A concurrent resolution calling on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to assess the potential effectiveness of and requirements for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone in the Darfur region of Sudan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I checked with the leader on our side, and I hope it is all right with the Republican leader. I have no amendment relating to the bill. I would like to proceed as if in morning business until anyone has an opportunity to move on the bill, and I will cease and desist at that moment.

Mr. President, several years ago, when we were considering this legislation, I spoke here on the Senate floor about some important provisions that I think have been overlooked in our discussions. In my remarks today I will repeat what I said back then, in March of 2001.

We have heard a lot in recent days about how this bill lacks compassion--specifically, that it will hurt women and children who depend on alimony and child support.

Critics claim that by making sure that more money is paid back to other creditors, this bill will make it harder for women and children to get what is coming to them.

I am particularly proud of my record of protecting women and children during my career in the Senate. That record includes the Violence Against Women Act to protect women threatened by domestic violence.

I am here again today to show that, contrary to a lot of the rhetoric that has been tossed around, this bill actually improves the situation of women and children who depend on child support. It specifically targets the problems they face under the current bankruptcy system into a virtual extension of the current national family support collection system.

There may be other aspects of this legislation that we can debate: the balance between creditors and debtors, between different kinds of creditors, or between different kinds of debtors. But on the question of child support and alimony, there should be no dispute.

Because this bill strengthens the collection of alimony. Period.

Over the many years we have discussed this bill, it has earned the support of the National Child Support Enforcement Association, which represents over 60.000 child support professionals.

It has earned the support of the National Association of Attorneys General, which has sent a letter of support personally signed by twenty-seven State attorneys general.

Over the years, the child support protections in this legislation were endorsed by the Attorney General of the State of Vermont.

The Attorney General of Minnesota endorsed them, too, along with the Attorneys General from Illinois, from Massachusetts, and from California, Montana, North Carolina, Michigan, Maryland, Iowa, Hawaii, and Washington.

The child support and alimony protections in S. 256 are so far superior to current law that the National District Attorneys Association, representing more than 7,000 local prosecutors, have endorsed them.

In addition to those national associations, those protections have earned the support of: the California Family Support Council, whose 2,500 enforcement professionals are responsible for carrying out the Federal child support program in California;

The Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council, composed of child support professionals from the private and public sectors west of the Mississippi River;

The California District Attorneys Association, consisting of elected district attorneys from each of every one of California's 58 counties and over 2,500 deputy district attorneys; and finally,

The Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. Yes, even New York City loves this bill.

Why has this legislation earned such overwhelming support from the professionals out in the field and in the trenches who, ever single day, seek and enforce child support orders?

One reason is the hard work of Phillip Strauss, who, speaking for the National Child Support and Enforcement Association, has represented the concerns of child support professionals in testimony before our committee over the years we have debated bankruptcy reform. From his personal experience with the problems women and children face under current bankruptcy law, he brought together his fellow enforcement officials to draft the provisions I am here to discuss.

As Mr. Strauss and his colleagues have told us, right now the treatment of child support and alimony in bankruptcy is a mess, and this bill fixes it.

When a deadbeat dad files for bankruptcy under the current system, what happens to mom and the kids?

Well, if the dad is actually making the payments, those payments stop. That's right, the payments stop cold. Mom then has to find a lawyer or a government advocate, take time off of work, and go to bankruptcy court to try to get those payments started

again. And when she goes to court, her claim may not be heard that day, so she'll have to return again and again . . . or if she's late, she'll miss her day in court.

What else happens under current law? When dad's bill collectors show up in bankruptcy court, mom has to fight with them over dad's assets. There's a good chance that mom not only needs her payments started again, but she is due past support--support payments dad never made last month, last year. She needs him to pay her back for all the payments he failed to make.

And in asserting her claim, she is not the ``Number 1'' collector in line. Under current law, she is Number 7. That's right--Not So Lucky Number 7. The current Code permits other bill collectors to beat her in the race to get at dad's assets. The current law handicaps her at the starting line. She is forced to wage a fight to make sure she and the kids receive their due.

And what happens after she fights it out with the bill collectors? Well, under the current system, she might be lucky and get every dollar due. But, she may only get a portion of what is due or she may not get one red cent.

That's not right. If a bankrupt household is a sinking ship, then women and children should be protected first. This is what the current law fails to do, but it is what this bill does: it puts women and children first.

S. 256 dictates that even if he files for bankruptcy, dad must continue making those support payments that mom needs to feed and clothe her children. Under this bill, women and children will continue to receive their support payments during bankruptcy, while everybody else, from the credit card bank to the department store, waits for the bankruptcy judge's final order and plan.

That alone would be a major improvement over current law. But that is just the beginning of the advances of this bill over current law.

This bill makes mom ``Number 1'' and places her ahead of all the bill collectors on her past-due claim. No other bill collector--not the credit card company, not the car loan company, not the student lenders--can jump ahead of a mother and her children. Every other bill collector must stand in line behind the family.

What is so great about the continuation of payments and making mom ``Number 1''? As a practical matter, she doesn't have to find room in her hectic schedule to make appearances in a federal bankruptcy court-- an intimidating place for most people. She can go to work without interrupting her day. She can complete her errands and pick up her kids after school. Under the bill, she will be automatically first in line on her claims and she will continue to receive her payments during bankruptcy.

