Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, Senator Feinstein and I have been granted time in this period of morning business to discuss a matter that we began working on about 2\1/2\ years ago, and we wanted to give a report to you, to the Members of the U.S. Senate, and, frankly, to all Americans who are interested in the subject of victims' rights. In April of 1996, during National Victims' Rights Week, along with Representative Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, we introduced a Federal constitutional amendment to guarantee certain rights, fundamental constitutional rights, to all victims of violent crime. Since that time, we have worked with victims' rights groups across the country, with law enforcement officials, with our colleagues in the House of Representatives and here in the Senate, of course, with the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, and even the President of the United States, to craft an amendment that could gain acceptance in the two legislative bodies, and then be adopted by the people of the United States as an amendment to the Constitution. We have come a long way since that time. I want to take this time to join with Senator Feinstein in giving a brief report about our progress, with the conclusion that we are not going to be presenting this amendment at this late date in this session of the Congress, but that we do hope to have a vote on this amendment in the U.S. Senate early next year. I want to begin by thanking my colleague, Senator Feinstein from California. She has been an extraordinarily important proponent of crime victims' rights around the country; therefore, it was important for her to be one of the prime sponsors of this constitutional amendment. Her experience brought to bear on the subject made it much easier for people to join with us in the effort, and the work she had done with victims' rights groups before we introduced the amendment was important in galvanizing the support of those groups around the country to support this amendment and to work on the versions of it as we had to hone the language to meet the objections and concerns of various people around the country. I want to thank her also for her patience in working with me and her willingness to spend many, many long hours in working out the details of this amendment and meeting with various groups, trying to gather support among both the outside groups and our colleagues that would guarantee passage of the amendment. In the final version that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in July of this year by a bipartisan vote of 11-6, we had sponsorship by 30 Republicans and 12 Democrats. You can see by this bipartisan vote of 11-6 it required cooperation of Republicans and Democrats to move this matter forward. So there is nothing partisan about the matter of victims' rights. I mentioned the fact that we had over 60 drafts of this amendment. What that demonstrates I think is that Senator Feinstein and I have been willing to meet with anyone at any time to hear their concerns, and objections in some cases, about what we are trying to do in specifics. We have been able to mold an amendment which meets their concerns to the extent that we have this strong, strong support. I note that in a brand new publication from the Department of Justice called ``New Directions From the Field: Victims' Rights and Services for the 21st Century,'' hot off the press, the very first recommendation of this report from the Department of Justice is that victims' rights should be embodied in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I would like to read from this report for a moment, if I might, because this is recommendation from the field No. 1. The United States Constitution should be amended to guarantee fundamental rights for victims of crime. What are these rights? They are the same ones that Senator Feinstein and I propose in our amendment. Constitutionally protected rights should include the right to notice of public court proceedings and to attend them; to make a statement to the court about bail, sentencing, and accepting a plea; to be told about, to attend, and to speak at parole hearings; to notice when the defendant or convict escapes, is released, or dies; to an order of restitution from the convicted offender; to a disposition free from unreasonable delay; to consideration for the safety of the victim in determining any release from custody; to notice of these rights; and to standing to enforce them. I would like to read on from this report the reasons stated for the conclusion that we need a Federal constitutional amendment, because these reasons summarize a great deal of testimony that we heard in the hearings we held which demonstrated that mere State statutes, or State constitutional provisions, are not adequate to provide a uniform floor of rights for all victims of serious crime in the United States. Here is what this report goes on to say: A federal constitutional amendment for victims' rights is needed for many different reasons, including: (1) to establish a consistent ``floor of rights'' for crime victims in every state and at the federal level; (2) to ensure that courts engage in a careful and conscientious balancing of the rights of victims and defendants; (3) to guarantee crime victims the opportunity to participate in proceedings related to crimes against them; and (4) to enhance the participation of victims in the criminal justice process. The report goes on to say: A victims' rights constitutional amendment is the only legal measure strong enough to rectify the current inconsistencies in victims' rights laws that vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on