Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I wish to respond to Senator Kerry's comments about my representation of the Bankruptcy Review Commission. The commissioners themselves said the vote was 8 to 1 on the small business provisions. So it is not accurate that there are major tensions with respect to these provisions. I have a letter that I will put in the Record that shows a former commissioner of the Bankruptcy Commission saying the vote was 8 to 1 on the small business provisions. I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am not going to respond to the substance of the amendment but to give some background on where we have come over the last 5 or 6 years on this legislation for the consideration of people who will want to debate against the amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts. I suggest to you that when Senator Heflin from Alabama was a Member of the Senate, he and I served as either chairman or ranking member of the judiciary subcommittee on courts that has jurisdiction over bankruptcy issues for the period of time that he and I served together in the Senate, which, I think, was 16 years--1980 to 1996. Just prior to that time, and my coming to the Senate, the Senate had adopted the last bankruptcy reform legislation, which I think was in 1978 or 1979. During the period of time he and I served as either chairman or ranking member--depending upon which party was in the majority--he and I sponsored some technical corrections and some small changes to the last major overhaul of the bankruptcy law. But as time went on, into the early 1990s, Senator Heflin and I came to the conclusion that there were changes in the economy--the globalization of the economy and a lot of other reasons-- and that we ought to give considerable attention to greater changes of the bankruptcy code rather than the very small changes we enacted from time to time during the 1980s. He and I also came to the conclusion we would probably not have the time, as the two Senators shouldering the responsibilities on bankruptcy legislation, to do it through our subcommittee. So we set up the Bankruptcy Commission of which this legislation we are dealing with now is a product. That commission was not made up of any Members of Congress. It was made up of appointees by legislative leaders and by the President of the United States. These people truly are authorities in bankruptcy legislation, including Professor Warren from Harvard, who was rapporteur for the commission, and is the person Senator Kerry was quoting. And he put a letter in the Record that was from her. The commission studied the issues for over a year, and put a lot of work into recommendations for both consumer bankruptcy and for business bankruptcy reform. There was an awful lot within the commission on consumer bankruptcy reform that was very controversial and did not have even near-unanimous recommendations. There was a majority report, but not an overwhelming majority report, on consumer bankruptcy. But when it came to the recommendations of the commission on business bankruptcy reform, the recommendations of the commission came down to the Congress on an 8-1 vote. So we are being asked by the Senator from Massachusetts to do this amendment for the sake of small business. I think it is essential that all of us take into consideration the needs of small business; so I do not find fault with the interests he is trying to espouse here. But I think we need to take into consideration that his amendment is taking the business bankruptcy provisions of our bill and setting them aside and asking us to study what we should do in regard to business bankruptcy reform. I don't think enough has changed in the last 4 or 5 years that an 8-1 recommendation of the Bankruptcy Commission for business bankruptcy reform should be undone by this amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. I hope people will take into consideration the work Senator Heflin and I--we alone, almost totally for the rest of the Senate--had put into bankruptcy legislation through the 1980s into the 1990s, and particularly our recommendation of going to a commission instead of our doing it, so we would have the most expertise involved with the changes and the reforming of business and personal bankruptcy. We set this commission up to do exactly what it did. It came out with an overwhelming recommendation that is before the Senate. Beyond that, in the period of time of 1997-1998, when we moved the commission's recommendations through the Senate, through the House, through conference, through the House a second time, dying on the floor of the Senate because it came late in the session, and then starting over again with the same commission recommendations in 1999, moving it through the Senate, moving it through the House, moving it through conference, moving it through the House, moving it through the Senate, moving it to the President of the United States where it was subjected to a pocket veto--through all of this consideration of the Bankruptcy Commission's recommendations, there has been little dispute about the business provisions compared to the more controversial aspects of the consumer and personal bankruptcy recommendations of the commission. That is directly related to the fact that the commission's recommendations came out 8-1 and, almost unchanged, have become the legislation that first Senator Durbin and I introduced and then, because Senator Durbin was not on the Judiciary Committee in the Congress of 1999 and 2000, it was Senator Torricelli who joined me in introducing bankruptcy legislation. That was introduced in exactly the same way in the last Congress, as a result of our moving ahead with the same conference report that President Clinton pocket vetoed for the underlying legislation that we have before us, almost unchanged again, in legislation introduced as the Grassley-Torricelli-Biden-Hatch- Sessions legislation that is before us. I don't know why all of a sudden somebody thinks we ought to throw these fairly noncontroversial small business and business bankruptcy provisions out of this bill for further study. Each Member of this body is going to have to make up his or her mind on the substance of the amendment by Senator Kerry. I want them to at least understand that we are where we are now not by some flippant decision of a couple Members of the Senate that we should be here, rather that these provisions are the recommendations of a study of the bankruptcy commission. So the small business provisions we have now before us are based on a study of a commission and recommended by that commission on an 8-1 vote. I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent to set aside the amendment of the Senator from New York, the Senator from Massachusetts, so we can now proceed to the amendment of the Senator from California.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Let me state the situation for the Senator from New York. We can have the yeas and nays, but we cannot have a vote on this right away.

Mr. GRASSLEY. We are not prepared to make that decision yet.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I agree to temporarily lay aside the amendment of the Senator from New York so we can proceed to the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has been building a Potemkin village against this bill over a period of 3 years. We have dealt with many of the houses and buildings that have been put up. First, it was child support. That has quieted down. Then it was the unemployed. That has quieted down. Then it was those who were in a divorce with special problems. That has quieted down. We have destroyed almost every one of these homes in your village except this one of medical expenses, and it keeps coming up. It started last spring when the Time magazine story came out about how this bill was so unfair to certain families in America. I assure the Senator that every one of those families mentioned in that story would have been able to take bankruptcy even if our bill were law. Most of those are people who had medical expenses. This paper house of medical expenses comes up again. I have said so many times in this debate, not just this year but last year, that we allow under this bill 100 percent of the medical expenses to be deducted in determining whether somebody can file under chapter 7 and have the ability to pay. If 100 percent of expenses are not enough, will 101 percent or 102 percent or 110 percent satisfy the Senator? I would almost be willing to give it to the Senator. I know the Senator says he has to have his amendment or we go through a certain procedure. What does the Senator from