When we pass this bill, she does not have to work her way through the bankruptcy system. The system will work for her, not against her.

That's the beauty of this bill: It is self-executing. The provisions to be added to the Bankruptcy Code will function automatically. This is vital. Unrepresented women will not be harmed by the process, as they are under the current Code.

Today, under current law, these women have to get an attorney and go to court to assert their claims.

In addition, under this bill, family support will never be dischargeable. It must be paid in full. All of it.

This is important because, under the curren, domestic debts may not be paid in full or at all . . . believe it or not. Right now, a deadbeat father can file for bankruptcy and come out without paying one penny of support. While his slate is wiped clean, a mother and her children go without. When this bill passes and the President signs it, the law will hold the deadbeat dad's feet to the fire: he will pay, he will pay in full.

There are other important ways that this bill will remove real obstacles to justice that exist in current bankruptcy law.

This bill not only lifts the stay on support payments during bankruptcy, but it adds that, when a wife-beater files for bankruptcy, a domestic violence restraining order against him must remain in effect. It cannot be stayed. And the woman who needs a restraining order against him can still get one.

I have here an order from a family court in my home state of Delaware. A woman went to the court and requested a restraining order against her abuser, who had already filed for bankruptcy. Incredibly, the judge found, under the current Bankruptcy Code, that a proceeding for a domestic abuse restraining order is automatically stayed ``by operation of law.''

That's right. We have judges out there right now who look at today's Bankruptcy Code, and they find that filing for bankruptcy stops all proceedings. They find that we have failed to write an exception for proceedings like those for domestic violence. They find their hands are tied.

Then they send a woman in fear for her life off to a federal bankruptcy court to lift the Code's automatic stay by filing a special motion. Unbelievable.

If you think this is fair, if you prefer this state of affairs, then I guess you will vote against this bill. Personally, I am proud of this bill, and I wish that those who are fabricating wild claims about it would stop. If they have their way, the women and children in this country who depend on alimony and child support will be robbed of real protections. That would be a crime.

Under current law, more than just child support and--alimony are stopped in their tracks by the filing of bankruptcy. That automatic stay, as it is called, stops a lot of other proceedings that could provide real help to women and children.

This legislation changes that. It lifts the stay on a number of methods that family support officials use to go after deadbeat dads, who today can hide behind the bankruptcy system. Unlike current law, this bill would permit reporting the deadbeat's overdue support payments to a consumer reporting agency. Under current law, it would permit restrictions on a deadbeat dad's driving, professional, or recreational licenses. It would permit family support collection officials to intercept his tax refunds.

The legislation also clarifies the definition of support payments, ending conflicting bankruptcy decisions by different courts that today question what support payments actually are.

Most significantly, though, this bill prevents a father from completing bankruptcy unless he has paid all his support obligations due after he filed for bankruptcy.

Let's think about this. Under current law, a father filed for bankruptcy and can complete bankruptcy under a plan that relieves him of his past-due domestic obligations. Under the bill, however, this scenario will become obsolete. A father will never complete bankruptcy until he is paid up. He must pay.

Moreover, the bill protects mom during a bankruptcy plan. Once a father is under a bankruptcy plan and he fails to make his support payments, a mother can march to the bankruptcy court and ask the court to dismiss his plan. The court will call dad back in to explain himself. He doesn't want to make payments during his bankruptcy plan? Fine, he can be thrown out of bankruptcy, and find himself back at square one.

Some claim that this bill lacks compassion. Well, right now, women who want child support orders or who already have orders but fail to enforce them slip through the cracks. If we pass this bill, the Bankruptcy Code will empower women with the information they need.

Section 219 of the bill requires the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee to notify a woman of her rights to use the services of her state child support enforcement agency and gives her the agency's address and phone number. Better yet, the Trustee likewise notifies the agency independently of the woman's claim. This is striking.

Women who need help will get the information they need, because the bankruptcy system is charged with reaching out to family support professionals--acting under federal family support collection law--and putting them at the service of the women and children who need them.

This last item needs stressing, Mr. President, because so much has been made about what will happen after someone who owes family support payments comes out of bankruptcy. The claim is that other ``more powerful'' creditors will push women and children aside and strip the dad bare before he can make payments to his family.

That makes for a moving story, Mr. President, but it is fiction, not fact.

This legislation requires the bankruptcy Trustee to notify both the woman and the family support collection professionals about the dad's release from bankruptcy, his last known address, the name and address of his employer, and a list naming all the bill collectors who will still be collecting from dad.

This section helps mothers both during and after bankruptcy.

The new notification process will help a mother and the support enforcement agencies keep track of a father, where he is working, and what other bills he is required to pay.

Because of this monitoring, which would be put in place by the bankruptcy system under this bill, mothers and collection agencies can more easily go to court and get that portion of a father's wages that now really belongs to them. Dad may complete his bankruptcy plan, but his obligations do not stop.

These new protections guarantee that family support claims of women and children,will always receive ``Number 1'' priority--during and after bankruptcy. The process for obtaining a portion of a father's wages--through a wage attachment--gives priority to domestic support orders over orders held by bill collectors, including credit card companies.

