws having to do with guns and ammunition that were violated by these two assailants in Colorado, and seven State laws. Is our answer to pile a couple of more laws on? No. Let us examine what it is in the psyches of these young people that made them want to kill, the culture of death. There is something missing. We have to look at it. Anybody that does thinks rotten movies, rotten television, rotten video games are not poisoning, toxically poisoning our kids' minds and making some kids think that conduct is acceptable just is not paying attention. I cannot match the Political Action Committees of the entertainment industry, but I will tell the Members, there are a lot of parents who need help. My friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) said it is up to the parents. If Members can watch their four kids all the time every day, at night and at school, and know what they are seeing and know what they are reading, they have solved a wonderful problem and should tell me how they do it. This is an effort to solve the problem. I hear nothing from the other side but ridicule. Please support the Hyde amendment.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. My colleagues, when the good Lord makes more airspace over O'Hare Field, then we can have more flights in there. But when there are more flights, we use up the space, we use up the air, we use up the ground, and there is not any more. We are already the busiest airport in the world. We get some pretty bad weather in Chicago, and by stuffing or shoveling more flights into O'Hare, we create lots of problems for my constituents and for everybody that is flying around the country, because those backups and delays are going to radiate and ripple out. I ask my colleagues to consider safety, to consider noise, to consider pollution, and to consider the status quo, which is serving us well, until we build more airports and more capacity. We are not doing that now and we should not add more flights. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my dear friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) that opposing a third airport is the way to stifle competition. God forbid we should have a third airport and open up more slots and more gates and invite other airlines in. American and United would not like that. So to say that my amendment hampers competition, no, my amendment is designed ultimately to get to a third airport which Chicago is going to have, whether we stand in the way or not, it has to have, but that is the way to eliminate competition. Now, anybody who says air density has no connection with safety never looks out the window as the plane is circling in bad weather. Believe me, the more flights that fill the air, if one does not think that creates a safety problem then I do not know what pilots they are talking to. O'Hare has 900,000 flights a year. It is the busiest airport in the United States, and to make it more busy may satisfy the balance sheet but I do not think it answers the human equation. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Chicago, Mr. Jackson.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we have 20 minutes on one side and 20 on the other, if that solves the problem.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is absolutely, positively right. I was here when the proposal was made for this tax, and foolishly I believed that it was for providing funds to build a third airport, something I am for and something Chicago desperately needs, so I voted for it. When the third airport fell through because it had to be built in Chicago or it could not be built, then the money was diverted for other purposes. It has never gone for the purpose for which it was promised and intended. That is wrong. The amendment of gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is right and ought to be supported. They say, we cannot beat City Hall. We are proving it again today. I am for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 201 of the bill and maintains current law with respect to the high-density rule. Section 201, as amended by the manager's amendment, eliminates the high-density rule for three of the four slot-controlled airports, O'Hare, LaGuardia, and JFK in New York, and modifies it for the fourth, Reagan National. Although the manager's amendment makes that elimination somewhat slower than was contemplated under the reported bill, the bottom line is that new flights start coming right away. Let me give some background about why I feel so strongly about this issue. Mr. Chairman, in 1968, the Federal Aviation Administration promulgated the high-density rule, or the slot rule. This was done to manage demand so that delays did not rise above unacceptable levels. That system worked well for 25 years. In response to demands to lift the rule, Congress in 1994 required the U.S. Department of Transportation to conduct a detailed study to determine whether there was additional capacity at the high-density rule airports and whether the high-density rule should be lifted. In May 1995, the Department of Transportation published its report in four volumes. One month later, the Department announced that based on this study, it would not change the slot limits at O'Hare or any other high-density-rule airport. This exhaustive study was released just 5 years ago. If anything has changed since then, it is that the air traffic situation at these airports has gotten worse. Why does this matter to us? Many like to view the high-density rule as a parochial issue of importance only to Chicago, New York, and Washington. This is wildly inaccurate. The high-density rule is a safety issue and a national issue, particularly at O'Hare. According to the FAA study I just mentioned, O'Hare's maximum safe level is 155 operations per hour. O'Hare is already operating above that level without adding one more flight. Let me repeat, O'Hare is operating above its maximum safe level today without adding one more flight. Even under