the state and federal levels. Such an amendment would ensure that rights for victims are on the same level as the fundamental rights of accused and convicted offenders. Most supporters believe that it is the only legal measure strong enough to ensure that the rights of victims are fully enforced across the country. They also believe, however, that the efforts to secure passage of a federal constitutional amendment for crime victims' rights should not supplant legislative initiatives at the state and federal level. Granting victims of crime the ability to participate in the justice system is exactly the type of participatory right the Constitution is designed to protect and has been amended to permanently ensure. Such rights include the right to vote on an equal basis and the right to be heard when the government deprives one of life, liberty, or property. Madam President, hot off the press from the Department of Justice, the No. 1 recommendation is a Federal constitutional amendment to do the things that the amendment which Senator Feinstein and I have introduced would do for crime victims around this country. I know Senator Feinstein is going to talk for a moment about how the scales of justice are imbalanced, and what our amendment is intended to do is right that imbalance between the legitimate rights of the accused on the one hand and the legitimate rights of victims on the other hand. Let me get to the bottom line for those who have been wondering what the status of this amendment is and where we are going to go from here. In July, as I said, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed out on a bipartisan basis, 11 to 6, the latest version of the amendment that Senator Feinstein and I have proposed. As noted, it has some 42 cosponsors. Since that time, we have sought to obtain floor time to debate and eventually vote on our constitutional amendment. Madam President, as you are aware, it has been very difficult, in the waning weeks of this congressional session, to get floor time to take up even the most mundane of bills, because the Senate is very much concentrated on getting the appropriations bills passed so that we can fund the Government for the next year. And, of course, with the campaign coming up, leaders are very definitely committed to an adjournment date of around October 9 or 10. Senator Feinstein and I conferred with the various leaders of the victims' rights movement and with our colleagues to determine what the best course of action would be. We understood that for something as important as amending the Constitution, we wanted to do it right. The last thing that Senator Feinstein or I would ever do is to try to hurry an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to try to push this through without an adequate debate, without giving everyone an opportunity to have their say. As I said, we have made changes to the extent of 62 different drafts, which I think establish our bona fides in wanting to hear from everyone with an interest in this important subject. We determined, under the circumstances, rather than trying to amend another piece of legislation with our amendment or to try to rush this through in some way, that we would continue to work at the grassroots level with organizations that support the amendment, continue to work with the administration, whose support for an amendment has been very helpful, and continue to work with our colleagues to gain even more support in terms of cosponsorship, so that when we do bring it to the floor, we will have had the widest possible discussion and opportunity for everyone to participate. We understand that will make it more likely that this important effort will have quick success in the House of Representatives and, importantly, in the State legislatures, which would then have to ratify the amendment. Madam President, we decided that under the circumstances it was better for us not to try to rush that amendment to the floor here in the waning days, literally, of this Congress, but that we would be willing to defer action until early next year. I know that both Senator Feinstein and I would like to see this matter dealt with perhaps during Crime Victims Week in April of next year. But whatever the timing that is appropriate, we will be urging our colleagues early in the year to join us in cosponsoring the amendment in its final version and ensuring quick passage out of the Judiciary Committee, again because, of course, we will be in a new Congress and we will need to act anew on the legislation because of that and to secure the support of the leadership to quickly bring the amendment then to the floor of the Senate so that we can have a thorough debate and, hopefully, to pass the amendment out, sending it to the House for its subsequent action. We hope that with that kind of a timetable, with that kind of an opportunity for everybody to participate, we will in the year 1999 have adopted a constitutional amendment that can then be acted upon by the States once and for all to protect the rights of crime victims around this country. I want to close these brief remarks by again thanking Senator Feinstein and all of the others who have been so active in this effort. The outside groups I will name at another occasion, because they deserve very special recognition for all of the effort that they have put into this. But, frankly, the amendment would not have gotten to this point without the strong and active support of one of the strongest supporters of victims' rights that I know in the United States, my friend and colleague from California, Senator Feinstein. At this point, I would be happy to yield for her to make comments.