That money is taken out of his paycheck before he even sees it. He can't be forced by ``powerful creditors'' to choose between them and his alimony or child support. Those payments are automatic. Again, the picture of greedy bill collectors rushing to the front of the line makes for dramatic storytelling. But it is only that--storytelling.

The legislation builds on the existing Federal Child Support Enforcement Program, that exists to help women of all walks of life receive their support payments. By tying Federal dollars to federal standards, current law requires state and local support enforcement agencies to enforce national standards.

A couple of the requirements under Federal family support law are: first, that immediate wage withholding should be included in all child support orders; and second, that the withholding of child support obligations be given top priority over every other legal process under State law against the same wages.

Therefore, after bankruptcy, when a mother and the bill collectors walk into court to make claims against the father's wages, the mother is again ``Number 1'' in priority and those bill collectors fall in line behind her.

In response to some of my colleagues concerns--concerns that I would certainly share if I listened to some of the claims out there--I looked for ways to make the system even tighter.

I found out that the only way to do that was to require a wage attachment, whether the woman wanted one or not. Maybe she wants nothing to do with an abusive husband. Maybe she is afraid for him to know her address. We have to leave that decision up to her, but she will get all the help we can give to help her know her rights.

As I said, I looked for ways to make this bill stronger in support of women and children who depend on support payments, and I simply couldn't find any.

Even if a father does not earn wages, then support enforcement agencies have many tools to use to ensure that the mother and her children are paid. A support enforcement agency can intercept taxes and unemployment benefits, revoke driver's, professional and recreational licenses (like those used for fishing, hunting, and boating), deny passports, and institute criminal and contempt actions.

That is why, even compared to any imaginary ``powerful creditor'' you might be able to conjure up, mothers and children have real, tangible protections and resources at their disposal to bring a first priority claim against a father's wages after bankruptcy.

Finally, let me conclude where I began: with the enthusiasm for this legislation that we have heard from the folks in the trenches.

Here is what the National Association of Attorneys General has asserted: the bill ``improve[s] the treatment of domestic support obligations'' and when the current Code's ``obstacles are removed, as this legislation seeks to accomplish, we believe that our State and local support offices will continue to be able to collect these monies effectively, regardless of whether other lower-priority creditors remain.''

As I mentioned before, the Association's letter was personally signed by the State Attorneys General from twenty-seven States, including the--State Attorneys General from Vermont, Minnesota, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, North Carolina, Michigan, Montana, Maryland, Iowa, Hawaii, and Washington.

The National District Attorneys Association, with more than 7,000 local prosecutors in their membership, does ``not believe that after bankruptcy it would be more difficult to collect support simply because credit card debts are not discharged. To the contrary, support collectors have vastly more effective, and meaningful, collection remedies before a bankruptcy case is filed, or after the case is completed, than any other financial institution . . . It is under the current law, during bankruptcy, that support collectors have the greatest difficulty because they are in competition with all other creditors for bankruptcy estate assets and because their most effective collections remedies have been stayed . . . This legislation provides a major improvement to the problems facing child support creditors in bankruptcy proceedings.''

I support the reform that the enforcement professionals call for, from New York City to California, from Minnesota to Vermont, from Massachusetts to Michigan. I want to save women and children from having to fight their way through a broken bankruptcy system. I want to make the system work for them, not against them.

A vote against this bill is a vote in favor of the current broken system. A vote for this bill is a vote to protect family support payments in bankruptcy.

That is why I support this bill.

Mr. President, today, for me, marks the culmination of 8 long years of hard work, and I am glad we have finally reached this point, where we will not only pass this bill, but the House will do so as well and the President will sign it into law. I believe that we have eliminated some abuses with this bill. I wish we could have accomplished more, but we could not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let me say to my colleagues, that there are some issues like homestead and asset trusts that will come back, and I look forward to working on those, but make not mistake about it, this is a good bill and I am excited to see it pass.

The policy questions we have been addressing are these:

(1) whether bankruptcy is a necessary and permitted way to recover from overburdening debt; and

(2) when is bankruptcy being abused and used as an escape valve for individuals capable of repaying some, if not all, of their debt.

The goal of this bill has never been to create additional burdens for those who have over-extended themselves for one reason or another, but to help them achieve financial responsibility after bankruptcy, so that they can avoid similar setbacks in the future.

It is clear to me that when you have statements from debtors that they are using bankruptcy to ``[take] advantage of one of the opportunities the Government offers,'' that the responsibility for slowing down the 1.6 millions consumer bankruptcy filings per year lies with Congress.

As we approached this bill, our goal was not to punish those who legitimately need the fresh start that bankruptcy offers. However, our goal was to disallow people from filing bankruptcy simply for the sake of taking advantage of a financial opportunity provided by the government. People who can afford to pay all or a part of their debts over a limited period of time should not get off Scot free.

Let me just for a moment, talk about the concept of bankruptcy. The term derived from the medieval Italian phrase ``broken bench.'' Merchants would sell their wares in the marketplace from benches. If the merchant ever reached a point where he could not pay his debts, his creditors would seize all of his wares and divide it among themselves. They did not stop with the seizing of wares, however. The creditors would break the merchants' bench, to bankrupt the merchant from reopening.