Minnesota think the whole process of bankruptcy is about? If we did not have that process, everybody would be gaming the system. We have people gaming the system now. I just read a story put out by the credit union people about somebody from the Senator's State who had made it very clear why he was going into bankruptcy, and he spent the next 3 months traveling through the South after he retired. What we are trying to do is bit by bit destroy these faults, these structures built against this bill, and I think we have destroyed them all. I hope this vote on the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota will put this issue of medical expenses to rest once and for all. The very same people the Senator wants to make sure get a fresh start, I want to make sure get a fresh start, and they are going to be able to do it under our bill. They do not need the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota to do it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I believe we can accommodate the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Minnesota. We have 20 minutes remaining. I will yield myself 5 minutes. Then it is my understanding that Senator Hatch needs some time to respond to the Senator from Minnesota. I will take my time to address an amendment that we are going to be voting on when we vote on two amendments in just a few minutes. That amendment is the amendment by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy. The amendment would allow small businesses to be given special treatment as compared to other businesses. When the words ``small business'' are used around the U.S. Congress, everybody looks up because we know that small business is the engine of advancement in America, creating the new jobs. I have to say that albeit his amendment may be well intended because we want small businesses to succeed--and I would be the first one to say that--Senator Leahy's amendment would be detrimental to this bill and also to many small businesses as well as those he says he is trying to help. I will explain to the Senate now why I believe his amendment is intended to help small businesses of some very small size and help other businesses that are just a little larger but still very much a small business. He would do this by creating three categories of unsecured creditors in chapter 7, chapter 12, and chapter 13 proceedings under our bankruptcy code. Priority creditors would be paid first, then small business creditors, and then general business creditors that are not small business creditors are the last in line. I will repeat that. It would give priority creditors the option of being paid first, then small business creditors, and then general business creditors that are not small business creditors are the last in line. This idea is different from the way bankruptcy has been treated historically where we have only given special treatment to creditors with extraordinary circumstances. What I mean to say is that we have created a priority status for those who have compelling reasons to go first, such as child support, which has dominated this debate on bankruptcy reform for 3 years now. After child support, people who might be killed by drunk drivers is an example, or the importance of high priority for back pay and wages. If you don't have a compelling reason such as these categories I have just listed, then creditors otherwise are given equal treatment. I have to conclude that this is an antibusiness amendment. It would, for instance, require a law firm or a payday loan shark of five members to be paid before an auto repair shop with 30 employees. Also, the amendment could have an unintended result, such as larger businesses being deterred from offering credit to people who may really need it. Further, this issue has not been examined at all. We don't know for sure what the implications are. I hope my colleagues will oppose this amendment. Do not be sucked into voting for it because it has a title of small business, because it has small business of a certain category but it hurts small businesses generally. I yield the floor and yield whatever time Senator Hatch might consume.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Minnesota does not have to apologize. There are always demands upon our time. There are four or five places we could be at one time. I did not get a chance to hear all of the Senator's speech because I was chairing the Senate Finance Committee on the issue of giving tax relief to working American men and women, a bill that will probably pass here in the month of May. Anyway, I plead with the Senator from Minnesota that he has had a tremendous impact upon this legislation, and it is a better bill in the sense that a lot of things that were brought to our attention are now changes in this bill. But you cannot have perfection. I think the Senator from Minnesota would say he really does not want this bill to pass. So I think it is fair to say he, and other Members who do not want it to pass, will be offering amendments, maybe because they believe in them, but partly it is a process of slowing the legislation down so, again, it may never pass. But I think, unlike 4 and 2 years ago--or maybe more accurately, 3 and 1 year ago--we are starting out with this bill on the floor of the Senate in the first year of a 2-year Congress, where one or two Members of this body are not going to frustrate the will of almost all 535 Members of Congress. And they do not have a President now that is going to veto the bill. So this legislation is going to become law. President Bush will sign this legislation. So now, if I could--we do have an amendment before us from the Senator from Minnesota--I want to address that amendment very directly. It brings me to the means test. By the way, I have a chart here speaking about how flexible this means test is, what it takes into consideration, so that it is not just a quantifiable formula with no humanity to it. There is plenty of humanity involved in this means test, whereby the means test determines whether somebody has the ability to repay some of their debt. And if they do, they then go into chapter 13, and they never get off scot- free. So I see the amendment from the Senator from Minnesota as gutting the means test, ignoring the means test. That would be very bad. And we have had 70 Senators vote for this bill. By the way, 70 Senators represents a bipartisan vote. If you believe this bill should be passed, and we should have strong improvements in bankruptcy law, then you will want to keep the means test; you will not want to gut the means test, as Senator Wellstone's amendment does. It sounds very humanitarian to talk about taking medical expenses into consideration as to whether or not you ought to be granted access to having your debts discharged. I have stated before on this floor, that in calculating a debtor's income, under this means test, 100 percent of medical expenses are deducted. I have also said to my colleagues, including the Senator from Minnesota, that if we offer you a bill where, in determining whether or not you should be in bankruptcy court--and 100 percent of your medical expenses can be taken into consideration in that determination--how much better than 100 percent can we do? If I gave you 101 percent or 102 percent would that be better? But with 100 percent deduction for some expense, I do not know how you can do much better than that. That is what this means testing formula does. And Senator Grassley does not say that, the General Accounting Office confirmed that. I have a page from the General Accounting Office report in relation to that part of this legislation. This is the title page, if people are interested in the entire book. But it lists what is deductible under the IRS standards, in determining the ability to repay if you go into bankruptcy. Here, under ``other necessary expenses,'' the description of the IRS guidelines, as stated by the General Accounting Office, includes such expenses as charitable contributions, child care, dependent care, health care, payroll deductions, including taxes, union dues, life insurance. There it is, under ``other necessary expenses,'' health care, 100-percent deductible in making that determination. If you can pay off some portion of your debt under the means test, then you should have to do so. The means test takes into account these reasonable expenses and others than what I listed, including 100 percent of medical expenses. If one is concerned about whether or not 100 percent of medical expenses is clear enough as to what you can deduct, because the Senator from Minnesota used the term ``catastrophic'' medical expenses, the test also