Mr. KYL. I thank Senator Feinstein. I might add, anyone interested in obtaining more information about what we are doing, and in getting information about the specific provisions, the testimony of the witnesses who answered a lot of the questions that, frankly, our colleagues had, they can contact us. We can provide them transcripts of the hearings, very erudite writings of the people like Laurence Tribe and Paul Cassell who have been working for a long period of time and have so much to contribute, as well as information from people at the Department of Justice and others. I would also like to thank Steve Twist, an attorney in Arizona, who has spent thousands of hours pro bono, a lawyer who has spent much of his career in advancing the cause of victims' rights and who, frankly, was one of my mentors in learning about this subject and who has also helped us throughout this process. Also, there are two particular brilliant lawyers on our staff who deserve a lot of credit, Neil Quinter, a member of Senator Feinstein's staff with her today, and Stephen Higgins, a member of my staff; both lawyers who have spent far more than the usual amount of time on a piece of legislation, working this, because not only is it a very interesting legal challenge but also a personal commitment on their parts as much as it is for us. I indicated we would probably thank a lot of people at another time. Certainly the victims' rights groups and representatives who have been so important in advancing this cause at the grassroots level. But I thought it important, at least at this time as we wind up this session, to note the people who have, professionally, been so helpful to us. We will be working on this over the next 2 or 3 months as we prepare for the next legislative session. I will allow Senator Feinstein to close. I am pleased to announce that while we have not been able to get this amendment to the floor for consideration by our colleagues today, or this year, I am quite optimistic we will be able to do that early in the next session of the Senate. I think the additional time we take to allow everyone to have their say, to ask the questions they need to ask, that will allow this to come at a time when we can have a full debate, that that will permit us to adopt this amendment next session and send it to the States for ratification. Again, I thank Senator Feinstein for her wonderful cooperation and inspiration on this amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, for the benefit of all Members, I would like to announce that there will be a period of morning business today until 2 p.m. Following morning business, the motion to proceed to the Internet tax bill will be the pending business. Members are encouraged to come to the floor to discuss the important issue of Internet tax. At 3:30 p.m., under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the so-called Vacancies Act for debate only until 5:30 p.m. Following that debate, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the vacancies bill. Therefore, the first vote of today's session will occur at 5:30 p.m. Following that vote, the Senate may consider any other legislative or executive items cleared for action. Members are reminded that second-degree amendments to the vacancies bill must be filed by 4:30 p.m. today. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that Senators Feinstein and Kyl control the time during morning business from 12:45 until 1:30 p.m.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa. The key point here is to simply hold the attorney responsible for the costs of a hearing. That is all we are talking about. It is either going to be the attorney or it is going to be the people who are owed money in a bankruptcy, or even the debtor, to be responsible for the costs of that hearing in the event the attorney has made a wrong filing here, a filing that was not substantially justified. So, if the attorney can establish that what he did was substantially justified in putting his client into chapter 13 bankruptcy as opposed to chapter 7, then he has no responsibility here and would have no liability for the costs of the hearing. But if it turns out that he was not substantially justified in doing that, then this would permit the court to assess the cost of bringing the motion and having the hearing against that lawyer. That is all we are talking about here. In view of the fact that the National Bankruptcy Commission has been very concerned about these bankruptcy mills, this is a legitimate concern and a way to avoid this kind of mistake from occurring. It puts the responsibility where the responsibility ought to lie. I support the position of the Senator from Iowa in urging opposition to the Feingold amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. That's about it.

Mr. KYL. That is correct.