Our goal under this legislation was not and we did not ``break the bench.'' Instead of trying to prevent merchants or individuals from having a second opportunity, we accomplished just the opposite. People who need a fresh start under this bill will get one. The people who can pay some of their debts back will have to do that. Let me just highlight a few of the benefits in this bill.

First, S. 256 requires that individuals receive credit counseling prior to filing for bankruptcy. This counseling will help an individual decide if bankruptcy is the appropriate mechanism to remove debt and will help the individual understand what filing bankruptcy actually means. In many instances, the deceptive and fraudulent advertising practices of bankruptcy mills lure consumers into bankruptcy unnecessarily. Debtors should know that there are many ways to get back on their feet financially--such as entering into voluntary repayment arrangements.

To curb the practice of preying upon debtors, S. 256 establishes the Debtor's Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights requires that debt relief organizations disclose the nature of the services they offer, explain the alternatives to filing bankruptcy, disclose the rights and obligations of debtors who file for bankruptcy, and explain the consequences of filing for bankruptcy.

Second, S. 256 establishes a means test to help determine whether people are capable of paying back a meaningful portion of their debts. This test might help the debtor avoid a Chapter 7 filing, where creditors will liquidate the individuals assets and where the debtor will have a very hard time getting creditors to extend credit to them in the future. If a debtor files under Chapter 13 and learns how to manage money under a structured repayment plan that requires some discipline, the debtor learns financial responsibility and should be able to avoid future financial turmoil. Chapter 13 bankruptcies allow debtors to keep their assets and pay back a portion of their

debts over a 5 year period. In exchange, the remaining portions of their debt are discharged and the debtor gets a fresh start.

Third, S. 256 creates new protections for consumers, especially in the area of credit cards. We require credit card companies to disclose the dangers of making only a minimum payment and we prohibit deceptive practices like advertising low introductory rates--rates used to bait and switch the credit card holder. We also require that a toll-free number be provided to consumers, where they can obtain information on how long it will take to payoff their credit card balances.

The consumer benefits of this bill are enormous. Instead of breaking the bench, this bill promotes financial responsibility. The bill vastly improves the current situation in bankruptcy for certain categories of individuals. For example, it provides special benefits to women and children, through child support and alimony, and provides parents the ability to deduct expenses such as school tuition. Make no mistake about it, while the bill provides some increased protection for unsecured creditors, it provides more protection for consumers. Logically, there is absolutely no reason to oppose it.

Mr. President, over time, many people have worked on this bill, and I would just like to take a moment to express my appreciation for their work.

First, it has been an honor to work closely with Senators Grassley and Hatch to make this legislation a reality. I appreciate both of them so much and I believe they both have done yeomen's work on this bill. I thank Senator Frist for making this bill one of his top priorities and I appreciate the leadership of Senator McConnell.

I think it is appropriate that we take just a moment to express appreciation to some people who gave extraordinary effort to make this successful conclusion.

First, I note that in my office it has taken three chief counsels to get through this bill. I appreciate the hard work of Kristi Lee, my first Chief Counsel and currently a magistrate judge in the Southern District of Alabama. She did an outstanding job on this bill during the first years that this legislation was in the Senate. I also appreciate the work of my former Chief Counsel Ed Haden, who is currently doing appellate litigation at one of Alabama's outstanding law firms, Balch and Bingham. While I also appreciate the work of my current Chief Counsel, William Smith, and legislative counsels Amy Blankenship and Wendy Fleming for their efforts in this endeavor, my Deputy Chief Counsel Cindy Hayden has really given an extraordinary effort on this bill.

These fine staffers have worked night and day for two weeks to guide this bill to passage. William Smith has given every ounce of his strength to successful passage. He deserves particular praise.

Additionally, I appreciate the work of Lloyd Peeples, a former counsel of mine who has clerked for a bankruptcy judge and now serves as an AUSA in the Northern District of Alabama. He provided invaluable assistance on this bill.

Sean Costello, a former counsel of mine who now works for the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice, provided outstanding work to help make this bill a reality.

Brad Harris, a former counsel of mine who now works for the Burr and Forman firm in Birmingham, never failed in working long hours and providing key assistance in seeing this bill through.

And finally, Brent Herrin, my former counsel who worked hard on cram down and other issues, did outstanding work. Brent practices tax law for the Deloitte Touche firm in Atlanta.

For eight years, these lawyers have all worked on this legislation. I know they are happy to see it come to a conclusion. I am too.

In the past I have thanked the former staffers from other offices that have worked on this bill, I will not name them individually today, save John McMickle who served Senator Grassley and played a major role in helping to craft this bill. John believes in the underlying principles in this bill and I appreciate his work.

I also want to thank Rita Lari Jochum, Senator Grassley's current Chief Counsel. I have seen very few staffers with her drive and dedication and she is to be commended for her efforts on this bill. Her good demeanor has been a source of calm in the storm.

I appreciate the work Perry Barber, Brendan Dunn, Kevin O'Scannlain, and Bruce Artim of Senator Hatch's staff, and the work of Harold Kim, Ivy Johnson, Tim Strachman, Mike O'Neill, Hannibal Kemmerer and Ryan Triplette of Senator Specter's staff.