allows, under our legislation, for special circumstances to be taken into account when determining if a debtor can repay his or her debt. That means that after you have taken the IRS guidelines, as I have stated, the General Accounting Office saying 100 percent of medical expenses--and that is not enough to satisfy the Senator from Minnesota so he talks about catastrophic medical expenses; whether they are catastrophic or minor, 100 percent of medical expenses is 100 percent of medical expenses--but just in case, then under the special circumstances provisions of our legislation, that debtor can go before the judge and plead a case beyond what the IRS regulations allow. This bill preserves a fresh start for people who have been overwhelmed by medical debt or unforeseen emergencies. The bill thus allows full 100-percent deductibility of medical expenses before examining the ability to repay. The amendment of the Senator from Minnesota says that if one files for bankruptcy because of medical expenses, then he or she does not have to go through this very flexible means test we are presenting in our legislation. His amendment doesn't take into account whether or not a person can repay or not. Making it possible to go into bankruptcy without some determination of the ability to repay or not is just not right. It means you have a gigantic loophole for somebody to game the system and to do what we are trying to prevent with this legislation-- not hurting the principle of a fresh start, but if you have the ability to repay, you are not going to use the bankruptcy code for financial planning. You are not going to get off scot free. What the Wellstone amendment does is create a loophole for those who can repay their debts. Our bill does it right. We allow all medical expenses, if they are catastrophic or not, to be taken into account. So the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota creates this huge loophole in the bill. That is why I have to urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. First of all, I think the Senator from Minnesota thinks that he has not made any impact on this legislation over the last 4 years. This bill is a statement of considerable impact that the Senator from Minnesota has made on it because of his hard work. His work goes beyond just improving the bill. He obviously does not want the improved bill to pass. But the Senator from Minnesota is a legislator. He obviously believes in the legislative process. He knows how to use the legislative process to accomplish good from his point of view. And we have a bill that has changed considerably since the recommendations in the Commission on Bankruptcy report. Senator Durbin and I introduced that bill two Congresses ago. It went through the process of subcommittee, full committee, to the floor of the Senate, through the House of Representatives, through conference, through the House a second time but not having enough time to get it through the floor of the Senate that second time to get it to the President. Then, in the last Congress, it went through the same process: subcommittee, full committee, the floor of the Senate, the House of Representatives subcommittee, full committee, the floor of the House of Representatives, to conference and out of conference, passing the House of Representatives by a veto-proof margin, and through the Senate, passing the Senate by a veto-proof margin, and going to President Clinton for his signature. Obviously, with veto-proof margins in both Houses, the President knew if he vetoed it, we would be able to override it. The President waited until we adjourned last December, and at that point did what, under the Constitution, is called a pocket veto. We obviously were not in session and did not have an opportunity to override. But I said: The Senator from Minnesota has had an opportunity to make considerable changes in this legislation. Maybe I do not like all those changes, but I would have to look at this piece of legislation that has my name on it as the principal sponsor, with Senator Torricelli of New Jersey, and say this bill has improved a lot in ways that we probably should have recognized when it was first introduced. But you reach a point, in any legislative process, where you eventually come to the conclusion that perfection in the way we do business in the Government is never a possibility. And you get the best possible vehicle you can to get the job done--the best possible job. I think the Senator from Minnesota would like to have me yield. I will yield for the purpose of a question.

Mr. GRASSLEY. If the Senator yields the floor, then I will ask for the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Is the Senator from Minnesota done?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am the author of this bankruptcy bill that is before the Senate. I know I am not the first to speak on it today. There have been proponents and opponents of it. Also, let me make very clear that thus far today there have been both Republicans and Democrats speaking in favor of the bill that is before us. I am very happy to be here to discuss this legislation. I thought last December, when we got it to the President, might have been the end of it and we would have a bankruptcy bill as the law of the land--the first major bankruptcy legislation to pass this body since 1978 or 1979. Prior to Senator Kennedy's remarks about the rules that we will be working on, Senator Kennedy gave all of us an opportunity to see a list of organizations that oppose this bill. I think it is perfectly correct for Senator Kennedy to express the views of anybody who opposes the bill and in support of his opposition to the bill. But there is a flip side of all of the membership of all the organizations that Senator Kennedy said were opposed to this legislation. That flip side is that they all have members that, because some people in this country don't pay their bills, those who do pay their bills and buy products from companies that have creditors that have gone into bankruptcy, those very same members could, on average for a family of four, pay $400 more for goods and services that they would purchase because other people go into bankruptcy and don't pay their bills. There is no free lunch. I hope we have as much concern about the well-being of the members of those organizations that do not go into bankruptcy and have to pay more because they are supporting legislation to maintain the status quo where it is easy to go into bankruptcy and let somebody pick up the cost of your going into bankruptcy. That doesn't preclude that I believe firmly in the principle of a fresh start when people go into bankruptcy because of causes that are no fault of their own. Obviously, in those instances, there are costs to all of us who pick up the bill. But what this legislation is trying to change is the fact that there is an attitude out there of using the bankruptcy code for financial planning when you have some ability to repay. We are saying to those people who file for bankruptcy who have the ability to repay--and, albeit, they probably are a minority of all the people who file for bankruptcy--that it is immoral for them to use the bankruptcy code for financial planning. To put this $400 cost every year that other people pay for their goods and services who do not go into bankruptcy, we are saying to those people who can repay that they are not going to use the bankruptcy code for financial planning, and they are not going to get off scot free. I hope those who look at the long list of organizations that oppose this legislation--by the way, I could put up a chart that would have a long list of organizations supporting this legislation; I am not going to do that. But for those who view those that are against it, remember that they have members that are also hurt because there is abuse of the bankruptcy code. I am glad we are now proceeding to consideration of this bankruptcy bill, S. 420. This bill has been long in the making. As we all know, we have been working on it for two Congresses now. Prior to those two Congresses, I worked on legislation establishing a study commission made up of experts in bankruptcy to suggest to us changes in the bankruptcy code because we saw a skyrocketing of the number of people going into bankruptcy, having reached a peak of 1.4 million people; and that happening during a time of good economy as well. Besides passing this legislation in the two Congresses, we have given this bill very adequate study by holding numerous hearings in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts which I chaired prior to this Congress. We have the published transcripts of these hearings. They