the changes made by the manager's amendment, we will start adding more flights right away; as I calculated, 80 new more flights a day. I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) in the manager's amendment to ease the pain of this change, but I cannot in good conscience support one more flight into O'Hare. By eliminating the high-density rule, by adding one more flight to O'Hare, much less 80 a day, we are courting disaster. We are shortening the odds that a crash will occur sooner or later. But this amendment is important to Members for another reason. Eliminating the high-density rule will cause traffic backups at O'Hare. In 1995, in the study, the Department found that eliminating the high- density rule would more than double, do Members hear me, double delays for all travelers using O'Hare. Traffic backups at O'Hare invariably cause ripple effects throughout the entire air traffic system. If Members want to spend more time sitting on airplanes stuck on the tarmac, then by all means, oppose my amendment. If Members want the air traffic system to work better and faster and safer, then they should vote for my amendment. I have tried to talk about why this amendment is important to those who do not represent Chicago, New York, or Washington. Let me talk for a moment about the impact on my constituents. As I have already made clear, my district is the home of O'Hare airport, one of the busiest airports in the world. I am pleased to have O'Hare in my district. It creates numerous jobs, and by facilitating commerce, it build greater wealth for all of us. However, it also creates a substantial burden on those who live around it, all of whom are my constituents. As policymakers, we must balance the benefits against the burden. It is in that spirit I am offering this amendment. No one wants to live in a cloud of jet exhaust fumes. The FAA and the EPA do regulate the emissions from individual aircraft, but no one takes care of the problem of accumulating emissions around O'Hare. This is already severe. O'Hare is one of the three top toxic pollutant emitters in Illinois. It emits benzene, formaldehyde, and carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Pardon me if I resist dumping more of these pollutants into my constituents' neighborhoods, and pardon them if they do not want their children around these materials. Eliminating the high-density rule brings more flights and more pollution. These are not the only pollutants from O'Hare. The same is true for noise. Many airplanes are still loud. They are getting better, but they are still loud. If you live around an airport, you suffer. If you live around O'Hare, you suffer severely. Eliminating the high- density rule means more flights, more noise, and more rattling windows for my constituents. I think they deserve better, so I urge Members' support for this amendment. Some have asked, why can I not simply accept the changes to the high- density rule embodied in the manager's amendment. Let me explain, again, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster). He has a big bill and he has to balance a lot of interests. He does a remarkably good job in balancing those interests. However, my loyalty is to my constituents and I must put their interests first. I have already set out the reasons why they cannot accept one more slot. Even under the changes made in the manager's amendment, there will be a limited number of new slots for flights to underserved cities and new entrant carriers immediately. Even under these changes, there will be an unlimited number of new slots on March 1, 2000, for regional jet aircraft. Even under those changes, there will be an unlimited number of new slots for all aircraft in the late afternoon and early evening on March 1, 2001. Even with the changes, there will be an unlimited number of new slots for all aircraft at all times on March 1, 2002. That is simply more than we ought to bear. Mr. Chairman, it is not very often I come to the floor and tell my colleagues that I hope I am wrong. Today I have that sad duty. I hope that I am wrong and there will not be an airline disaster at O'Hare. I hope that I am wrong and there will not be delays. I hope that I am wrong and there will not be more pollution and more noise in my district. Unfortunately, I fear that I am right. For that reason, I urge Members to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the generous concession. As I look at this, both sides are right. You obviously are correct in that this is a terrible time to pull the plug on the operations over in Kosovo when we are on the verge of solving the most volatile part of that entire operation, and this is not the time to give signals of uncertainty as to where we stand or what abilities our commanders will have in the field. On the other hand, they are perfectly correct over here in saying why are you not paying for this, why are you divesting and draining quality of life accounts, modernization accounts, ammunition accounts, readiness accounts. You are doing no favor to the cause of international stability by weakening and debilitating the rest of the military to pay for something going on in Kosovo. Now, that ought to be resolved and should be resolved. We really should not be at loggerheads here. You are right and you are right. I just do not see why you cannot get together and have the administration ask for the money to pay for Kosovo and not keep draining the readiness accounts.