I must also thank Dave Schiappa, Allen Hicks, Eric Ueland, Sharon Soderstrom, John Abegg, Kyle Simmons, Malloy McDaniel and Brian Lewis from the Leadership staffs of Senators Frist and McConnell, all who have provided tremendous assistance along the way in shaping this bill into its final form.

Mr. President, I also want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and his staff for their remarkable work in getting this bill done. Phil Kilko and Susan Jensen did outstanding work on this bill.

I thank the senior Senator from Alabama, Senator Shelby, for his work on this bill. He guarded his banking jurisdiction like a roaring lion.

This is a great day, Mr. President. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, the second reason I rise is literally a coincidental but important offshoot of what Christopher Dodd, Senator Dodd's father, did at the Nuremberg Trials. What they did--he and Justice Jackson--was they understood that you could uncover, deal with, and expose to the world atrocities humanity commits upon humanity and at the same time do it under the rule of law, give people a fair trial, actually abide by what we say we stand for.

All of us are aware of the genocide now taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan. We passed a resolution last July which called Khartoum's abuses in Darfur genocide, which is what they were, what they are, and what they continue to be. The then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made the same assessment in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in September of 2004.

The President of the United States, President Bush, signed legislation imposing sanctions on Khartoum for the actions in Darfur this past December. With the signing of the North-South Peace Agreement on January 9, administration officials believed the situation in Darfur would improve. Unfortunately, they have only gotten worse.

The Government of Sudan and its proxy militia continue to attack civilians with impunity. An estimated 100 people were killed in an aerial bombardment in Sudan at the end of January.

In February, the African Union officials reported that the security situation in Darfur had deteriorated over the past 4 months and said that the government and its allied militias were primarily to blame.

This month, Doctors Without Borders has reported that rape continues as a routine practice, routinely used as a weapon against the women in the region with no sign of abating.

The insecurity continues to hamper aid efforts, and on March 6, the United Nations forbade its workers from traveling to certain areas--the latest in a series of security measures put in place after aid workers were kidnapped and then killed. Aid organizations report that as many as 1,000 people a day are dying because of the lack of access to food and medicine.

All told, violence and insecurity have resulted in at least 70,000 deaths, although some believe the total to be much higher. The number of internally displaced persons has risen to nearly 2 million people. There are over 200,000 refugees in Chad alone. The current registration being conducted reveal that there are far more than the 20,0000 refugees in neighboring Chad.

The African Union Force in Darfur has made a noticeable difference in the areas they are able to reach, but it does not have the size, the mandate, or the capability to protect civilians in Darfur. AU monitors have come under fire from government allied forces and, in some instances, have been prevented from investigating allegations of cease- fire violations.

The AU faces a serious lack of capacity both at the headquarters level and at the level of member states. Out of a mandated 3,000 troops, fewer than 2,000 are on the ground. And even at full strength, 3,000 soldiers is not enough to prevent further abuse of civilians and to investigate cease-fire allegations in the area the size of France.

It is evident to me that the administration--our administration-- needs to devote some focused time and attention to addressing the genocide in Darfur. Our current policy has not turned the tide. We need to redouble our efforts and bring an end to the genocide in Darfur. The question will be 5 years from now to all of us: Where were we? Where were we? What did we do when this genocide unfolded? There will be another Academy Award-nominated movie about the god-awful genocide that is taking place, the routine rape, the systematic elimination of a whole people.

Today, I sent a letter to the President of the United States urging him to instruct our permanent representative at the NATO alliance, the so-called NAC, the North Atlantic Council, to propose that NATO assess and report immediately to members on the potential effectiveness of and requirements for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone across Darfur in the region of the Sudan. The reason I sent the letter is I am absolutely certain of what NATO will say. They are fully, totally capable of enforcing a no-fly zone out of Chad. The French could do it now.

I have been one who has been critical of this administration. I apologize for discussing this in the middle of a bill we have been working on for a long time but, literally, events are overtaking us.

I am confident that NATO will point out they are fully physically capable of taking and imposing a no-fly zone in the region. That will be significant. My friend from New Jersey has been a leader on this subject and this issue. He has been banging us about the head to do more. He has a much more expansive proposal, which I support, than what I am proposing today.

I have stood in this Senate and defended our European allies against some of the broader allegations in the Bush allegation, but I must say today, I am tired of our French friends and others bleeding all over us about the plight of the people in Iraq, the plight of the people in other parts of the world, when it is fully within their capability right now that France could do this all by itself. Right now. They have the wherewithal, they have the aircraft, they are positioned, and they very much want to make sure that they are recognized as a major player in Africa.

I am, quite frankly, more than disappointed--appalled--for all their talk that they are not acting at all. That does not relieve us of responsibility. The fact that another nation has the capacity and has a history that would warrant it taking the action that needs to be taken now, and does not, does not free us of an obligation.

Today's Washington Post editorial page says that enforcing the no-fly zone in Darfur would require ``one squadron of 12 to 18 fighter aircraft backed up by 4 AWAC planes,'' and cites a retired Air Force general as their source for believing such. Let's find out whether they are right. I believe they are. I have no reason to doubt that this Air Force general has talked not only to them but to others. But let's make it official. Let's do an assessment. Let's force the NAC to make an assessment now. I believe they will come back with exactly what I have just stated--a squadron, backed up by AWAC, that will be able to take out those gunships that are being used now to decimate entire villages.