are available to the public and any Senator who is interested in looking at how thoroughly the committee has been considering this legislation. The need for bankruptcy reform has been debated on this floor at length. In fact, this bill should have been enacted last year but was pocket vetoed at the last minute by President Clinton. The bill we consider today with a new number, S. 420, and a new title, the ``Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001,'' is practically identical to last year's bankruptcy reform conference report that passed out of the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 70-28. The only exception is we have made a few changes in this new draft to accommodate members of the Democrat Party. There was strong bipartisan support in the last Congress. That strong bipartisan support continues to this very day. So it is high time that we get the job done and get this bill to the President; this President will sign it. I want to give some background on the development of this bankruptcy legislation. In the 106th Congress, Senator Torricelli and I worked very closely together on bankruptcy reform. Senator Torricelli, a Democrat, and I addressed many concerns and negotiated many compromises. We were able to pass out of the Senate the Grassley- Torricelli bill by a vote of 83-14. The Senate then approved the bankruptcy conference report by the vote I mentioned earlier, but I want to emphasize how bipartisan it was--70-28; 53 Republican Senators, 17 Democratic Senators voted for the conference report. But then, as I indicated, President Clinton pocket vetoed this bill. Congress had adjourned, so it did not have an opportunity to override that veto last December. So here we are again trying to pass bankruptcy reform. My Democratic colleagues--Senators Torricelli, Biden, Johnson, and Carper--have joined Senators Hatch, Sessions, and me on this bill, S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001. We hope to get additional cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. As you can see, there is strong bipartisan support for this bankruptcy bill, just as there has been a long history of bipartisan support for bankruptcy reform ever since I have been in the Senate. I note for the record that I believe we have really bent over backwards to try to accommodate Senators' concerns with the bill's process in this Congress. I do not think it is any surprise to anyone that my position is that the bankruptcy bill is unfinished business from the last Congress. I think the large majority of us in the Senate believe that is the case, that it is unfinished business. The bill, being pocket vetoed, had to start over again this year. And here we are. Of course, it was really too bad we could not get the job done last year, considering the pocket veto. So at the beginning of this Congress, I reintroduced the bipartisan conference report with no changes--no changes--exactly the same bill. The reason I did this was not necessarily because the conference report was exactly the way I would have written the legislation, but because I felt compromise is necessary. And that conference report, with the bipartisan support that it had, was negotiated as best it could be. We had reached many carefully crafted compromises. And that bipartisan product ought to be our starting point this time. So I introduced that as S. 220, the same bipartisan bankruptcy conference report language of last year that 70 Members of this body supported. I had that bill held at the desk so we could proceed expeditiously on this matter. I did not think, with all the work that had been done on it over the last 4 years--with only a Presidential veto, a pocket veto at that, standing in the way of it being the law of the land--that there was much point in going through the process of hearings and committee action before we worked on it here. This was one way we could expedite the process; save all the busy Senators some time, and move on with something that had such broad bipartisan support. But always in a body of 100, where consensus is what it takes most of the time to get anything done, we had Senators with concerns about this process. So the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, accommodated those concerns by not only, once again, holding a hearing on bankruptcy reform and the bill, but also by holding a markup of the language in S. 220. So the Judiciary Committee accepted several amendments that were not in the conference report of last time. And that marked-up version of the bankruptcy bill was reported out of committee and reintroduced with a new number. So we went from S. 220--the exact bill that President Clinton pocket vetoed--to now S. 420. That is what we have before us. So I hope this clarification on history and on the procedural process of this bill will show that, one, the bill is a bipartisan effort; two, that we have been working on bankruptcy reform for a very long time and have gone over all the fine points of this bill in great detail; and, three, that we have bent over backwards to allow a fair process to move this bill forward at this time. Let me now discuss the merits of bankruptcy reform and why this bill is necessary to solve the problems we have before us of a historically high number of bankruptcies--1.4 million bankruptcies in 1 year--maybe last year just a little bit less than that but now maybe coming back up. It is a problem with which we should deal. There have been a large number of bankruptcies in good times. And remember, the last 20 years--covering the Reagan administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and now the Bush administration--have been the best economic years ever in the history of America. Yet during this period of time we had 1.4 million bankruptcies in 1 year, compared to 300,000 bankruptcies back in the early 1980s. Something is wrong, and this gives us an opportunity to correct what is wrong. To emphasize, when the Senate last considered this bill just 3 or 4 months ago, we heard a lot about the declining numbers of bankruptcies from that top of 1.4 million that I talked about because the opponents of this compromise bill were pointing to this temporary downward spike in the number of bankruptcies to say that there was no need for any bankruptcy legislation. I refer my colleagues to a Wall Street Journal article dated December 1, 2000, which predicted that consumer bankruptcies will rise by 15 percent this year. According to the article, one expert referred to the predicted upswing in bankruptcies as ``the verge of another flood.'' Opponents to the bill act as if there is nothing to worry about. But the fact is, we have a bankruptcy crisis on our hands. Things are more than likely going to get worse. We need to pass this bill, and we need to pass it right now. The Bankruptcy Reform Act before us will help the American people and the economy. With the economy slowing down and a declining stock market, Americans are anxious about their economic future. If we hit a recession without fixing the bankruptcy system, we could face a situation where bankruptcies spiral out of control even beyond what they were in the good times of 1998, 1997, and 1996. The time to act is now, before any recession is in full swing--not to send a signal to those people who legitimately, for the past 100 years, had a reason to have a fresh start. We do not want to stop those people in debt from going to bankruptcy court because of situations beyond their control. No, it is not to stop that. But before we get into this recession and too many people want to further use the bankruptcy code as part of their financial planning, we want to stop those who can repay some of their debt or all of their debt, that they know they are not going to get off scot-free. I will address how this bill will change the way bankruptcy is being treated in the United States. Simply put, bankruptcy is a court proceeding where people get their debts wiped away. Every debt is wiped away through bankruptcy. When this happens, for every debt that is wiped away, someone loses money. That is not Washington nonsense. That is good old American common sense. Of course, when someone who extends credit has their obligation wiped away in bankruptcy, they are forced to make a decision. Should this loss simply be swallowed as the cost of doing business and absorbed by the owner or do you raise prices for other customers to make up for your losses? Either way there is no free lunch; somebody pays. Presently, when an individual files for bankruptcy under chapter 7, a court proceeding takes place and their debts are simply erased. Every time a debt is wiped away through