Mr. KYL. Yes. Sometimes the time it takes to do this is frustrating, but the purpose is to ensure that we provide safe and effective medicine to the public.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch, to introduce this joint resolution, which passed the House of Representatives last Tuesday by a vote of 310-93. It has been endorsed by the administration's drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, and is part of our legislative response to the recent and significant increases in drug use, especially among our young people. It is this subject to which Senator Grassley spoke earlier this afternoon. Before I explain what this resolution is about, let me explain how it came about. In March of this year, Senator Grassley and I convened an antidrug legalization roundtable. Attendees included Bill Bennett, Senator Mack, and 21 other people representing the Drug Czar's Office, civic groups, family groups and law enforcement officials. At that meeting, we learned about efforts all across the country to legalize drugs, including marijuana and other Schedule I drugs. Schedule I drugs include things not only like marijuana but LSD and heroin. The groups asked why Congress, which, after all, enacts Federal drug laws, and the administration, which enforces Federal drug laws, have been relatively silent in the face of these ever bolder attempts to legalize drugs around the country. They urged us to step up to the plate and exert some leadership. They were correct in that request. This joint resolution is but one step in the effort to demonstrate to our youth that the U.S. Congress strongly opposes drug abuse and efforts to legalize drugs. This resolution, I believe, will help send a very clear message that so long as marijuana, heroin, LSD, and others remain Schedule I drugs under the Controlled Substances Act, that Federal law should not be altered through adoption of statewide ballot propositions that would legalize these drugs. Consider these statistics relating to drug use, especially among children: Marijuana use has more than doubled nationally since 1991. Heroin usage for 8th and 12th graders has more than doubled in the last 5 years. A 1997 survey by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University showed that 500,000 8th graders began using marijuana in the 6th and 7th grades. Even more alarming are the statistics in my own State of Arizona, where one out of six youths has used illegal drugs within the past month. This is one-third higher than the national average. Over 13 percent of Arizona children between the ages of 12 and 17 said they have used marijuana in the past month. Almost 17 percent admitted to having used any illicit drug, including cocaine, heroin, or inhalants, according to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Attempts to legalize drugs by way of State ballot initiatives inhibits us from getting drugs out of our schools, out of our workplaces, and out of our communities. How can we expect our children to resist the lure of drugs if harmful drugs like marijuana are legalized under the guise of medicinal use, even though the FDA has not approved those drugs for medicinal use? How can we expect to have safe, drug-free workplaces if employees can smoke marijuana on the job, claiming it is medicine? How can we expect to have successful drug treatment programs if someone can light up a joint during a joint discussion, claiming marijuana is, after all, medicine? In my own State of Arizona, the voters passed a ballot initiative, Proposition 200, in 1996 which legalized all Schedule I drugs for medicinal purposes. These would include marijuana, heroin, LSD, and all of the other Schedule I drugs. This year, there is another proposition which, if passed, will require the FDA to approve the efficacy of Schedule I drugs before they could be prescribed. That, of course, would be consistent with Federal law. I have been in strong support of that proposition. Over $1.5 million was spent in Arizona by the prolegalization forces in the last election, the most prominent of whom were not from Arizona. Arizona is not the only State that is now a target of drug legalization. Other States that currently have pending legalization initiatives or legislation are Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, New York, and Washington. This joint resolution that we have introduced puts Congress and the administration firmly behind the existing Federal legal process for determining the safety and efficacy of drugs, including marijuana and all other Schedule I drugs for medicinal use. Under current law, marijuana, heroin, LSD, and more than a hundred other drugs are classified as Schedule I because they have a high potential for abuse and lack any current accepted medical use. Federal law [Controlled Substances Act] prohibits Schedule I drugs from being manufactured, distributed, or dispensed. This resolution re- affirms the law. It says that before any drug can be approved as a medication, it must meet extensive scientific and medical standards established by the FDA to ensure it is safe and effective. Marijuana and other Schedule I drugs have not been approved by the FDA to treat any disease or condition, though studies are being conducted to determine if there is any potentially appropriate treatment using marijuana. Attempts to legalize drugs fly in the face of established procedures for approving the safety and efficacy of drugs. Most important, legalization sends the wrong message to youth about the health and safety risks of using drugs. I have joined with Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, and my colleagues in the House, Representative McCollum and Representative Cox in introducing this resolution because I believe we must reassert leadership in this area. I am particularly pleased that the administration supports this resolution, and I would just like to take a moment to single out General McCaffrey for the good work that he has done in improving the nation's drug-control policy. I would urge my colleagues to pass this important piece of legislation and send it to the President for his prompt signature.