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, a lot of talk about rights, about women's rights, and properly so. Not a word, not a syllable, not a phrase is spoken about the rights of the unborn child. Because the unborn child in the process we call abortion or euphemistically we call choice, which is an interesting subject, but nonetheless the rights of the unborn are never considered whatsoever. Now I have heard people on the other side say that there is a constitutional right to choose. It is really not in the Constitution, but the court found it there in 1973, 7 to 2, the right to an abortion. But there is no right to have the taxpayers pay for that abortion. Now our colleagues will say but under the Meek amendment, which we are debating here, under this amendment the pregnant woman will pay her own expenses. But they are using a medical facility of the United States military, and thus they are turning that into not a place for healing, but an abortion mill, an abortion clinic. Now there are people whose tax dollars go to pay for that hospital who are morally opposed to abortion, who do not think it is a good thing, who think it is a tragedy to take an innocent little human life, and before it gets a chance to laugh or cry, exterminate it. They do not terminate a pregnancy, they exterminate. All pregnancies terminate after 9 months. Now this has been the policy of our country and our government for some time, and it ought to stay there. Do not turn military hospitals into abortion clinics. Do not use the facilities that are paid for by taxpayers to kill an unborn child. Our colleagues say they want to make abortion safe, legal and rare. We can make it legal, we cannot make it moral, and we cannot make it safe for the unborn, and by facilitating abortions we are not making it rare. So think of the child, put the child in the picture, think of the unborn life that is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and do not turn our military hospitals into abortion clinics.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for making a necessary stand for life and against the culture of death. The question is about abortion. It is a shame that in discussing this life-and-death issue, the forces of prolife are demonized as antichoice ideologues. One good thing that has come from this debate has been the use of the word ``abortion.'' You are getting away, however slowly, from the euphemism of ``choice,'' because, of course, there is no choice for the unborn whatsoever. The question is, should Federal funds be used to pay for learning how to make chemical warfare on a defenseless, unborn child? You relegate that child to nothingness because you do not consider the well-being of the child. You only consider the woman who for one reason or another wants an abortion, and that is a tragedy. But life is precious. And once it has begun, that life ought to be protected. Now, yes, abortion is legal. More is the pity. What a shame on this country's conscience. But the policy of this government and this Congress has been not to coerce money from working people to pay for the extermination of a human life once it has begun. Those people arguing against the gentleman from Oklahoma are all for abortion. They think that is a good thing. God bless them for thinking so. I think it is a horrible thing. I think it is morally wrong. I do not think people ought to be coerced into supporting it because it is morally wrong. I hope Members will support the Coburn amendment as I do.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, please permit me to share with my colleagues the work of some bright young men and women in my district. Each year, my office--in cooperation with junior and senior high schools in Northern Illinois--sponsors an essay writing contest. The contest's board, chaired by my good friend Vivian Turner, a former principle of Blackhawk Junior High School in Bensenville, IL, chooses a topic and judges the entries. Winners of the contest share in more than $1,000 in scholarship funds. Today, I have the honor of naming for the Record the winners of this year's contest. This year, Kathryn Solari of Mary, Seat of Wisdom School in Park Ridge, IL, won the junior high division with an essay titled, ``Coach-- One Who Teaches or Trains an Athlete,'' a text of which I include in the Record. Placing second was Jennifer C. Miller of St. Peter the Apostle School in Itsaca. This year, we had a three-way tie for third place in the junior high division among: Omar Germino of St. Charles Borromeo School in Bensenville, Sam Francis of Glen Crest Middle School in Glen Ellyn, and Rachel Soden of Westfield School in Bloomingdale. In the Senior High School Division, the first place award went to Paul McGovern of Driscoll Catholic High School in Addison for his essay, ``Teofilo Lindio,'' a text of which I include in the Record. Carl Hughes of Maine South High School in Park Ridge finished second, and third place went to Katherine Yeu, also from Driscoll Catholic High School. I wish to offer my congratulations to all this year's winners. Teofilo Lindio--The Six Pillars of Character (By Paul McGovern, Driscoll Catholic, Addison, IL) I consider my grandfather, Teofilo Lindio, to be an exemplary role model. My Lolo (the Philippine word for grandfather) was born on March 8, 1912, in Legaspi, a small province in the Philippines. Though I have been to the Philippines to see him only once, I have heard much of him from my mother. According to her, Teofilo was an honest, caring individual who accepted what came to him in life, and strove to make the most of it. He was sincerely devoted to his God, to his family, and to his fellow man. My Lolo's solid Christian beliefs formed the foundation on which the Six Pillars of Character were laid--the pillars, which ultimately formed and upheld his reputation as a great man within his community. Teofilo was the fifth of seven children of a wealthy commercial farmer. However, when his father died, Teofilo inherited little, since most of the land went to the older sons. At this point, Teofilo had to make a choice. He was already married, and his wife was about to have a child. Teofilo had been at the top of his high school class, so college was a very possible option for him. After considering the consequences of this option, he made the responsible choice. He used the money he had to start his own carpentry business so that he could better support his family. Eventually, Teofilo's business grew and he began to amass a small