bankruptcy, someone loses money. When someone loses money in this way, he or she has to decide to either assume the loss as a cost of business or raise prices for other customers to make up for that loss. When bankruptcy losses are infrequent, then maybe lenders just swallow the loss, but when they are frequent, lenders need to raise prices to other consumers to offset their losses. If there are a million businesses out there that have to so deal, I would have to say there are a million answers as to how each one of those businesses might see a debtor getting their losses wiped away. These higher prices obviously eventually translate into higher interest rates for future borrowers. We had an outstanding economist by the name of Larry Summers--also the last Secretary of the Treasury-- testify before our Senate Finance Committee that bankruptcies tend to drive up interest rates. With the possibility of the economy slowing right now, we need to at this time fix a bankruptcy system that inflates interest rates and threatens to make the slowdown even worse. Bankruptcy reform will help our economy through lower interest rates. The result of the bankruptcy crisis is that hard-working, law-abiding Americans have to pay higher prices for goods and services. S. 420 makes it harder for individuals who can repay their debts to file for bankruptcy under chapter 7 where those debts are wiped away. This would lessen the upward pressure on interest rates and higher prices. It is only fair to require people who can repay their debts to pull their own weight. Under current bankruptcy laws, one can get full debt cancellation in chapter 7 with no questions asked. The Bankruptcy Reform Act before us asks the fundamental question of whether repayment is possible by an individual. If it is, then he or she will be channeled into chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code which requires people to repay a portion of their debt as a precondition for limited debt cancellation. The bill does this by providing a means test to steer filers who can repay a portion of their debts away from chapter 7 bankruptcy. The test employs a legal presumption that chapter 7 proceedings should be dismissed or converted into chapter 13 whenever the filer earns more than the State medium income and can repay at least $6,000 of his or her unsecured debt over 5 years. In calculating a debtor's income, living expenses are deducted as permitted under IRS standards for the State and locality where that debtor lives. Legitimate expenses--such as food, shelter, clothing, medical, transportation, attorney's fees, and charitable contributions--are taken into account in this analysis as provided for under these IRS guidelines. Moreover, a debtor may rebut the presumption by demonstrating some sort of special circumstances. Responding to the point that is always brought up against this bill-- we have already heard it this afternoon--that somehow, regarding high medical expenses, you never get adequate consideration of that by the judge if you go into bankruptcy, I don't know what it takes to satisfy people on the other side whom I believe are using this medical expense issue just as an excuse because they don't want any bankruptcy reform. If writing off 100 percent of all medical expenses is not enough, would you be satisfied if we wrote a law that allowed you to write off 101 percent or 102 percent? When I say medical expenses under the IRS guidelines can be written off in making a determination of the ability to repay or go into chapter 13 and then repay part of your debt, I mean that they can be written off. The means test takes into account a debtor's income and expenses and then, even beyond that, allows the debtor to show special circumstances which would justify adjustments to this IRS benchmark means test. In this way, then, the bankruptcy reform bill preserves the fresh start I have talked about for people who have been overwhelmed by medical debt or sudden unforeseen emergencies. As stated by the General Accounting Office--not by Senator Grassley but by the General Accounting Office--the bill allows for full 100 percent deductibility of medical expenses before examining repayment ability. This bill preserves fair access to bankruptcy for people who truly are in need. So that I am crystal clear, people who do not have the ability to repay their debt can still use the bankruptcy system as they would have before. This bill specifically provides that people of limited income can still file under chapter 7. There is a specific safe harbor built in for these individuals so their debt can be wiped away as is done right now--the fresh start. I repeat: There is a safe harbor for these poor people, but the free ride is over for those who have high incomes and who game the system and who don't want to repay their debt but can repay their debt; they are no longer going to get off scot free. That brings me to the moral issue involved with bankruptcy reform. Somehow, I know that in 21st century America you aren't supposed to be judgmental about people. Let me say to you I think it is a sad commentary that I can get into trouble for being judgmental about people, but if I were to do the same thing, commit the same act, I would probably get away with it. That is a sad commentary. There is this issue of personal responsibility. It has been one of the main themes of this bankruptcy reform bill. Since 1993, the numbers of Americans who have declared bankruptcy have increased over 100 percent. That is how you eventually get to that high number 2 years ago of one and four-tenths. While nobody knows all the reasons underlying bankruptcy crises, the data shows that bankruptcies increased dramatically during the same timeframe when unemployment was low and real wages were at an all-time high. I believe the bankruptcy crisis is a moral crisis. People have to stop looking at bankruptcy as a convenient financial planning tool while other honest Americans have to foot the bill. It is clear to me that our last bankruptcy system must bear some of the blame for this crisis. A system where people aren't even asked to pay off their debts, obviously, contributes to the fraying of the moral fiber of our Nation and to the lack of personal responsibility. Why should people pay their bills when we have a system allowing them to walk away with no questions asked? Why should people honor their obligations when they can take the easy way out through bankruptcy? I think the system needs to be reformed because it is fundamentally unfair. The Bankruptcy Reform Act before us will then promote personal responsibility among borrowers and create a deterrence for those hoping to cheat the system, to game the system, to use it for financial planning, to get off scot free. The bill does more than just provide for a flexible means test. It gives judges discretion to consider the individual circumstances of each debtor to determine whether they truly belong in chapter 7 and then get the fresh start that we all agree they are entitled to if they are in this situation because of something beyond their control. But it also contains tough consumer protections that people on the other side of the aisle, correctly so, have brought to our attention that we ought to be doing something about. We are going to have procedures in this bill to prevent companies from using threats to coerce debtors into paying debts which could be wiped away once they are in bankruptcy. That is not fair play, when we have activity such as that occurring. The bill requires the Justice Department to concentrate law enforcement resources on enforcing consumer protection laws against abusive debt collection practices. It contains significant new disclosures for consumers, mandating that credit card companies provide key information about how much they owe and how long it will take to pay off their credit card debt by only making a minimum payment--just getting on a treadmill and never getting off. Consumers will be able to get this information through a toll-free number, where they can get information about how long it will take to pay off their own credit card balances if they make only the minimum payments because we want to help people get off of that treadmill as well. We want to do it by educating consumers and improving the consumers' understanding of their financial situation. Also, credit card companies that offer credit cards over the Internet will be required, for the first time, to fully comply with the Truth in Lending Act. So claims that this bill is unbalanced for the creditor and against the debtor are wrong. There are enhanced consumer protection and information and education provisions