As I said, my friend from New Jersey witnessed--I don't think he witnessed the actual gunships in action, but he witnessed the results. Let's find out now so we cannot kid around with ourselves, so we do not do what we are doing today, what we were doing last week and last month. We think this is an awful occurrence; we condemn it; but it is beyond our capacity to effect an outcome.

That is what they said to me in 1993 in Bosnia. That is what they said in 1997 in Kosovo. That is what we didn't do in Rwanda. This is time to act. It is within our capacity to do so. I believe it is totally consistent with the President's call for freedom, totally consistent with the President's Inaugural speech, which I applaud, totally consistent with what I believe and hope is in his heart, to be able to stop this kind of action.

The question is, why propose sending the NATO mission to Darfur? A NATO mission will do three things. First, it will provide immediate security for the people of Darfur by preventing area bombardment on the ground by the government of Sudan. Second, it will bolster the ability of the African force on the ground by discouraging attacks in the AU personnel and helicopters. Finally, it will send an unequivocal message to the international community that we will no longer tolerate Khartoum's actions.

Some may say, Why aren't you going to the U.N.? This is a point I want to make again and again, one I made back in 1993, 1995, 1997 and 1998. When that body does not act responsibly and when there is a genocide underway, it is fully within our rights--and I will argue our obligation--to act, hopefully, with others, with the strongest alliance in the history of the modern world, NATO. But even if they don't, we have a right, for I would argue and I say that which I am not supposed to say: If you engage in genocide, the world should reach a conclusion that you forfeit your sovereignty. You forfeit your sovereignty if you engage in genocide. That should be a principle we should state loudly and clearly. That warrants, if the capacity exists, the use of whatever action is possible to stop the genocide.

I realize we have 12 divisions, 10 of which are coming or going to Iraq. But we are not talking about a division here. We don't need a division here. We are going to look back and find a squadron of aircraft, possibly several thousand American forces. That is what I would do, by the way. I think we should put ground forces in as well, but I am not asking that. All I am asking is, quite frankly, prick NATO's conscience and have them give us an honest assessment of what would, in fact, be required to enforce a no-fly zone.

I send a resolution to the desk. I apologize I have not circulated this, but I know my colleague from New Jersey, as I say, has been heard on this and wants to be added. I know Senator Durbin does.

I ask unanimous consent it remain open for the remainder of the day for me to be able to add cosponsors on both sides.

I thank the Chair and my colleagues for their indulgence.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote for final passage of the bankruptcy reform bill. I have been working on this piece of legislation for a long time, and I am pleased to see that we are nearing the end. This bipartisan bill has been maligned by many, and I want to set the record straight. What we are trying to do is fix a bankruptcy system that has gone awry, where individuals who have the ability to repay their debts don't do so, and the rest of us are left holding the bag.

What we have tried to do with this bill is inject some fairness into the system, whereby people who have assets and the ability to repay back their debts go into a chapter 13 repayment plan, and people who do not have any means and no ability to repay go into chapter 7. We've kept the safety net of full chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge for those who truly need it, and channeled others that can pay their creditors into a repayment plan.

This is done through a means test, which is fair and flexible enough to take into account all the unique circumstances a debtor and his family face. The means test takes into account all reasonable and necessary expenses for a debtor and his family. We provide for a court to consider ``special circumstances'', so that a debtor can show that he doesn't have the ability to repay, and should stay in chapter 7. The bill excludes from the means test poor people, those individuals who are below the median income. So if individuals can pay and they really don't have the ability to pay, they will continue to have their debts fully discharged in chapter 7 bankruptcy, while those who do have assets cannot hide them from their creditors and escape repayment.

Let me mention a couple of things this bill does not do. This bill doesn't put the credit card companies first or leaves hard working families out to dry, as some of the bill's detractors have claimed. In fact, the bill helps women and children and improves their situation when someone files for bankruptcy because it provides new priorities and tools so that child support and alimony will be collected before other creditors. We move child support up in priority, up to number one from number seven in line, and that means that they will be paid before a lot of other creditors, including the credit card companies. The bill makes staying current on child support a condition of discharge. We provide that debt discharge in bankruptcy is made conditional upon full payment of past due child support and alimony.

Domestic support obligations are automatically non-dischargeable, without the costs of litigation. The bill also makes payment of child support arrears a condition of plan confirmation. The bill provides better notice and more information to facilitate child support collection, and tracking down deadbeat parents. Further, the bill protects the name of a debtor's minor children from public disclosure in a bankruptcy case.

This bill also doesn't help credit card companies and other lenders take advantage of honest consumers, as some have alleged. In fact, the bankruptcy bill contains some new real and significant consumer protections. The bill requires credit card companies to make new disclosures that benefit customers and prohibits deceptive advertising of low introductory rates. It requires credit card companies to provide key information about how much money people owe and how long it will take to payoff their credit card debt by only making a minimum payment. The bill requires lenders to prominently disclose when late fees will be imposed, the date on which introductory or teaser rates will expire, and what the permanent rate will be after that time. The bill also prohibits lenders from canceling an account because the consumer pays the balance in full each month to avoid finance charges.