fortune. Rather than indulge himself in luxuries, he decided to make a difference in his community of Legaspi. Teofilo would make free coffins for the poor people in his community. Every Sunday after church, he would host a picnic in which all of the impoverished people in the community could eat for free. This compassion earned him his reputation as a generous, caring man. Eventually, however, the amount of money that he spent on feeding the poor became too much, as more and more poor persons came to eat each Sunday. His business underwent tough times, and soon he was forced to stop his charity. In one particularly difficult period during the 50's, Teofilo and his family had trouble finding enough food to eat. All of his children who were old enough to work had jobs so that the family could feed and clothe itself. Even in tough times, Teofilo still showed fairness in his dealings with customers, and continued to do quality work for a fair price. Morals were more important to him than money. He did not blame God, the poor whom he fed, or himself for the state of poverty he was in. Knowing that Teofilo was a generous man, wealthy people offered him aid in his time of trouble. Teofilo ``took turns and shared,'' and thus moved others to do the same. In my opinion, my Lolo was simply an all-around outstanding individual. His trustworthiness was shown in his commitment to his family. Teofilo was honest in his marriage, and put his family first in his life. According to my mother, he spent every night with the family, asking all nine of his children how their days went, telling jokes, and discussing Bible stories. He promised to always be there for them, and he was. He continually said to me over the phone, ``No family gathering can be complete without you and your dad.'' Another instance of this trustworthiness is when his wife became very sick in the 50's. Teofilo made a promise to God that if his wife recovered, he would sing the Pasyon (Passion and Resurrection of Christ) on every Holy Thursday and Good Friday--2 whole days, without sleep--until the end of his life. His wife recovered, and he faithfully kept his promise. Teofilo showed respect for others as well. He respected the poor as human beings who had the right to eat just as he did. He respected his children's right to make decisions about their future. He did not force his sons to work in his business, but instead encouraged them to achieve higher education and do what brings them the most joy. Neither did he force his daughters to marry any particular young man, even though his parents forced him into a marriage. Teofilo taught his children that keeping a level head and peaceful disposition is the best way to resolve a conflict. While visiting the Philippines, one of my relatives told me a possibly exaggerated story of how Teofilo caught a burglar who broke into his house. He held a large knife to the burglar's neck, forgave him, and let him leave peacefully. The burglar never attempted to steal from Teofilo's house again. Teofilo was also a model for outstanding citizenship. Whenever there was a fire in the community he would volunteer his help, even if it occurred in the middle of the night. He made his community a better place by feeding the poor. Even in tough times, the temptation to steal was never able to ensnare him. The worst law violation he committed in his lifetime was not reporting the burglar. In this violation of state law, he upheld the ``law'' of the Church--to forgive and forget. An extremely diligent individual, Teofilo never went into complete retirement. He still continued to repair and build houses up until his death. Lolo died on February 28, 1999 of a heart attack at age 86, just before he was able to finish building an altar in his house. After the period of mourning, my family and I looked back at what Teofilo Lindio had done in his lifetime. While he was only moderately successful in an academic and material sense, his character was certainly most admirable. Though he, like all people, must have had his bad points, he was, overall, a great man. I must say that I am proud to be a descendant of Teofilo Lindio. Coach--One Who Teaches or Trains an Athlete (By Kathryn Solari, Mary, Seat of Wisdom School, Park Ridge, IL) People often compare life to many things. Since athletics have been very important to me, I could compare life to a series of basketball games. Good character then is the attitude by which you approach, play, and finish the game. It is similar to life in that if you don't do things with a good attitude, you won't get very much out of the game. A role model is like a coach. The coach is someone who has played the game before and is continuing to work on improving his game. He tries to teach you all that he has learned and helps you to become a better player so one day you can make smart plays on your own. He is there to congratulate you when you win and comfort you when you lose. No matter what, his guidance becomes a part of you and has a great influence on your game. It is important to have role models in your life who act as coaches. My coach, teammate, referee, fan, and role model is my dad. He has not only told me, but has shown me how to win in the game of life. He has done this by being responsible, respectful, and caring. My father is very caring. To me, caring means putting others before yourself. My father truly cares for my family. He cares for and loves his wife and all four of his children. There is nothing he wouldn't do for us. After a hard day's work, he comes home and greets each of us with a smile no matter where we are in the house. He asks us if we need help on our homework because he cares about how well we do in school. My dad and I must have done thousands of math problems together. On any given night, he is quizzing us on vocabulary or testing us on our school subjects. However, our grades don't matter as much to him as long as we try our best. His guidance in decision making is always helpful. On Thursday