to give the debtor more information--hopefully, to avoid bankruptcy in the first place. Our bill makes changes that will help particularly vulnerable segments of our society. We have heard people against this bill--and, again, I think just because they don't want any change in the bankruptcy laws whatsoever, and maybe some of them even think we ought to make it easier to go into bankruptcy--bring up this issue about child support. It is one of their great contributions to the evolution of this legislation, that child support now is the No. 1 priority. Again, as I said, in the case of these groups of people who are against the bill in the case of medical expenses, if 100-percent deductibility and consideration of 100 percent of the medical expenses isn't enough, should it be 101 percent or 102 percent? Again, if child support is the No. 1 priority, what more can I do for you? There isn't a number smaller than 1 for a priority when it comes to using the assets that are in bankruptcy to see that children are No. 1 in consideration. They ought to be No. 1 in consideration. So they have the highest priority. I wish to make clear that the bankruptcy bill makes a significant improvement for child support claimants as well. This bankruptcy bill does not hurt them, as opponents try to claim. In fact, the organizations that specialize in tracking down deadbeat dads all believe this bill will be a tremendous help in collecting child support. The people on the front lines say that the bankruptcy bill is good for collecting child support. For example, the bill provides that parents and State child support enforcement collection agencies are given notice when a debtor who owes child support for alimony files for bankruptcy in the first instance--I should say, not in the first instance of bankruptcy but when they file for bankruptcy, this information is going to be made known to them right away because bankruptcy trustees are required to notify child support creditors of their right to use child support enforcement agencies to collect outstanding amounts due. In addition, the bill requires creditors to provide the last known address of debtors owing support obligations upon the request of the custodial parent. Concerns being expressed by opponents to this bill then, in regard to this child support issue just do not hold water. The Bankruptcy Reform Act before us also makes great strides in cracking down on the very wealthy individuals who abuse the bankruptcy system. If you listen to our critics, you might get the impression that the homestead exemption is one giant loophole, that we don't deal with it in this bill at all, and that somehow we are protecting the rich. Here again, we had the nonpartisan General Accounting Office look at the question of how frequently the homestead exemption is abused by wealthy people in bankruptcy. The GAO found that less than 1 percent of the bankruptcy filings in the States where there are unlimited homestead exemptions involving homesteads of over $100,000--and the number of States that fall into that category can be counted on the one hand. But in those States 99 percent of the bankruptcy filings are not abusive, according to the General Accounting Office. So there is no big loophole there. In fact, the provision in the bill with respect to homestead is a significant improvement over current law because there is presently no Federal cap on homestead exemptions in the current law. Our bill changes that by requiring a person be a resident of a State for 2 years before claiming the homestead exemption. Furthermore, there is a 7-year look-back provision which will allow our bankruptcy judges to review the debtor's activities for the past 7 years to determine whether the debtor was trying to shield assets through this homestead exemption. This, quite frankly, is one of these very tough issues with which we have to deal. On this, I did not have to deal with Democratic Senators who think it ought to be tougher, but I had to deal with those within my own Republican caucus. There was a lot of work that had to be done on this. It is a delicate compromise between those who believe the homestead exemption should be capped through Federal law and others who are uncomfortable with the uniform Federal cap because 150 years ago, their State constitution writers wrote a different provision. I hope my colleagues will not believe it when others say the provisions of this bill that tighten up this exemption, regardless of the State constitutions, is a gaping loophole because it is not. The homestead provision in the bankruptcy bill substantially cuts down on abuses. I wish to talk about another thing this bankruptcy bill does that is so important in the rural areas of America, particularly as it deals with the family farmer. Some may not know that the farmers across the country currently have no protection at all against foreclosures and forced auctions, and that is because chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code, which I wrote about 15 years ago, sunsetted last June. We thought President Clinton signing this in December would take care of that problem. Chapter 12 has expired leaving farmers without this last-ditch safety net. The answer is that chapter 12 ceased to exist because opponents of bankruptcy reform stalled movement on this legislation last year so that it would be timely for President Clinton to pocket veto it after we adjourned in December instead of while we were still here, when we obviously had the votes to override it. Last year's bill would have permanently restored chapter 12 for family farmers, but President Clinton did not think that was an important enough matter. This matter is too important to family farmers for us to be fooling around and not making chapter 12 permanent. It is the only chapter of the bankruptcy code that is not permanent law, but our bankruptcy bill goes further than just making it permanent. The bill enhances these protections and makes more farmers eligible for chapter 12. The bill lets farmers in bankruptcy avoid capital gains taxes. This is important because it will free up resources to be invested in a farming operation that is trying to turn around rather than going down the big black hole of the Federal Treasury. Farmers need this chapter 12 safety net, and we in Congress should be standing up for our family farmers. We can do our duty and make sure the family farms are not gobbled up by giant corporate farms, which happens when bankruptcies occur. We can give farmers across America a fighting chance. I hope the Senate does not give in to people who are opposed to this bill and want to fight bankruptcy reform just because they do not want any bill whatsoever and let them hurt the family farmer by stalling this legislation. It is time we do this for the family farmer. In addition, patients in hospitals and nursing homes get protection under this bill. They deserve it and need it. In the last Congress, the Senate adopted these protections unanimously as an amendment I offered. Let me provide an example of what could happen--and it has happened. This came out in a hearing I held on nursing home bankruptcies. I learned of a situation in California a couple, 3 years ago where bankruptcy trustees just showed up at a nursing home on a Friday evening and evicted the residents. The bankruptcy trustees did not provide any notice whatsoever that this was going to happen. There was absolutely no chance for the nursing home residents to be relocated. The bankruptcy trustees literally put these elderly people out into the streets and changed the locks on the doors so they could not get back into the nursing home. This bankruptcy bill will prevent this from ever happening again. For the first time, we will be giving these deserving folks these protections. We set up an ombudsman to look out for their interests. Getting back to some basics, the truth is, bankruptcies hurt people. It is not fair to permit people who can repay to skip out on their debts. Yes, we do preserve and must preserve fair access to the bankruptcy courts for those who truly need a fresh start. The bankruptcy reform bill that we will pass does just that, but let those people who can over time pay their debts live up to their responsibilities. Let's restore a proper balance in the bankruptcy system. This bill does that. Enacting bankruptcy reform will help stimulate the economy by lessening pressure on prices because people who can pay their debts do not. Also, interest rates go up, as Secretary Summers has told us. Passing meaningful bankruptcy reform also can help our economy and simultaneously contribute to rebuilding our Nation's moral foundation by emphasizing, once again, personal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this bill which has a new number, S. 420, but not much changed from the bill that was at the desk, S. 220. This is a product of much negotiation and compromise. It is fair, it is balanced, and it is long overdue. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing, with nine of our colleagues, the Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. It is vital that we recognize the nearly three million students in the United States who are talented and gifted and provide them with a challenging education. Our nation depends on students who will become the next generation of leaders in business, economics, the sciences, medicine, and education. Our lives will be enriched by the next generation of performing and fine artists. However, many of our gifted and talented students are not being challenged to their fullest ability at school and, as a result, are not performing at world-class levels. Worse, many of our top students lose interest in school and abandon their education altogether. If these gifted students are not adequately challenged, they will direct their energy and gifts toward destructive and wasteful activities and become a burden to society, instead of the most productive contributors. The Gifted and Talented Students Education Act will help to ensure that gifted and talented students have the opportunity to achieve their highest potential by providing block grants, based on a state's student population, to state education agencies. These grants will be used to identify and provide educational services to gifted and talented students from all economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds, including students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities. The bill outlines four broad spending areas but leaves decisions on how best to serve these students to states and local school districts. The legislation ensures that the federal money benefits students by requiring the state education agency to distribute not less than 88 percent of the funds to schools and that the funds must supplement, not supplant, funds currently being spent. Additionally, rather than simply accepting federal funds for a new program, states must make their own commitment to these students by matching 20 percent of the federal funds. The matching requirements will help ensure that programs and services for gifted education develop a strong foothold in the state. Currently, the only support talented and gifted students receive from the federal government is through the successful research based Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program. One well-known effort is Project CUE, a collaborative effort that included the College of New Rochelle and School District 9 in the South Bronx, which serves approximately 32,000 mostly poor and minority students. The program was designed to institute high-level challenging content for elementary school students, and to identify and nurture those students whose interests and talents could be developed in mathematics and science. Evaluation of the project indicated a significant improvement in the overall academic achievement of those students identified as potentially gifted, as well as increases in school attendance rates. Furthermore, the project resulted in a twenty percent improvement school-wide in science and math achievement, as measured in both local and statewide standardized tests. Just imagine how ALL talented and gifted students could benefit from consistent funding and support to implement programs like the one in the South Bronx. Mr. President, our nation's gifted and talented students are among our great untapped resources. We must help states and local school districts provide a challenging education for these students so their particular gifts can flourish and be fully realized. It is my sincere hope that you and the rest of our colleagues will make this commitment to talented and gifted students this year.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing, with nine of our colleagues, the Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. It is vital that we recognize the nearly three million students in the United States who are talented and gifted and provide them with a challenging education. Our nation depends on students who will become the next generation of leaders in business, economics, the sciences, medicine, and education. Our lives will be enriched by the next generation of performing and fine artists. However, many of our gifted and talented students are not being challenged to their fullest ability at school and, as a result, are not performing at world-class levels. Worse, many of our top students lose interest in school and abandon their education altogether. If these gifted students are not adequately challenged, they will direct their energy and gifts toward destructive and wasteful activities and become a burden to society, instead of the most productive contributors. The Gifted and Talented Students Education Act will help to ensure that gifted and talented students have the opportunity to achieve their highest potential by providing block grants, based on a state's student population, to state education agencies. These grants will be used to identify and provide educational services to gifted and talented students from all economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds, including students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities. The bill outlines four broad spending areas but leaves decisions on how best to serve these students to states and local school districts. The legislation ensures that the federal money benefits students by requiring the state education agency to distribute not less than 88 percent of the funds to schools and that the funds must supplement, not supplant, funds currently being spent. Additionally, rather than simply accepting federal funds for a new program, states must make their own commitment to these students by matching 20 percent of the federal funds. The matching requirements will help ensure that programs and services for gifted education develop a strong foothold in the state. Currently, the only support talented and gifted students receive from the federal government is through the successful research based Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program. One well-known effort is Project CUE, a collaborative effort that included the College of New Rochelle and School District 9 in the South Bronx, which serves approximately 32,000 mostly poor and minority students. The program was designed to institute high-level challenging content for elementary school students, and to identify and nurture those students whose interests and talents could be developed in mathematics and science. Evaluation of the project indicated a significant improvement in the overall academic achievement of those students identified as potentially gifted, as well as increases in school attendance rates. Furthermore, the project resulted in a twenty percent improvement school-wide in science and math achievement, as measured in both local and statewide standardized tests. Just imagine how ALL talented and gifted students could benefit from consistent funding and support to implement programs like the one in the South Bronx. Mr. President, our nation's gifted and talented students are among our great untapped resources. We must help states and local school districts provide a challenging education for these students so their particular gifts can flourish and be fully realized. It is my sincere hope that you and the rest of our colleagues will make this commitment to talented and gifted students this year.