Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I had the privilege of hearing Gov. Tommy Thompson, the designee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, when he came before our committee which the distinguished Senator from Montana chaired last week. We had a very good hearing. I want to compliment Senator Baucus for putting together a good hearing and, more importantly, for his cooperation in helping President Bush move many of his nominees through the Senate as quickly as possible, and Senator Baucus was responsible for doing that in the case of Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill, and now Secretary of Health and Human Services Governor Thompson. Last week, we invited then-Governor Thompson to testify. I have to say it was a very refreshing hearing. It became so apparent that the qualities that have made Governor Thompson so successful in Wisconsin are what will also make him very successful as a Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. This is a very ideal choice that President Bush has made. First and foremost, Governor Thompson is a problem solver, focused on improving the lives of real people. As Senators of both parties noted during our hearing last week, Governor Thompson has made remarkable progress in addressing the health care needs of families in Wisconsin. Successful programs such as Badger Care and family care reflect his ability to reach consensus and implement concrete solutions. In addition, Governor Thompson is a true innovator. On issues such as Welfare reform he has shown that he is willing to cast away old, tired approaches. He reaches out for new ideas and develops creative solutions to tough problems. Governor Thompson has also been an effective administrator and manager of his State, expertise that will be critical as he oversees important programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the State children's health insurance program. Coming from being a Governor of a State, I think he has appreciation that one size doesn't fit all in our great country. A mold poured in Washington, DC, doesn't necessarily solve the problems of New York City or Madison, WI, with the same effectiveness as if we would give some leeway to the Governor of the State of New York and the Governor of the State of Wisconsin leeway in solving those problems that are unique to their respective States and, hence, deserve a unique solution. I can say from the standpoint of his work on welfare reform that he did not wait for the Federal Government to pass welfare reform before he started working within Federal law with what he could do to improve the system. When we were working on this in 1996, he was able to come to Washington and discuss the expenses and what needed to be done with Federal law to allow each State to have some leeway to help people move from welfare to work, to give people a chance, to move people from the fringe of our society to the mainstream of our society in order to be in that mainstream and to have the opportunities for advancement and progress as those in the mainstream. I think he is flexible. That flexibility that he has will serve well not only our Federal policies, but it will also help Governors and State and local administrators do a better job as they have some leeway. Also, as there are some changes in programs that will be suggested by President Bush we in the Congress will work on, as well. It gives citizens an opportunity to have right here in this town, full time, a person who has had the experience of being a Governor--where the rubber meets the road--on Federal programs to make sure that we are able to make the best policy to fit a country that is as geographically vast as ours, with heterogenous population. Lastly--and I hope this responds to some of the cynicism of people about Washington being too partisan sometimes I am pleased to report, as Governor Thompson has been successful in his State, he has done it because he has been able to reach across party lines because he himself has followed the same principle of bipartisanship to find successful solutions in his home State by reaching across party lines. That bipartisanship and how it has been successful is shown in the fact he was warmly introduced to our committee by Senator Dole, a Republican, Senator Kohl and Senator Feingold, who are Democrats, and by Secretary Shalala from the present administration, who worked closely with Governor Thompson when she was chancellor of the University of Wisconsin. This support from party leaders on both sides of the aisle speaks for itself. I hope we in Washington will apply the Governor's bipartisan approach in Congress. I think we will. As I noted at the hearing, we are in a unique situation in the Senate. Bipartisanship can no longer be a hobby for a few; instead, it needs to be a way of life for all. The American people demand it. We must respond. I think hopefully when we look back at this year and even more so after 2 years of this 107th Congress, we will be able to say that the fact that the Senate was split 50/50 was good because it brought people closer together. For my part, I respond to the initiatives and the ideas that Governor Thompson brings and to an evenly divided Finance Committee, hoping we will seize the opportunity to solve the real problems we face-- modernizing Medicare and improving access to prescription drugs for seniors, reducing the number of 43.5 million uninsured, improving health care in rural communities. That is something that Senator Baucus and I have worked closely on over a long period of time, improving long-term care. These are priorities for me, but I am sure they are not just my priorities. They are priorities for many in this Congress, and particularly those that serve on the Senate Finance Committee. I look forward to working closely on these priorities, not only with my colleagues, but with Governor Thompson in his new position as secretary HHS. Governor Thompson deserves not only our votes but our thanks for his willingness to serve our country even though it means leaving both a job and a State he loves. I am also grateful to President Bush for choosing such a qualified Senate. He sends a clear signal for his desire for problem solving, effective management, and bipartisanship. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to expand the tax deduction for student loan interest. I am proud to have as my original cosponsor Senator Max Baucus of Montana. Under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the tax deduction for student loan interest was eliminated. This action, done in the name of fiscal responsibility, disregarded the duty we have to the education of our nation's students. This struck me and many of my colleagues as wrong. Since 1987, I have spearheaded the bipartisan effort to reinstate the tax deduction for student loan interest. In 1992, we succeeded in passing the legislation only to have it vetoed as part of a larger bill with tax increases. Finally, after ten long years our determination and perseverance paid off. Under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 we reinstated the deduction. In our success, we sent a message to the students and their families of this nation that the Congress of the United States understands the financial hardships they face, and that we are willing to assist them in easing those hardships so they can continue to receive the education they need to become productive members of society and of their place of work. In 1997, our steps were in the right direction. We did what needed to be done. Regrettably, due to fiscal constraints, we were not able to go as far as we wanted. The nation was still struggling to eliminate the deficit. In order to control costs, we were forced to limit the deductibility of student loan interest to only sixty payments, which is five years' worth plus the time spent in forbearance or deferment. This restriction hurts some of the most needy borrowers. Many of these borrowers are students who, due to limited means, have borrowed most heavily. The restriction discriminates against those who have the highest debt loads and the lowest incomes. It makes the American dream of self-improvement harder to achieve for those struggling to pull themselves up--but who started with less. It is simply unjust. Today, our situation is vastly different. In these times of economic surplus, we have a responsibility to do what we were unable to do before. Student debt is rising to alarming levels and additional relief is needed. We must eliminate the sixty month restriction on the deductibility of student loan interest and adjust the income limits to show that the United States Congress stands behind our nation's students in their endeavors to better themselves. In addition, the removal of the sixty-month limit on deductibility of student loan interest will bring most needed relief to some of the most deserving borrowers. The restriction weighs most heavily on those who, despite lower pay have decided to dedicate themselves to public service. Thus this change will have the added benefit of rewarding civic virtue of these admirable citizens. Additionally, eliminating this restriction will remove difficult and costly reporting requirements that are currently required for both the borrower and lender. By supporting our nation's students, we will also be reducing costly and unnecessary regulatory requirements. Currently, to claim the deduction, the taxpayer must have an adjusted gross income of $40,000 or less or $60,000 for married couples. The amount of the deduction is gradually phased out for those with incomes between $40,000 and $55,000, or $60,000 and $75,000 for married couples. The deduction was phased in at $1,000 and will cap out at $2,500 in 2002. This bill will adjust those limits. Many students in our country are suffering from heavy education- related debt. More can and must be done to help them. In these times of relative budget surplus, it is our duty to invest in our students' education. Doing so is an investment in America's future. To maintain our competitive edge in the global marketplace, America must have a well-educated workforce. By making it easier for students to take out the loans they need to obtain the highest level of education they can, we recommit ourselves to education and maintaining our competitive advantage in technology and in world trade. I urge members to join me and Senator Baucus in our effort to relieve these excessive burdens on those trying to better themselves and their futures through education, by expanding the tax deduction for student loan interest payments. I now ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I address the Senate because of a very trusted and longtime staffer of mine, Kris Kolesnik, who is leaving my staff to work in the private sector and to continue some very good work. He served the taxpayers effectively for 18 years and has moved to the private sector, where I think he will not only do the work of the association with which he works, but he is also going to be working to save the taxpayers money, which is something he did very well for me during that 18-year period of time. Kris started in January of 1982. He began as a budget analyst working for me on the Budget Committee. That year, I proposed what would become the first of several yearly across-the-board budget freezes of the Federal budget. Kris worked on those proposals for me. Among my Republican colleagues, the freeze proved popular because it would make a big impact on slowing down the Federal deficits which, at that time, were about $100 billion as far as the eye could see. The only problem was, Republicans wanted to exempt defense spending from that freeze. All other programs were appropriate to freeze, they said, and at that time the defense budget under President Reagan was increasing by double digits even after inflation was calculated. My reaction was that even if one program--even the defense program--were exempt, that would defeat the purpose of an across-the-board freeze which had the purpose of fairness and shared sacrifice. Today, after 4 years