and Friday mornings he gets up early with my sister and me to help us get ready for band. He takes care of us when we are sick, comforts us when we are sad, and laughs with us when we are happy. Most of all, he makes each of us feel important and special in our own way. My dad shows how caring he is through his service in the community. If anyone in the neighborhood needs help, my dad will help them with anything from taking care of a pet to vacuuming out a flooded basement. He is currently coaching four basketball teams because he feels all children should have the opportunity to play. During parish mission projects, my dad generously donates his time to assist however possible. During the shoe box drive at church, for example, he wrapped shoe boxes, bought needed supplies at the store, and cleaned up after everyone left. He has delivered furniture to a family in Roger's Park as well as packed peanut butter sandwich lunches for the needy. My father is a person who truly loves and cares for others. My father tries to respect everyone. To me, respect is treating others the way you want to be treated no matter how they treat you. My father is very fair. He has probably learned that from raising four children. If he is going to let my sister stay up a little later, then he lets us all stay up a little later. He also gave everyone on my basketball team equal playing time this year. He is very polite and shows good sportsmanship. Being considerate, my father tries to think about how things will affect others. He is always open to new ideas and never laughs at things unless they are meant to be funny. If there was an award for the most patient and easy going person, I am sure my dad would win it. His positive outlook on life and his gentle ways of speaking win him others' respect. My father never yells at anyone. Instead, he talks things out and treats people with respect. He tries to bring out the best in everyone. My father has a lot of responsibilities in his life, which he handles well. He is, first of all, responsible for his family. He works all day to provide for us. He also helps around the house doing various chores. His responsibilities as a father are endless. He also has a responsibility to love and be faithful to my mom. He is responsible for helping his parents and my mom's parents with things around their homes as well as with financial advice. Many of his responsibilities lie outside our family. He is involved in many of the decisions regarding our school's expansion project this year. He is on the finance committee at his old high school, as well as many committees in our parish. To fulfill his religious responsibilities, he attends church regularly, is a Eucharistic minister, makes financial contributions to the church, and tries to live out the Gospel. My dad is a very important and irreplaceable part of my life. He has taught me much about life and has set my life on a good, strong foundation. I know that my dad will always be there to guide me, comfort me, help me, and celebrate with me. Next year, I will be starting high school. There will be many changes in my life. I know that things won't be as difficult because I have a great role model and coach walking with me every step of the way. Knowing my father, the best way to thank him would be to live my life as he has coached me, to be a caring, respectful, and responsible person. With a coach like my dad and God on my side, I know I'll be a winner in the game of life.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are returning today to some unfinished business from the 105th Congress--noncontroversial legislation that provides short-term relief to hospitals with critical needs that cannot recruit and retain adequate numbers of registered nurses. H.R. 441, the ``Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999,'' is designed in response to a crisis facing some large hospitals with high percentages of Medicare and Medicaid patients in areas where there are shortages of health care professionals. The viability of essential health care for large numbers of people is threatened when certain acute care facilities in medically underserved, impoverished communities are unable to meet their requirements. H.R. 441 provides such hospitals relief in compelling circumstances by facilitating the temporary admission to the United States of registered nurses in an H-1C nonimmigrant visa category--subject to a nationwide ceiling of 500 visas issued annually and limits of 50 or 25 (depending on a state's population) on the numbers of nurses who can receive visas each year for employment by hospitals in any one state. The legislation includes an exception from per state limits to facilitate the potential use of otherwise unused visas--as long as the annual nationwide ceiling is not breached. This narrowly focused program for nurses, which will sunset after a four period, addresses urgent needs that cannot be met in any other way. The House bill was introduced by our colleague from Illinois, Mr. Rush, with my cosponsorship--and its Senate counterpart was introduced by Senator Durbin with Senator Hutchison's cosponsorship. I became involved in this effort to enact remedial legislation when Saint Bernard Hospital, located in the Englewood Community in Chicago, brought its precarious situation with regard to nursing shortages to my attention during the last Congress. Because I knew the continued functioning of Saint Bernard Hospital would be so essential to the residents of the Englewood Community, I decided to endorse an appropriately limited legislative remedy. H.R. 441, like the bill that passed the House last year, clearly merits bipartisan congressional support. It provides relief to particularly vulnerable hospitals and incorporates many safeguards designed to protect American jobs. I commend the gentleman from Texas [Lamar Smith], Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, and the gentleman form Michigan [John Conyers], Ranking Minority Member of our full committee, for their important contributions to this carefully crafted legislation. Because the language of the bill in its current form reflects a consensus among House and Senate members of both parties, I am hopeful that it can be enacted into law expeditiously. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, please permit me to share with my colleagues the tremendous work of some diligent young men and women in my district. Each year, my office--in cooperation with junior and senior high schools in Northern Illinois--sponsors an essay writing contest. The contest's board, chaired by my good friend Vivian Turner, a former principal of Blackhawk Junior High School in Bensenville, Illinois, chooses a topic and judges the entries. Winners of the contest share in more than $1,000 in scholarship funds. Today, I have the honor of naming for the Record the winners of the 1998 contest. Last year, Peter Meyer led Mary, Seat of Wisdom School in Park Ridge, Illinois, to a junior high division sweep by winning with an essay titled, ``Ban Smoking in Restaurants,'' a text of which I include in the Record. Placing second last year in the junior high division was James Troken, followed in third place by Eva Schiave, both of whom also attended Mary, Seat of Wisdom School. In the Senior High School Division, the first place award went to Julie Kostuj of Driscoll Catholic High School in Addison for her essay, ``Freedom of the Press,'' a text of which I include in the Record. Shahzan Akber of Blenbard North High School in Glen Ellyn took the second place prize, and Nicole Beck of St. Francis High School in Wheaton placed third. Ban Smoking in Restaurants (By Peter Meyer) Did you know that most of your taste comes from your sense of smell? If you are in a restaurant where people are smoking, how can you taste your food? Although you can request a nonsmoking section for your seating, the harmful smoke from the smoking section is still present in the air you are breathing. That air can cause cancer. A law banning smoking in all restaurants in Illinois will make your meal more pleasant while keeping you healthy. Laws are very important. Laws protect us from harm, help us when in need, and preserve our rights and freedoms as United States citizens. When citizens feel the need for additional protection, laws are passed. Currently there is no law protecting people completely from secondhand smoke in restaurants, yet, secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in this country, killing 53,000 nonsmokers in the U.S. each year. We need a law banning smoking completely in all restaurants in Illinois. The current Illinois law bans smoking in public places except in designated smoking areas. It says a smoking area should be designed to minimize the intrusion of smoke into areas where smoking is not permitted. Nonsmoking sections do not eliminate nonsmokers' exposure to secondhand smoke, the smoke does not remain in the smoking section. Secondhand smoke has been proven to be a serious health risk. Even the Illinois General Assembly finds that tobacco smoke is annoying, harmful, and dangerous to human beings and a hazard to public health. Secondhand smoke is a mixture of the smoke given off by a cigarette, pipe, or cigar, and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. The Environmental Protection Agency has classified secondhand smoke a Group A Carcinogen--a substance known to cause cancer in humans. There is no safe level of exposure for Group A toxins. Nicotine is not the only toxin nonsmokers are exposed to in secondhand smoke. Smoke from the burning end of a cigarette contains over 4,000 chemicals and forty carcinogens including: formaldehyde, cyanide, arsenic, carbon monoxide, methane, and benzene. Smoke-filled rooms can have up to six times the air pollution as a busy highway. Second-hand smoke does not quickly clear from a room. It takes about two weeks for nicotine to clear from the air in a room where smoking has occurred. In addition to being a carcinogen, second-had smoke causes irritation of the eye, nose, and throat. Passive smoking can also irritate the lungs leading to coughing, excess phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function especially in children. Secondhand smoke may effect the cardiovascular system, and some studies have linked exposure to secondhand smoke with the onset of chest pain. When smoking is banned in restaurants, customers will not be exposed to secondhand smoke. They will be able to eat without suffering from the irritation of smoke, increasing their ability to enjoy their meal. Developing children will have healthier lungs. Restaurants will no longer have to pay to operate expensive ventilation systems and will be able to seat more people by not having to maintain separate sections. People who find smoke offensive will not be doomed to eat in the fast-food restaurants that have banned smoking. Smoke- free restaurants may discourage people from starting or continuing to smoke. Smoking is already banned in most public buildings. Current laws allowing a smoking section in restaurants do not prevent exposure to secondhand smoke. People are involuntarily exposed to smoke which is a carcinogen and a health hazard. Banning smoking in restaurants will continue the effort to improve public health and reduce health costs. Food in restaurants will taste better and eating will be more enjoyable.