Mr. KYL. Apart from over-the-counter medicines, we regulate access to drugs. This is what prescriptions are for. For dangerous drugs with a potential for abuse, we license their use and only permit people to use them based on a physician's prescription and under the continuing care of a doctor.

Mr. KYL. That is correct. Many of these laws are on the books because at one time anybody could market any product to the public and call it a drug. Those were the days of snake oil salesmen who made the wildest claims for their products. They, of course, called their products ``medicine'' and sold them as cure-alls for every possible ailment. In many cases, in the early years of this century, those products contained large quantities of alcohol, opiates or cocaine. As a result, this country experienced a major drug epidemic centered largely on women and children who mostly used these products. None of the products were subject to regulation, they did not treat any diseases, there were no cures, but they did create a lot of addicts. Later, in response to this situation, Congress passed laws regulating these products to ensure that the public was not the victim of bad medicine, false claims, and snake oil.

Mr. KYL. The language differs in the various states, but that's essentially correct.

Mr. KYL. That's right. But there is another big difference. These efforts do more than authorize that practice you describe. They place no limits on who would be eligible to receive these ``treatments'' and they do not limit the ``illnesses'' for which you may take the drug.

Mr. KYL. That's just one more thing about these efforts that demonstrate what is really behind them. The real motive here is to legalize these drugs, not to make medicine available.

Mr. KYL. The Senator is correct. We are already seeing the highest rates of first-time use of marijuana among teens and pre-teens in over 30 years. We are on the verge of a major, new drug epidemic. I do not think this is the time to be sending the kind of mixed message we see in these efforts to legalize marijuana or other Schedule I drugs.

Mr. KYL. I would like to thank the Senator for his efforts and I look forward to working with our colleagues to pass this resolution.

Mr. KYL. That is correct. Under the Controlled Substances Act, which governs how we deal with all drugs in this country, no Schedule I drug may be prescribed as a medicine. Schedule I drugs are placed in this category because they have no recognized medical use and have a high potential for abuse. These drugs are illegal because they are dangerous, they are not dangerous because they are illegal.

Mr. KYL. To my knowledge, neither of these drugs, which would be made legal in Arizona for medical use, have any recognized medical utility. In addition, both of these substances are illegal to prescribe as medicine under federal law and no doctor is authorized to prescribe them as a treatment.

Mr. KYL. The Senator is correct. In most of these efforts, what is called for is a doctor's recommendation. Frankly, that could mean anything.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Even though current law is clear--and even though the original version of the bill made no change in the protections that it provides--concerns were expressed that provisions of the legislation might indirectly or even inadvertently affect ex-spouses and children of divorce. Assuming that critics were operating in good faith--and because our intent was always to ensure that family obligations were met first--Senators Hatch, Grassley, and I crafted an amendment to remove any doubt whatsoever about whether women and children come first. The Hatch-Grassley-Kyl amendment elevates the priority of child- support from its current number seven on the priority list for purposes of payment to number one--ahead of six other items, including lawyer's fees that are now afforded higher priority. Our amendment mandates-- mandates--that all child support and alimony be paid before all other obligations in a Chapter 13 plan. It conditions both confirmation and discharge of a Chapter 13 plan upon complete payment of all child support and alimony that is due before and after the bankruptcy petition is filed. It helps women and children reach exempt property and collect support payments notwithstanding contrary federal or state law. It exempts state child-support collection authority from the automatic stay under bankruptcy law to ensure prompt collection of child-support payments. And it extends the protection accorded an ex- spouse by making almost all obligations one ex-spouse owes to the other non-dischargeable. Despite the various protections we have laid out, I know that some will still contend that child-support and alimony could be placed in competition with other debts that are made non-dischargeable by other provisions of the bill. But if placing more debt into the non- dischargeable category were really harmful to the interests of women and children, critics would also object to an amendment that Senator Torricelli offered in the Judiciary Committee--an amendment that added tort judgments for intentional torts causing personal injury or death to the list of non-dischargeable debts. But the Torricelli amendment passed without objection in committee. As a society, we have decided that people who do harm to others should be held accountable for their actions. Senator Torricelli's amendment will do that, and I support