The bill also provides that consumers will be given a toll-free number to call where they can get information about how long it will take to payoff their own credit card balances if they only make minimum payments on their balance. This will educate consumers about their financial situations. In addition, the bill allows for more judicial oversight of reaffirmation agreements, to protect consumers from being pressured into onerous agreements.

The bankruptcy bill also includes a debtor's bill of rights to prevent bankruptcy mills from preying upon those who are uninformed of their rights. The bill provides for penalties on creditors who refuse to renegotiate reasonable payment schedules outside of bankruptcy. The bill provides for penalties on creditors who fail to properly credit plan payments in bankruptcy. The bill strengthens enforcement and penalties against abusive creditors for predatory debt collection practices. Finally, the bill contains credit counseling programs to help consumers avoid the cycle of indebtedness.

So with the bankruptcy bill, we've tried to close loopholes in the system and eliminate abuses. We've created new consumer protections. We've made chapter 12 permanent. We've made sure that financial markets are not subject to risk. Although the bill doesn't contain everything I would have liked to include, it is a good start to putting an end to the abuses.

It has been a long haul, but I think we are finally seeing this bill through to the end. And there are many people that I'd like to thank because they've been instrumental in getting us to this point. I've been quite busy lately as chairman of the Finance Committee, working on social security, medicare and tax reform. I take that responsibility very seriously. Because of Finance Committee markup and hearing conflicts, I have had to rely on my colleagues to manage this bill on the floor. But the job has been in very good hands.

In' particular, I appreciate Senator Hatch and the diligence that he has shown towards this bill. On more than one occasion, he made sure that the bankruptcy bill made it through the committee process so that we could have it considered on the floor. He has stepped up to the plate many a time to manage the bill, work on compromises, and keep the engines running. Senator

Hatch is a good friend and colleague, and I respect his perseverance as well as his legal expertise. I'm glad to see that all his hard work during the years has finally come to fruition. Senator Hatch has been a true stalwart through the years, and I thank him for his dedication to bankruptcy reform. I also want to thank his able staff, Perry Barber, Kevin O'Scanlin and Bruce Artim for all their help on this bill.

I especially want to thank Senator Sessions for being a tireless champion of bankruptcy reform here in the Senate. I have relied on his intellect and legal prowess for the last eight years that we've been working on this bill. I believe that Senator Sessions has brought a unique perspective to the bankruptcy bill with his dedication to eliminating abuses in the bankruptcy process. He is a firm believer that if you borrow money, you have to pay it back. So I truly am thankful for all the work that Senator Sessions has done, especially in managing this bill on the floor. He is one sharp lawyer, and I am honored to have him as my friend. I also want to thank his staff for their excellent work, in particular his talented Chief Counsel William Smith, Cindy Hayden, Amy Blankenship and Wendy Fleming.

I want to thank Chairman Specter for placing this bill at the top of the agenda in the Judiciary Committee, and for moving it so quickly and ably in this Congress. His staff, Harold Kim, Mike O'Neill, Ivy Johnson, Hannibal Kemmerer, Tim Strachan, Brendan Dunn and Ryan Triplette have been extremely helpful in getting the job done. I want to thank Majority Leader Frist and his staff, Allen Hicks, Eric Ueland, Sharon Soderstrom and Dave Schiappa, as well as Senator McConnell and his staff, John Abegg, Kyle Simmons, Malloy McDaniel and Brian Lewis.

I would be remiss if I didn't thank our friends on the House side, and in particular Chairman Sensenbrenner and his staff, Phil Kiko, Susan Jensen and Ray Smietanka. Chairman Sensenbrenner has really been a leader on bankruptcy reform, and a true driving force behind this legislation. I look forward to additional collaborations with him.

In addition, I want to thank Senator Carper, Senator Nelson, Senator Biden and Senator Johnson. This is truly a bipartisan bill, and it couldn't have gotten done without their help.

Finally, I thank my own staff, my Finance Committee Chief of Staff and Legislative Director Kolan Davis and my Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel Rita Lari Jochum, for their hard work on the bill. I also want to thank my former staffer John McMickle, for his expertise and advice on this important piece of legislation. Good staff is hard to find, and I am proud to say that my staff is probably the best in town.

Mr. President, I strongly believe that reform of our bankruptcy laws is necessary. Too often, bankruptcy is used as an economic tool to avoid responsibility for unsound decisions and reckless spending.

Last year Americans paid interest on about $690 billion in revolving debt. Most of that debt is credit card debt. According to a Consumer Federation of America study, the average household carries between $10,000 and $12,000 in credit card debt and has nine credit cards. Consumers pay an average interest rate of 12.4 percent or approximately $85 billion annually in credit card debt interest.

Let me point out that during both the 105th and 106th Congress, I supported legislation to reform bankruptcy laws and end the abuse of the system.

However, I am unable to support the Bankruptcy Reform Act before us today because I believe it is unfair and unbalanced, does far too little to help consumers and curb creditor abuses, and includes an inflexible ``means test'' that will harm many debtors who are genuinely in need of the protections and the ``fresh start'' that bankruptcy is intended to provide.