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am sending to the desk a bill for myself and Mr. DeWine to reform the current certification requirement for international drug control. As many members know, I have been a strong supporter of the drug certification process. I remain one. Of late, however, we have seen a lot of criticism of the process. Some of this has been by foreign countries and some here at home. Rather than answer all of these criticisms, I want to take a few moments to address what I believe have been misconceptions about the process. The first point I want to make is to remind my colleagues why Congress required certification in the first place. It arose because we believed that doing something here and overseas about the drug problem was in the national interests. The public agreed. I might add the public has not changed its mind. I don't believe that we ought to do so either. Most of the drugs available in the United States today come from overseas. They are produced overseas and smuggled to this country. That production is illegal. It is illegal in international law. It is illegal in the domestic laws of all the countries where these drugs are produced. It is illegal to smuggle the drugs. Here and abroad. The consequences of that smuggling--illegal drugs on our streets--are felt in homes and neighborhoods and schools all across this country. I continue to believe that it is in our interest to stop that production and flow. I own that we have an obligation to expect countries to abide by international law, bilateral agreements, and their own legal codes on drug production and trafficking. I believe that it is not just a quirk of U.S. interest to expect that we and others commit ourselves to stopping this illegal production and trade. In fact, I believe that we have a moral obligation to stop these activities. In order to do that, we need a clear, knowable process that holds ourselves and other countries to account for what we do to help stop this production and trade. Drug dealers do more harm to this country every year than all the terrorists put together have done in the past 10 years. Let me ask my colleagues, would you seriously offer to ignore or suspend the requirements that we have put in place that hold others to an international standard of conduct on stopping terrorism? Human rights? I think not. But that is one of the things being proposed for how to deal with international drug certification. I do not propose that we be any less committed to stopping illegal drugs internationally than we are when other important concerns are involved, and I ask my colleagues to support this view. I also would point out that this is no time to carve out special exemptions for any one country or region. We remain collectively responsible to act responsibly on this issue. That means every one of us. My second point on why we have the certification process is to note congressional intent. We passed the law 15 years ago to make stopping illegal drug production and transit a national priority. I do not believe that most members of Congress nor the majority of the U.S. public believe that it is time to change that. Drug trafficking and threats from major criminal organizations have grown worse not better. Our third largest foreign assistance program is to help Colombia deal with problems arising from trafficking and the thugs that promote it. Is it really time to say we no longer regard international drug trafficking as a national priority? I happen to believe that it is not. I would also note that we have had repeated demonstrations in the past several years of the effectiveness of certification in securing improved international cooperation. Administration officials have testified repeatedly as to its effectiveness and utility. It has also given us needed leverage in specific cases to make important progress. I for one am unwilling to undo a process that has paid such dividends. On the other hand, I am aware that the certification process has raised a number of concerns here and abroad in the past few years. While I do not think that the solution in response to these concerns is to suspend the process, I do have a suggestion that I believe will help. Hence the bill Senator DeWine and I send to the desk. Briefly what this proposal does is to simplify the current methodology. At present, we have a three-step certification process: the President can certify a country as fully cooperating, decertify a country as failing to cooperate, or decertify with a national interest waiver. This aspect of the process has been the main source of contention. It has led some to believe that it forces the Administration to be less than candid about some countries that might be on the list. It has also complicated our relations with important allies. What this proposal does is to go to a decertification only standard. This is similar to what we do with terrorism and human rights. In other words, the default position is that all countries are doing the right thing on meeting international drug control standards. The only countries singled out for consideration are those whose actions are clearly outside a reasonable assessment of accountability as defined in current law. Our bill simplifies a complex process and focuses attention on the bad guys. It gives the President more flexibility. In doing so, we keep accountability. We keep a useful process in place. We avoid unnecessary complications with friends and allies doing the responsible thing. We maintain necessary reporting on international efforts. We keep our eye on a critical issue. The provision also sunsets in three years unless Congress acts to keep it. That means we have a chance to drive it around the block, kick the tires, and see if it's a lemon or not. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill and I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to draw my colleagues' attention to the critical role our National Guard plays in efforts to rid our country of illegal drugs--a role that I believe should be expanded. The Guard operates several regional support schools around the nation, that facilitate valuable training for state and local law enforcement agencies. These schools are dedicated to teaching counterdrug-related skills to State and local law enforcement agencies and community based organizations. These counterdrug schools provide training to thousands of people each year that would otherwise not be able to receive it for a lack of resources. Operating under the authority of Title 32, United States Code, Section 112, the National Guard actively supports local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies and community based antidrug coalitions. As a part of this effort, the National Guard currently operates four schools that provide unique and invaluable assistance to those individuals at the forefront of our country's drug interdiction and demand reduction effort. These schools, located in Pennsylvania, Florida, Mississippi, and California, have proved their effectiveness in developing training and educational opportunities for local law enforcement officials--opportunities that would not otherwise exist. I note, however, that the vagaries in funding and geographical distribution of the existing schools have limited the effectiveness of these training programs. Our national drug problem is not a coastal problem, but affects all communities throughout the United States. I believe we need a more centrally located school to provide more accessible training in the Midwest and Northwest United States. In addition to the need for a fifth school in the upper-Midwest, we should also consider the current budgeting process for these schools. I believe a critical element in achieving quality training for law enforcement and being cost-effective at the same time must include a unified National Guard Counterdrug schools budget which fully funds the schools. Rather than being pieced together from the National Guard State budgets, Defense Department support, and Congressional line items, there should be a discrete item for these National Guard schools so Congress can have a clearer idea of the mission, the funding, and the accomplishments of these schools. Today, joining with my colleagues Senator Harkin and Senator Cochran, I am introducing legislation that will accomplish these objectives. This legislation clarifies the authorities of the National Guard Bureau to operate the four existing counterdrug schools. In addition, it would establish one additional school in Iowa to serve law enforcement agencies in the Midwest and Northwest United States. It will establish a separate line of funding for these counterdrug schools with an authorized funding level of $25 million for FY 2002. I want to take a moment to say something additional about the fifth school (Midwest Counterdrug Training Center, MCTC, to be established at Camp Dodge, located in Johnston, Iowa. Designed to fulfill a need for training in the Midwest and Northwest United States, it would be primarily supported by the Iowa National Guard, and serve as a training center for State and local law enforcement agencies in the Midwest and Northwest United States. Camp Dodge has much of the physical infrastructure necessary for the school, including housing and being the hub for a state-wide fiber optic network that allows for live, two way video and audio communication between Camp Dodge and every National Guard Armory and school district in the State of Iowa. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, which I now send to the desk and ask that it be printed in the Record.