it. Let us keep several points in mind about the debts that are made non- dischargeable by the bill. First, even though they are made non- dischargeable, they are given a lower priority for payment than child support and alimony. The Hatch-Grassley-Kyl amendment makes that crystal clear. Second, the debts made newly non-dischargeable by the bill include debts incurred by fraud, debts run up on the eve of bankruptcy by those with no intention or no ability of paying, and debts that are incurred to pay otherwise non-dischargeable debts. We are talking about abusive use of credit. Are those who still contend we have not gone far enough really suggesting that individuals who engage in fraud and other abusive credit practices should be allowed to have those debts erased or otherwise sanctioned by the bankruptcy code? I hope not. When people run up debts they have no intention of paying--when people are allowed to walk away from fraud and other harm caused to others--they shift a greater financial burden onto honest, hard-working families in America, including those that depend on child support to make ends meet. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, estimates are that bankruptcy costs every American family an extra $400 a year. Bankruptcy reform can reduce that burden. Former Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who served as President Clinton's original Treasury Secretary, wrote an excellent column about abuse of the bankruptcy code, and ask it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Madam President, failure to pass bankruptcy reform this year would be unfair to the millions of Americans who play by the rules, work hard every day, and struggle to pay their bills. This bill does not go as far as I would like, but in the interest of moving it to final passage in the relatively short amount of time before adjournment, I will support the bill in its current form. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting in favor of the legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the article by former Senator Bentsen be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, about a month ago, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts released figures on nationwide bankruptcy filings for the 12-month period ending June 30. The figures clearly illustrate what has so many of us concerned--that is, that bankruptcy filings are becoming epidemic. Filings for the 12-month period ending on June 30 totaled 1,429,451-- an all-time high. Personal bankruptcy filings increased 9.2 percent from the same period in 1997. Unlike other kinds of epidemics, this is one that can be avoided in many instances if credit is used wisely and people do not overextend themselves in the first place. Certainly, extraordinary circumstances can strike any family, which is why it is important to preserve access to bankruptcy relief. No one disputes that there should be an opportunity to seek relief and a fresh start when truly extraordinary circumstances strike--for example, when families are torn apart by divorce or ill health. I suspect that creditors are more than willing to work with someone when such tragedy strikes to help them through tough times. But there is growing evidence, Madam President, that more and more people who file for relief under Chapter 7 actually have the ability to pay back some, or even all, of what they owe. It is cases like that, where bankruptcy is becoming the option of first resort, rather than last resort, that led to the drafting of the bill before us today. The Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act, S. 1301, is the product of a number of hearings and months of deliberations. I would note that it enjoys broad bipartisan support, having been approved overwhelmingly by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a vote of 15 to 2. Similar bipartisan legislation in the House passed on June 10 by the lopsided vote of 306 to 118. So what does this legislation do? Those with low incomes would continue to choose between Chapter 13 payment plans and Chapter 7 discharges, just as they do today. But to ensure that some people are not abusing the system, the bill requires bankruptcy courts to consider whether people who have higher incomes and the ability to pay a portion of their debt should be required to repay what they can under Chapter 13. As it stands today, people with more modest incomes who live within their means are forced to subsidize wealthier individuals who abuse the bankruptcy laws. That is just not fair. When people run up debts they have no intention of paying, they shift a greater financial burden onto honest, hard-working families in America. Estimates are that bankruptcy costs every American family an extra $400 a year. Madam President, I want to stop at this point and single out three provisions of the bill for comment--provisions that were added in committee as a result of the adoption of amendments I offered. They represent what, in my view, are very modest, common-sense reforms of the bankruptcy system. The first appears in Section 314 of the bill and provides that debts that are fraudulently incurred could no longer be discharged in Chapter 13, the same as in Chapter 7. Currently, at the conclusion of a Chapter 13 plan, the debtor is eligible for a broader discharge than is available in Chapter 7, and this superdischarge can result in several types of debts, including those for fraud