of paying down the national debt, we might forget that maybe a freeze was not something that did much in particular. But if you looked at that particular time, we were in the middle of what was going to be 28 years of unbalanced Federal budgets before we finally got our house in order. An across-the-board freeze might not have seemed like much, but it was really revolutionary for that particular time. So that year I didn't receive much support among my Republican colleagues on this freeze. They all said the defense budget could not be frozen and that even one penny would cause our defense plan to fall apart. At the end of the year, I asked Kris Kolesnik to spend the winter determining whether a case could be made for freezing the defense budget while not harming national security. If it could not, then I needed to know because I would have to abandon my attempts to freeze across the board. When I returned to the Senate in January of 1983, I asked Kris what progress had been made during that 3-week interim. He said he had discussions with advocates on both sides of the issue and he determined that those in favor of a defense freeze were more persuasive. Those against a freeze seemed to rely on an argument of ``just trust us.'' As a first step in unraveling the truth of the defense budget, Kris suggested that I call up then-Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger and ask to speak to a relatively obscure Pentagon budget analyst by the name of Franklin Chuck Spinney. The rumor was that Chuck Spinney had an explosive new report that showed the defense budget was bloated with new programs which far exceeded the already huge projected costs. Fitting all those programs and their costs within even President Reagan's growing defense budget would eventually mean skyrocketing costs, plummeting defense capability, or perhaps both. Only a freeze in defense spending, coupled with management reforms, could save the defense plan from imploding. Kris predicted Pentagon officials would not let me talk to Chuck Spinney. So, I picked up the phone right away and called Cap Weinberger. It was a Thursday evening. He told me there was no problem, that I could have Spinney come over to my office the following Monday at 2 p.m. I left that night for Iowa, expecting a full briefing by Spinney in 4 days. Beginning Friday, however, Kris began to get phone calls from the Pentagon saying that Spinney would not be available to brief me, that they would send someone named Dr. Chu instead. It turned out that Dr. David Chu was Spinney's boss, and a political appointee. My reaction was, it's okay to send Dr. Chu, but I want Spinney there as well. It didn't happen. I had an inkling that I had to go see Chuck Spinney in his office if I wanted to talk to him. I told Kris to go warm up my orange Chevette, that we were going to the Pentagon to find out why Cap Weinberger had reneged on his promise to me. It's not every day that a United States Senator shows up at the Pentagon unannounced and in a disturbed mood. Cap Weinberger was at the White House, and Dr. Chu was called to persuade me that Spinney's briefing was just a bunch of chicken scratches on pieces of paper. My suspicions were really heightened. We left the Pentagon unsatisfied but resolved. My last words to Dr. Chu were, one way or another, I will get that briefing. When I got back to my office, I got a phone call from Cap Weinberger. It is hard to remember 18 years later just exactly what that conversation was, but it was something to the effect that if we Republicans could not trust the civil servants that we ought to listen to the political appointees of the Reagan administration; that it might be good in some instances--but it didn't satisfy me--that Chuck Spinney was a civil servant; that he was somebody to whom I should listen. Six weeks later, Mr. Spinney appeared before a joint hearing of the Senate Budget and Armed Services Committees in the ornate Russell Caucus Room, with a dozen TV cameras, a room full of reporters, and standing room only for the public. Instead of a briefing in the privacy of my office, Spinney briefed the entire country maybe for the good of the country. That was on a Friday afternoon. On Monday, he was on the cover of TIME magazine. Kris and his underground allies had orchestrated the whole thing. That episode marked the beginning of the end for the Reagan defense budget buildup. In just two short years, in large part due to Kris' leadership as a staffer, the defense budget was frozen, and remained so until 2 years ago--a span of 14 years. We had a vote. It was 50-49 on the floor of the Senate when we adopted that as part of the budget of 1985. During those 2 years, Kris helped uncover the infamous over-priced spare parts, such as a $500 hammer and a $7,600 coffee maker purchased by the military. He did so by working with whistleblowers throughout the defense community, such as Ernie Fitzgerald, Tom Amlie, Colin Parfitt, and many others. Their work exposed tens of billions of dollars of waste and mismanagement of the taxpayers' defense dollars. Through the inspector general community, Kris discovered that the Justice Department rarely prosecuted defense contractors. By 1986, eight out of the top ten defense contractors were under criminal indictment or criminal investigation for contract fraud. In that year, he was named in Esquire magazine as one of the top eight staffers in Washington to watch. In the late 1980's and early 1990's Kris investigated the POW/MIA issue. His work, which uncovered many unanswered questions about missing soldiers from the Vietnam War, went toward establishing a Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. I was a member of that Committee, and Kris staffed it for me. The Committee was able to find answers for many of the families who, up until then, had none. And millions of pages of POW/MIA records were declassified for the public to see. In 1995, after Republicans took control of the Congress, House and Senate Republican leaders asked Kris and a small group of staffers to share their