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to speak in support of an amendment that I am offering, together with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), that relates to permissible living expenses of debtors and their families. It replaces the bill's reliance on Internal Revenue Service expense allowances and instead incorporates a test based on the disposable income standard of current law, namely, whether income is reasonably necessary for maintenance or support. To enhance predictability, the amendment requires the Director of the Executive Office for United States Trustees to issue guidelines that will be considered in the application of the ``reasonably necessary'' standard. Before discussing our proposed amendment relating to living expenses, I want to emphasize, and I mean ``emphasize,'' that various pro- creditor enhancements in Section 102, the relevant section of the bill, are unaffected by this amendment. These enhancements greatly expand the potential for utilizing Bankruptcy Code Section 707(b) to remove cases from Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, where a debtor can receive a limited discharge of obligations in return for giving up nonexempt assets. By recent count, there are a dozen pro-creditor enhancements in Section 102 that my amendment leaves in place and 63 creditor-friendly reforms in other sections of the bill. Believe me, we can enact legislation that is highly favorable to creditors without depriving debtors and their families of ``reasonably necessary'' living expenses. This bill effectuates a major shift in bankruptcy policy, a change in direction that necessitates focusing on what portion of a debtor's future income will be available to meet the requirements of daily living. For the last century, individual debtors generally have been able to receive an immediate financial fresh start without having to encumber their future incomes. By greatly increasing the potential for dismissing Chapter 7 liquidation cases, this bill channels many debtors into 5-year Chapter 13 repayment plans. What will debtors, their spouses, and children be able to live on during long repayment periods? This bill says, in effect, that debtors and their families must adhere to a somewhat modified version of expense allowances formulated within the Internal Revenue Service to facilitate compromises with delinquent taxpayers. This model is inappropriate for imposition in bankruptcy because, firstly, the successful collection of taxes is a matter of national self- preservation; and, secondly, the creditors can minimize the risk of losses by adhering to prudent creditor practices. I do not think it is a particularly Republican idea to advance the IRS living standards. Recently, Congress gave legislative expression to the need for flexibility in the application of IRS expense allowances with the IRS to determine the appropriateness of applying the schedules to individual taxpayers. It would be particularly anomalous for this body to disregard the IRS Restructuring Act of 1998 and mandate an application of IRS expense allowances in bankruptcy cases that is more rigid and inflexible than what IRS itself does in the context of accepting compromises of tax obligations. Professor Jack Williams of Georgia State University School of Law, who chaired the National Bankruptcy Review Commission's Tax Advisory Committee, pointed out to us that tying debtor eligibility to a formula that the IRS deviates from on a regular basis makes no sense. He described the IRS collections standards as too parsimonious and said the standards are unrealistic. The limited effort to modify the IRS expense allowances during our markup by including a potential add-on for food and clothing only of up to 5 percent and providing for continuation of private school expenses failed to solve major problems with the incorporation of IRS schedules into our bankruptcy law. Allowances for food are included in the IRS National Standards which apply throughout the contiguous 48 States and do not reflect differing costs from one region to another. In addition, allowable expenses for food under IRS schedules increase dramatically with increases in income. The broader problem, of course, is the bill does not even make an attempt to address problems with IRS allowances unrelated to food, clothing, and education. Leading national organizations with bankruptcy related expertise and credibility recognize the need to replace the IRS expense allowances in this bill. I am speaking of the Commercial Law League of America. They have written us favorably. Judge Randal Newsome, President of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, has said that, ``On behalf of the 319 members of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, I firmly believe your amendment would lead to a far less complex and far more workable needs- based bankruptcy system than one which attempts to incorporate IRS expense standards.'' An unfortunate consequence of applying IRS living allowances in bankruptcy cases is to penalize some family members because they live with the debtor and cannot benefit from a support order. The bill includes protections for the beneficiaries of support orders issued by family courts, courts that are not constrained by the living allowances the IRS seeks to impose on delinquent taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, this is simple. What are they going to live on while they are playing out the 5 years that they have to play out paying their bills, paying their debts under Chapter 13? The bill wants to use the IRS living standards. I want to replace them with the reasonably necessary standard, which is the current law. This bill has over 75 creditor enhancements. And to say if my amendment passes this is a deal breaker, that kills the bill, is ludicrous. There is so much in here for the creditors they ought to grab it and run. It just seems to me a little humanity, a little flexibility, a little reasonableness in working out the living standards, the rules by which you are going to live on while you are working out your Chapter 13 obligations, is appropriate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Committee on the Judiciary, after thorough hearings and markups, completed its consideration last week of H.R. 833 (the ``Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999''), and reported the legislation favorably. We are on the Floor today--relatively early in the 106th Congress-- debating this omnibus bill, because bankruptcy is an important issue on the national agenda. With