and intentional torts, being discharged whereas they could not be discharged in Chapter 7. My amendment would simply add fraudulent debts to the list of debts that are nondischargeable under Chapter 13. It is as simple as that. Let me take a few moments to share some of the comments that others have made on the subject. Here is what the Deputy Associate Attorney General, Francis M. Allegra, said about the dischargeability of fraudulent debts in a letter dated June 19, 1997: ``We are unconvinced that providing a (fresh start) under Chapter 13 superdischarge to those who commit fraud or whose debts result from other forms of misconduct is desirable as a policy matter.'' Here is what Judge Edith Jones of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said in a dissenting opinion to the report of the Bankruptcy Review Commission: ``The superdischarge satisfies no justifiable social policy and only encourages the use of Chapter 13 by embezzlers, felons, and tax dodgers.'' Judith Starr, the Assistant Chief of the Litigation Counsel Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission, testified before the House Judiciary Committee on March 18, 1998. Speaking about the fraud issue, she said: ``We believe that, in enacting the Bankruptcy Code, Congress never intended to extend the privilege of the `fresh start' to those who lie, cheat, and steal from the public.'' She goes on to say: A fair consumer bankruptcy system should help honest but unfortunate debtors get their financial affairs back in order by providing benefits and protections that will help the honest to the exclusion of the dishonest, and not vice versa. It is an anomaly of the current system that bankruptcy is often more attractive to persons who commit fraud than to their innocent victims. Bankruptcy should not be a refuge for those who have committed intentional wrongs, nor should it encourage gamesmanship by failing to provide real consequences for abuse of its protections. And she concludes: We support [the provision of the House bill] which makes fraud debts nondischargeable in Chapter 13 cases. Inducements to file under Chapter 13 rather than Chapter 7 should be aimed at honest debtors, not at those who have committed fraud. A final quotation: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp, the Attorney General of North Dakota, testified to the following before the House Committee on March 10: When a true ``bad actor'' is in the picture--a scam artist, a fraudulent telemarketer, a polluter who stubbornly refuses to clean up the mess he has created there is a real potential for bankruptcy to become a serious impediment to protecting our citizenry. Furthermore, she says: We must all be concerned because bankruptcy is, in many ways, a challenge to the normal structure of a civilized society. The economy functions based on the assumption that debts will be paid, that laws will be obeyed, that order to incur costs to comply with statutory obligations will be complied with, and that monetary penalties for failure to comply will apply and will ``sting.'' If those norms can be ignored with impunity, and with little or no future consequences for the debtor, this bodes poorly for the ability of society to continue to enforce those requirements. Madam President, I hope there will be no dissent to these anti-fraud provisions. Certainly, there should not be. Bankruptcy relief should be available to people who work hard and play by rules, yet fall unexpectedly upon hard times. Perpetrators of fraud should not be allowed to find safe haven in the bankruptcy law. The second amendment I offered, and which has been incorporated into this bill, is found in Section 315. It, too, is simple and straight- forward. It says that debts that are incurred to pay non-dischargeable debts are themselves non-dischargeable. In other words, if someone borrows money to pay a debt that cannot be erased in bankruptcy, that new debt could not be erased either. The idea is to prevent unscrupulous individuals from gaming the system and obtaining a discharge of debt that would otherwise be non-dischargeable. I want to emphasize that we have taken special care to ensure that debts incurred to pay non-dischargeable debts will not compete with non-dischargeable child- or family-support in a post-bankruptcy environment. The third amendment of mine adopted in committee is reflected in Section 316 of the bill, and it is intended to discourage people from running up large debts on the eve of bankruptcy, particularly when they have no ability or intention of making good on their obligations. Current law effectively gives unscrupulous individuals a green light to run their credit cards just before filing for bankruptcy, knowing they will never be liable for the charges they are incurring. That is wrong, and it has got to stop. The provision would establish a presumption that consumer debt run up on the eve of bankruptcy would be non-dischargeable. The provision is not self-executing. In other words, it would still require that a lawsuit be brought by the creditor against the debtor. Many valid claims for nondischargeability are never filed, because the creditors do not have enough money at stake to justify the litigation costs. But if this provision achieves the intended purpose, debtors will not only minimize the run-up of additional debt, they will have more money available after bankruptcy to pay priority obligations, including alimony and child