oversight skills with the new majority staff. Having performed oversight over the Defense and Justice Departments for a dozen years, Kris with his colleagues, now began to apply their oversight experience to the rest of the federal government. The result has been increased and systematic oversight by Congress across the board. During that time, Kris focused on overseeing the FBI. Such systematic oversight of the FBI, on a committee that has always been reluctant to investigate the bureau, has not been successfully done in recent times in the Senate. Because of Kris' staff work, much has been done to help restore the public's confidence in federal law enforcement. Among the celebrated cases Kris investigated or helped investigate were: the FBI crime lab scandal; the FBI's poor investigation of the TWA Flight 800 crash; the incidents at Waco and Ruby Ridge; Chinese espionage cases, including the FBI's botched case against Wen Ho Lee; and the campaign finance scandals of the 1996 election. Kris's legacies will be the tens of billions of dollars he helped to save the taxpayers through his work, as well as his work on behalf of whistleblowers. After all, without the whistleblowers, there would be no savings. He depended on them, from the staff level, for information. And so he fiercely defended their right, through legislation he helped draft on my behalf, to share information with Congress. He assisted in the drafting and/or passing of major whistleblower statutes including: the False Claims Act Amendments of 1986; the Whistleblower Protection Act; and, the yearly-passed anti-gag appropriations rider for federal employees. Appropriately, Kris is leaving Capitol Hill to become the executive director of the National Whistleblower Center, an organization that supports and protects whistleblowers throughout government. There, he can continue his work on behalf of the taxpayers, and fighting for those who dare to speak the truth and risk their jobs. The taxpayers will indeed be missing a trusted ally with Kris's departure. But the impact of his accomplishments will be with us a long time. He'll still work to save the taxpayers money, but he won't be on the public payroll. That's the principled crusader he is! One additional thought that just came to my mind as I was going through what I prepared today about Kris: Going back to the budget freeze of 1980 and the fact that the spending on defense needed to be ramped up, it was ramped up to fast. There was a lot of money wasted. We are going to spend money on defense because we have to. But we ought to learn from the lessons of the 1980's, and hopefully our new President, President Bush, will move fairly slowly in that area so that the money will be invested wisely and spent wisely and so we don't have a situation such as we had in 1982 where one assistant Defense Department secretary said we put the money bags on the steps of the Pentagon and said come and get it. We want to keep our hands on those money bags that we set before the Pentagon as we spend money on defense. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the ``Drug- Free America Act of 2001.'' As many of my colleagues know, drug use by the children in our country continues to be a serious concern of mine. The ``Drug-Free America Act'' offers a series of initiatives that I believe will support efforts across the board to discourage drug use at all levels in America. Mr. President, I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Somewhere along the way, we lost the clear, consistent message that the only proper response to drugs is to say an emphatic ``no.'' We're supposed to be more sophisticated. More tolerant. More willing to listen to notions of making dangerous drugs more available. What all of this ``more'' has meant is that we have more young people using more drugs at younger ages. Today we are competing with a drug culture that tells our children ``drugs are cool,'' that ``drug are safe.'' Drugs are being more aggressively marketed, and are presented as being ``user friendly''. We cannot remain silent. I look forward with working with President Bush in providing the resources and message necessary to let everyone know that drugs are bad, that drugs will damage your brain and your body, and that drug use will hurt you, your friends, your family, your community, and your future. The drug problem confronting our country is not static. Methamphetamine, Ecstasy, and other new drugs pose different challenges and require different solutions than the heroin and cocaine epidemics. Treatment, education, prevention, and law enforcement efforts must all be strengthened and updated. The National Institutes of Health have some exciting research efforts underway that could really make a difference as we try to reclaim the lives of our fellow citizens who have been seduced by the false pleasures of drug use. There are several education and prevention initiatives that we can strengthen to support the educators, counselors, community activists, and parents who work hard every day to keep our children and our communities drug free. We should support ongoing efforts by the National Guard Counterdrug Directorate, and re-authorize the U.S. Customs Service, our Nation's oldest law enforcement agency. We need to believe in our future. I believe that by working together, we can, we will make a difference. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to address this important problem before it becomes any worse. Left unanswered, we will see another generation of young lives blighted. We will see families torn up by a widening circle of hurt from drug use. We saw what a similar wave of drug use did to us and to a generation of young people in the 1960s and 1970s. We are smarter now, we have better tools and better knowledge. We cannot afford to go through this again. I hope we can begin today to renew our commitment to a drug free future for our young people. I have said this in numerous town meetings, and I now say it here, ``working together, we can make a difference.