The Bankruptcy Code currently offers two alternatives for individuals: chapter 7, under which a debtor's assets are sold and the proceeds are divided among creditors, and chapter 13, under which debtors who have a regular income develop a repayment plan for a portion of the debt. In many cases, debtors filing under chapter 13 repay a greater proportion of their debt than those filing under chapter 7.

The Bankruptcy Reform bill creates a ``means test'' that will make it more difficult for individuals earning above the median income level to erase debts under chapter 7, forcing them to file under chapter 13, which would require them to repay a greater portion of their debt. I believe that those who can afford to repay a greater portion of their debts during the bankruptcy process should be required to do so.

A narrowly targeted reform bill designed to reduce abuse of the system would provide bankruptcy judges with the discretion to dismiss or convert a case to chapter 7, but would not mandate it. It would have provided creditors the opportunity to ask for a dismissal or conversion without putting the burden on every filer to prove that he or she deserves the protections of chapter 7.

However, the ``means test'' included in the bill is inflexible, and it provides no room for a bankruptcy judge to determine whether the circumstances that led to the debtor's financial situation warrant treatment under chapter 7. A parent with a sick child bankrupted by medical bills is treated the same way as a reckless spender who ran up debt on luxury items. That's simply not right.

Again and again, Senators offered amendments that sought to increase the flexibility of the ``means test'' and offered other changes to improve many aspects of this legislation. Unfortunately, in almost every case, these amendments were defeated.

The Senate voted against giving any relief to families forced into bankruptcy by devastating health care costs. One million men and women each year turn to bankruptcy protections in the aftermath of a serious medical problem--and three-quarters of them have health insurance. Senator Kennedy offered amendments to exempt from the means test debtors who have incurred large medical expenses and other reasonable considerations. Both his amendments were defeated.

The Senate voted against relief for children caught up in their parents' bankruptcy. And it voted against relief to help military families who are struggling with the burdens in Iraq and around the world.

The Senate defeated critical consumer protections that would simply give consumers more information and might help end some of the abusive and deceptive practices of some credit card companies. The industry pushes out an incredible 5 billion solicitations every year. Under current regulations companies can change interest rates at almost any time. They market aggressively and, I believe for some, deceptively. Only last year, the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency issued an advisory letter warning national banks that engaged in deceptive credit card marketing and account management practices that they would face compliance and reputation risks.

Remarkably the bill does protect the wealthiest Americans by allowing them to continue hiding their assets from creditors during bankruptcy and never making good on their debt. Senator Schumer offered an amendment to eliminate and end this abuse, and it was defeated. And it does not stop corporate executives from looting their companies and leaving workers, stockholders, and creditors holding the bag. How can we target middle-class families and ignore the wealthiest Americans as they hide their assets?

This bill is needlessly punitive to families. It is as if we have gone out of our way to harm and not help them. For example, when a debtor receives a bankruptcy discharge, the legislation sets up new classes of nondischargeable debt that will compete for payment along with child and family support. Senator Dodd offered an amendment to enable parents to better meet the needs of their children during bankruptcy. Unfortunately, it was defeated. The credit card companies beat the kids on that vote.

This bill is not only detrimental to consumers, but it also hurts our small businesses. This effort to reform our bankruptcy laws will make it more difficult for entrepreneurs to start a small business and imposes additional regulations and reporting requirements on small businesses who file for bankruptcy.

I believe we must do everything possible to ensure the viability of small businesses and to assist in fostering entrepreneurship in our economy. Regulatory and procedural burdens should be lowered for small business wherever possible. However, the bill fails to meet this challenge. Instead, this legislation promotes additional red tape and a government bureaucracy. It imposes new technical and burdensome reporting requirements that are more stringent on small businesses that file for bankruptcy than they are on big business. Further, the bill will provide creditors with greatly enhanced powers to force small businesses to liquidate their assets.

Any big business would have difficulty complying with these new burdensome reporting requirements. But think of the difficulties an entrepreneur or a mom-and-pop grocery store will have in complying with this dizzying array of new and complex requirements. These small businesses are the most likely to need, but least likely to be able to afford, the assistance of a lawyer or an accountant to comply with these new requirements. I cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator Feingold to strike many of the small business provisions in the bill because they would increase reporting requirements on small businesses and make it easier for creditors to force liquidations of small business during the bankruptcy process. Unfortunately, that amendment was not adopted.

I am pleased that an amendment sponsored by Senator Collins and myself which will extend chapter 12 bankruptcy protections to our family fishermen, has been included in the bill. The small, family- owned fishing businesses are in serious trouble. We are making progress in rebuilding stocks; however, the cost of this progress has been carried by fishermen working Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine. The Collins-Kerry amendment will help ensure that fishermen have the flexibility under chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code to wait out the rebuilding of our commercial fish stocks without back tracking on our conservation gains to date. It will help preserve the rich New England fishing heritage in Massachusetts.

Despite some provisions, which I do believe improve the system, overall this bill does not provide bankruptcy reform. Inexcusably, this bill helps creditors without helping consumers. It will let the very rich continue to hide money in homes and trusts. It gives no relief to families hit by medical bills or other financial hardship. It even puts credit card companies ahead of children when debt is allocated to creditors. I will vote no.