support. Again, special care has been taken to ensure that we are only talking about debts incurred within 90 days of bankruptcy for goods or services that are not necessary for the maintenance or support of the debtor or dependent child. We want to be sure that family obligations are met. Madam President, I want to discuss one other aspect of the bill before closing, and that relates to the many provisions that Senators Hatch, Grassley, and I crafted to protect the interests of women and children. Nothing in the original version of the bill changed the priority of, or any of the other protections that are accorded to, child-support and alimony under current law. If members of the Senate have not seen the relevant analysis done by Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, I will submit it for the Record now. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, yesterday, I led an effort during consideration of the FY99 foreign operations appropriations bill to tighten the conditions under which additional funding is made available to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Although the bill included provisions to prod the IMF into making badly needed reforms of its operations, it stopped short of actually requiring the implementation of those reforms. Instead, it merely conditioned the release of funds on the IMF making a public commitment to reform. That, in my view, was not good enough. The IMF has not effectively used the funds that have been allocated to it in the past. According to Johns Hopkins University economist, Steve Hanke, few nations have actually graduated from IMF emergency loans. Most have stayed on the dole for years on end. One study found that, of the 137 mostly developing countries from 1965 to 1995, less than a third graduated from IMF loan programs. The Heritage Foundation has found that, of the IMF's borrowers during 1965 to 1995, no more than half were better off than when they started the loan programs. Almost all were actually poorer, and almost all were deeper in debt. The IMF's failures are apparent even today. Just a few months ago, the IMF orchestrated a $22.6 billion bailout package for Russia, yet that country's economy shows no signs of improving. In fact, it is growing worse every day. And all of the experts agree that, unless Russia establishes the kind of rules of law required for a functioning economy, all the money in the world will not help it. We would be fooling ourselves to think otherwise. Although my amendment failed on a vote of 74 to 19, I am heartened by two things. First, we won more votes for effective IMF reform yesterday than we did when the question was first put to the Senate back in March. And second, the issue is far from settled in the House, which has been more skeptical of providing the IMF with any additional resources. In other words, this issue is far from settled, and my hope is that the final version of the foreign operations bill will either include the more effective reforms I have proposed, or will scale back IMF funding altogether.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Secondly, Mr. President, I was just advised of an error, and I appreciate being advised of that, on line 1 of my amendment. Instead of ``line 1,'' it should read ``line 19''--beginning on page 119, line 19 of the bill. I ask unanimous consent to make that change in my amendment.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair. I won't use all of that time. In my remaining time, I, first of all, ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the two articles from the Wall Street Journal to which I alluded earlier.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me make two quick points and perhaps close this debate. First of all, under U.S. law, families and victims of crime in the United States, Americans, have the ability to go through the State Department to get this kind of information. That provision was included in last year's intelligence bill. Secondly, I made the point earlier we are not as concerned about American citizens having the right to get information declassified as we are foreign organizations. What I pointed out was there are two foreign organizations that are specifically defined in the bill as being permitted, then, to have access to this information and to require the departmental procedure which would result in the declassification or at least the consideration of declassification of this information. That is what is unprecedented here. That is what would be so astonishing. Finally, the process here is not a simple, inexpensive process where the CIA can inject and stop it. It is an interagency group, and the CIA can be and, in fact, a majority of time where this has been used, my understanding is it has been overridden. There are private people on the panel as well as representatives from other government agencies. As a result, you are talking about an extraordinarily time-consuming and expensive operation for people who are really charged with other responsibilities. With respect to the American citizens, I think we have that covered. With respect to foreign powers and foreign groups, I don't think we want to give them rights in requiring declassification of materials that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is concerned does not adequately protect our national security needs. Again, I urge at the appropriate time that the motion to table be supported.