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Drug-Free America Act, and look forward to working with my colleagues on these important initiatives. Mr. President, I send this bill to the desk, and request that it be printed in the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet on Monday, January 22, 2001, to conduct a mark-up on the nomination of the Honorable Mel Martinez, of Florida, to serve as Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the Senate's procedure for consideration of the nomination of Paul O'Neill for Secretary of the Treasury. Under regular order, the nomination for Secretary of the Treasury, which is under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee would be considered by the committee after referral to the committee. The process usually involves a hearing and a vote on the nomination. In this case, a hearing in anticipation of the nomination was held. The nomination, however, was not fully considered by the committee. The committee agreed to be discharged only because of highly unusual circumstance. The circumstances arise from the fact that all Senate committees, including the Finance Committee, are not yet composed and organized. Moreover, the Secretary of the Treasury is a critical Cabinet position and expeditious consideration of the nomination is in the best interests of the Nation. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that the Finance Committee will insist on its jurisdictional prerogatives. This nomination presents a highly unusual and compelling procedural exception.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I sure will, only for the purpose of a question.

Mr. GRASSLEY. No, I do not want to wrap up. I would like to have permission to interrupt the Senator, and for him not to lose the right to the floor. I would like to say something for 30 seconds on the bill, if I could. There has been a report since early today about the White House, or personnel at the White House, calling Democrats who have always supported this bill to vote against it. I am not sure I know exactly why the White House is calling and saying that, but I presume it is because they would like to have fewer folks than the two-thirds we had on the cloture to override a veto, if the President would veto this bill. I don't know that the President would veto it. I know there are a lot of people at the White House who would like to have him veto it. I say to those Democrats who have voted and supported this legislation so much over the last 3 years, particularly on that 83-14 vote by which it passed, I hope they will not respond to that kind of pressure from the White House. I hope they know Chuck Grassley well enough to know that if I had voted for a bill in the Reagan administration or the Bush administration, three or four times, and a President Reagan or his staff, or a President Bush or his staff, called me up and asked me to change my mind just to protect the President, if I would do it--I would not do it. I hope they would not do it. I return the floor to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Certainly. The following is what H.R. 2415 does:

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am glad the Senator from Vermont pointed out the many compromises that were made to accommodate the President and to accommodate Democrats in the Senate. He did not say this, but there were also a lot of changes made to accommodate Republicans. But he pointed out that we have two issues on which we disagree. That is what the Senator from Vermont said. I do not think that Senators should vote against this bill over two issues which are not central to the concept of bankruptcy reform. I was disappointed, however, in his comments on the process. He referred to a very unusual process. I confess that it was a very unusual process by which this bill was conferenced and got to the Senate floor. But I think I heard him say something about Democrats not being consulted. There was a 3-3 ratio on this conference. Normally there would not be a 3-3 ratio; there would probably be one more Republican than Democrat. But because of Senator Coverdell's death, it ended up on this conference there were three Republicans and three Democrats. So the point is, we would not be here today if it were not for help from Democrats, even in conference. I only say that because the Senator from Vermont is a friend of mine. He is very strongly opposed to this legislation. But I thought I ought to point out the fact that there are those small, insignificant modifications of his comments that I thought I ought to make. Whether he would consider those clarifications or not, that is his judgment. But I want them on the record for my point of view. I also address an issue raised by Senator Leahy. Some have stated that the bankruptcy conference report should be opposed on the grounds that it does not contain a provision that would prevent abortion protesters from using bankruptcy as a way to get out of paying debt arising as a result of violence or intimidation at abortion clinics. On this issue, I draw my Senator's attention--in other words, the attention of the Senator from Vermont--to a memo prepared by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. This memo--which I will provide to any Senator who wants to see it, and I will include it in the Record--concludes that not one single abortion protester has ever used bankruptcy in this way. I repeat, according to the Congressional Research Service, a truly nonpartisan resource, no one has ever used bankruptcy to skip out on debts arising from violence or intimidation at an abortion clinic. This issue, of course, is a red herring. It has been put forth by people who flat out oppose needed bankruptcy reform as a way of defeating this legislation. There is absolutely no merit to their argument. I hope people will see it for what it is--an empty political ploy. I hope Senators will see through this political ploy and support the bankruptcy conference report. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the memo from the Congressional Research Office.