this auspicious beginning, I am hopeful the effort to enact major improvements in our bankruptcy law will reach fruition this session. Consumer bankruptcy reform is the centerpiece of H.R. 833, but the bill also addresses business bankruptcy, tax-related issues in bankruptcy, transnational bankruptcy, and the treatment of financial contracts. Bankruptcy reform was a major activity of the Committee on the Judiciary in the last Congress. In September 1997, our colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], introduced H.R. 2500, the ``Responsible Borrower Protection Bankruptcy Act,'' a bill designed in part to implement the concept of needs based bankruptcy. In February 1998, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law--the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]--built on this approach by introducing H.R. 3150, the ``Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998.'' H.R. 3150 incorporated--with modifications and additions--most of H.R. 2500's consumer bankruptcy provisions while also addressing other bankruptcy related subjects. Although the House passed an amended version of H.R. 3150 and later acted favorably on the work product of a Committee of Conference, the other body did not have time before adjournment to take action on the Conference Report. This year my Committee again devoted much attention to bankruptcy reform. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], who conducted important hearings on bankruptcy reform in his Subcommittee last year, deserves commendation for the scope of the testimony his Subcommittee elicited during four days of hearings this March. Witnesses represented a wide range of viewpoints. These hearings were followed by two days of markup in the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and five days of markup in the Full Committee on the Judiciary. The positive aspect of returning to a familiar subject was the opportunity to fashion some improvements as a result of benefitting from the thoughtful insights of knowledgeable individuals who analyzed earlier versions of the legislation. The major objective consumer bankruptcy reform is to achieve an appropriate balance between debtor and creditor rights that will increase creditor recoveries while offering relief to deserving debtors. Those who need an immediate fresh start should get it--but those who can afford to make significant payments out of future income should be required to do so. Under H.R. 833 as reported, individuals or couples with income levels exceeding adjusted regional median figures that take into account household size generally will not be able to remain in Chapter 7 if they can make payments of at least $100.00 per month out of future income to general unsecured creditors. Chapter 7 offers a financial fresh start--without encumbering future income--to debtors who are prepared to give up all of their nonexempt assets. Those who cannot stay in Chapter 7 as a result of the pending legislation generally will have the option of participating in a Chapter 13 repayment plan for five years and qualifying for a limited discharge eventually. Bankruptcy reform is needed to address deficiencies in current bankruptcy processes and mitigate adverse impacts of bankruptcy filings. Congress is responding to the many developments since the Bankruptcy Code's enactment over a generation ago--including a burgeoning bankruptcy caseload that now exceeds 1.4 million annual filings. We can seek to reduce financial losses that result from greatly increased filings while treating debtors and their spouses and children with compassion. In that regard, I plan to offer an amendment relating to the living expenses of debtors who will be channeled into five-year repayment plans. I am optimistics that the results of my Committee's work and our actions on the Floor today will be to provide for bankruptcy processes that increase creditor recoveries and operate fairly. If so, we will be able to point to an important legislative achievement on a subject of great economic significance to the American people. I urge my colleagues, after giving careful consideration to the amendments we will be debating today, to support passage of H.R. 833. Shipping Antitrust Hearing Wednesday; Judiciary to Study Competition in Deregulated Industry What: Oversight Hearing on ``Antitrust Aspects of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998.'' Committee on the Judiciary. When: Wednesday, May 5, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. Where: 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. On May 1, legislation deregulating the ocean shipping industry went into effect, even as new issues regarding competitive practices in the industry have arisen. The justification for the industry's antitrust exemption has been called into question as it primarily benefits foreign carriers at the expense of American shippers, while a new investigation has unearthed alleged anti-competitive activity of some carriers. Shipping's continued antitrust exemption poses the questions . . . Did the 1998 Ocean Shipping Reform Act strike the right balance between carriers and non-vessel owning common carriers (NVOs) in allowing ocean carriers to use confidential service contracts, but not the NVOs? Is antitrust immunity still justified in light of the new environment and the startling findings of anti-competitive activity made in a recent investigative report on the industry? Does it make sense to continue antitrust immunity when it largely benefits foreign carriers at the expense of American shippers? Does the Federal Maritime Commission have adequate authority to deal with the kinds of practices detailed in the new report, and what, if any, role can the Justice Department play? These hearings will . . . Allow a complete airing of the issues raised in the investigation by its author, FMC Commissioner Delmond Won. Further discuss the competitive issues surrounding the newly deregulated shipping industry.