Mr. GRASSLEY. We are waiting for the Senator from Alabama to come and speak. Before he gets here, I will take a moment, so I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, second, the interest in this legislation and the reason this is such an important piece of legislation is that there is a lot of understanding at the grassroots of America that it is immoral and unethical for people with the ability and the means to repay some of their debt to go into bankruptcy court and be discharged of that debt. It is particularly wrong when it hurts the very same low-income and middle-income people about whom the Senator from Minnesota talks. They have to pay $400 more per family per year for goods and services. They pay a higher fee or price because somebody else isn't paying their bills. That is not going to be absorbed by the business in most cases; it is going to be passed on to the consumer. On the basis of ability to pay, particularly for the necessities of life of food and clothing and things of that nature, it is going to hurt the low-income people and middle-income people of America disproportionately because somebody else isn't paying their bills. There is an understanding at the grassroots of America that this just isn't right. That is why this legislation has such overwhelming support. I refer to this chart because it has letters from my constituents. I bet the Senators from Minnesota and other States are getting letters from their constituents saying the same thing. We have a letter from a constituent of mine in Des Moines who says: It is insane that such practice has been allowed to continue causing higher prices to consumers. Debtors should be required to pay their debts. A constituent from Keokuk, IA: Bankruptcies are out of hand. It is time to make people responsible for their actions. Do we need to say this? In other words, it is unconscionable to that constituent that we would have a situation with 1.4 million bankruptcies in America, with the number doubling in 5 or 6 years, at a time when we have the best economic growth in our Nation. Another constituent: We need to make more people responsible for their savings while at the same time protecting those who fall on hard times. I realize this is a delicate balance. But the way it is now, there is very little change going this route. This bill is a very delicate balance. That is why it passed with 83 votes. It also preserves what this constituent said in the letter. She understands that there are some people who go into debt through no fault of their own. And for the 100-year history of the bankruptcy code of the United States, we have recognized that certain people may be in hard times through no fault of their own and they are entitled to a fresh start. This allows that fresh start. But, at the same time for those who have the ability to repay, it sends a clear signal to not go into bankruptcy court because you are not going to get off scot-free anymore. Another constituent from Fontanelle, IA, says: People need to be more responsible for their debts. As a small business owner, I have had to withstand several large bills people have left with me due to their poor management and bankruptcy. That may be a small business person who, unlike a lot of corporations, cannot pass on this $400 per family in additional costs for goods and services because somebody else isn't paying their bills. This person may be so small that they have to absorb those costs unfairly and may be putting their own business in jeopardy. Another constituent from Cedar Rapids: Bankruptcy reform will force the American people to become more responsible for their actions. Bankruptcy does not seem to carry any degree of shame. It is almost regarded as a right or entitlement. If it has become a right or entitlement, the statistics of the last 6 or 7 years show an increase of about 700,000 to 1.4 million. It is an example maybe of some additional people in America seeing it as a way to manage their finances. It becomes a financial management tool for some. Another constituent from Waverly, IA: Many don't think the business is who loses. We make it too easy now. A constituent from Washington, IA: The present bankruptcy laws are a joke. One local man has declared bankruptcy at least four times at the expense of suppliers to him. He just laughs at it. There is a person who quite obviously figured out the ease of using bankruptcy as a financial planning tool. A Cedar Falls constituent: It is way too easy to avoid responsibility. From Indiana, IA: If one assumes debt, they need to pay it off. We have got to take responsibility for our purchases. That reminds me of the President in his speeches during his second term, and maybe even at the ending of his first term. He always talked about the importance of individual responsibility and individuals have to be responsible. As we hopefully present this bill to the President of the United States today, I want to remind President Clinton of how often he talked about the necessity of individual responsibility. If he believes that-- and I believe he does believe it--then signing this bill is very important to fulfill his own statement that government ought to promote individual responsibility. A constituent from Harlan, IA: Too many people use bankruptcy as a way out. We need to make sure people are held accountable for all of their debts. From Fort Madison: Personal responsibility is a must in our country. Sickness or loss of a job is one thing, but the majority of people just do not pay and spend their money elsewhere knowing they can unload the debt with the help of the courts. That is a person who understands the basic principles of bankruptcy: No. 1, sickness, loss of a job, something beyond the control of an individual, there ought to be, and there has been for 100 years under a bankruptcy code, the right for a fresh start. The other side of that is whether there is an ability to repay. People should pay what they can according to the ability to pay the debt. It also recognizes there are some people, again, who use this as a financial planning tool. One of my constituents I quote is from Cedar Rapids: I think people taking bankruptcy should have to pay the money back. . . . They should have learned to work for and pay for what they get. Maybe that statement is not quite as sympathetic to those people who are in bankruptcy through no fault of their own. I don't know for sure. But I am happy to tell that constituent the principle behind this bill, the principle behind the bankruptcy code of the last 100 years, that there is a social policy in this country that some people are in debt through no fault of their own and they are entitled to a fresh start. She thought there should never be a bankruptcy or nobody should be able to go to bankruptcy court. That is the balance of this legislation. This is a balance that has been recognized by the vast majority of this body with those 83 votes we had for original passage. There are things about this legislation I don't like. There are some things that even the Senator from Minnesota said should be tightened up. I won't go into what those are, but I agree with him. In legislation, particularly as this legislation is, with varying interests--some not wanting any and some wanting a lot more--compromise is the name of the game. There hasn't been a compromise of basic principle here. There may be a compromise of degree, and I am not going to give up just because this bill passes and it is not as much in the direction he wants or I happen to agree with him on a couple of points and perhaps I might move in that direction in the future. But we have had 20 years without bankruptcy reform. We have gone from 300,000 bankruptcies filed per year in the early 1980s to 1.4 per million now, and we have had studies showing it will go up another 15 percent. These are in good times. What about bad times, if we have a recession in the future? There are indications of a Clinton recession coming on now with the indices turning down and confidence in the economy turning down and the manufacturing sector being in recession. Maybe we are starting in this administration with a recession. Then if we are at 1.4 million when times are good, how many hundred thousands more are we going to have when we do have bad times? When we have bad economic times, high interest rates are not good for the economy. We had testimony from Secretary Summers that bankruptcies will drive up interest rates. I appreciate very much my friend from Minnesota and his strong position against this bill, even though I disagree with it. Hopefully, in the very next couple of hours he will not be successful in what he has been so successful doing for the last year and a half, not wanting this bill to pass. He has been a tough competitor and one I enjoy competing against. But I think he is very much wrong as he approaches this bill. The evidence is the wide bipartisan support it has had not only in this body, but it passed originally by a veto-proof margin in the House of Representatives. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator is correct, but his reference was in regard to the credit card industry--not the Schumer amendment and not the provision on homestead.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume. First of all, in response to the Senator from Minnesota, I was a little bit amused at the use of the words ``blatant hypocrisy.'' I don't question his use of those words at all. But the fact is that this bill passed with 83 Senators voting for it. It passed the Senate and went to conference. Three-fourths of the members of his caucus voted for this legislation. If there is blatant hypocrisy, it is very bipartisan hypocrisy.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have been asked to propound this unanimous consent request which, I have been told, has been approved on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote on the passage of the bankruptcy legislation, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 127, the continuing resolution. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be read a third time and that the Senate then proceed to a vote on passage of the resolution, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to thank all of the people who helped get this bill passed. Senator Hatch, Senator Sessions, Senator Torricelli, and Senator Biden have all been very helpful. I thank them publicly for their hard work. I even want to thank Senator Leahy. I also want to thank the staff who have been helpful: Makan Delrahim and Renee Augustine of Senator Hatch's staff; Ed Haden and Brad Harris of Senator Session's staff; Jennifer Leach of Senator torricelli's staff; Jim Greene of Senator Biden's staff; Kolan Davis and John McMickle of my staff. I also want to thank Ed Pagan and Bruce Cohen of Senator Leahy's staff. I want to emphasize the great amount of work and expertise toward this successful effort of my Counsel, John McMickle. Without his hard work the bill would not have been the good product and compromise it is.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5630, which is at the desk.