Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3514 which is at the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak yet again on the topic of bankruptcy reform. Yesterday, we invoked cloture on the Bankruptcy Reform Conference Report with 67 votes. That's a solid bipartisan level of support. We have a conference report where both the majority leader and the minority leader voted to cut off debate. At long last, Congress is on the verge of enacting fundamental bankruptcy reform. Earlier this year, the Senate passed bankruptcy reform by an overwhelming vote of 83-14. Almost all Republicans voted for the bill and about one-half of the Democrats voted for it as well. Despite this, a tiny minority of Senators used unfair tactics to prevent us from going to conference with the House of Representatives in the usual way. So, we put the bankruptcy bill into another conference report. The important thing about this conference committee--which I have said before but want to reiterate now--is that the committee was evenly divided between three Democrats and three Republicans. There was no Republican majority on the conference committee. We would not be here if not for support from Democrats on the conference committee. So all of these objections to the effect that Republicans used some procedural trick to avoid dealing with the minority is simply and flat out false. As I am speaking, the House passed the bankruptcy conference report by a voice vote. We are almost there. And with the level of bipartisan support demonstrated in yesterday's vote, I am confident we'll send the best bill we can to the President. As I have stated before on the Senate floor on numerous occasions, every bankruptcy filed in America creates upward pressure on interest rates and prices for goods and services. The more bankruptcies filed, the greater the upward pressure. I know that some of our more liberal colleagues are trying to stir up opposition to bankruptcy reform by denying this point and saying that tightening bankruptcy laws only helps lenders be more profitable. This just is not true. Even the liberal Clinton administration's own Treasury Secretary Larry Summers indicated that bankruptcies tend to drive up interest rates, Mr. President, if you believe Secretary Summers, bankruptcies are everyone's problem. Regular hardworking Americans have to pay higher prices for goods and services as a result of bankruptcies. That's a compelling reason for us to enact bankruptcy reform during this Congress. Of course, any bankruptcy reform bill must preserve a fresh start for people who have been overwhelmed by medical debts or sudden, unforeseen emergencies. That is why this conference agreement allows for the full, 100 percent deductibility of medical expenses. This is according to the nonpartisan, unbiased General Accounting Office. Bankruptcy reform must be fair, and the bicameral agreements on bankruptcy preserves fair access to bankruptcy for people truly in need. These have been good times in our Nation. Thanks to the fiscal discipline initiated by Congress, and the hard work of the American people, we have a balanced budget and budget surplus. Unemployment is low and so is inflation. But in the midst of this incredible prosperity, about 1\1/2\ million Americans declared bankruptcy in 1998 alone. And in 1999, there were just under 1.4 million bankruptcy filings. To put this in some historical context, since 1990, the rate of personal bankruptcy filings has increased almost 100 percent. Now we see signs of slowing in the economy. We see consumer confidence declining. We see the stock market losing value. We need to fix our bankruptcy system before a recession comes and we're overwhelmed with huge numbers of bankruptcies. According to a recent article in the New York Post, we as a nation are looking down the barrel of a new and larger epidemic of bankruptcies. This article quoted a recent study from a New Jersey research firm that predicts a 10-20 percent increase in bankruptcies next year. Another expert quoted in the article indicates that the increases may be much greater. We need to act now. As I indicated earlier, we have been doing pretty well lately as a country. With large numbers of bankruptcies occurring at a time when Americans are earning more than ever, the only logical conclusion is that some people are using bankruptcy as an easy out. The basic policy question we have to answer is this: Should people with means who declare bankruptcy be required to pay at least some of their debts or not? Right now, the current bankruptcy system is oblivious to the financial condition of someone asking to be excused from paying his debts. The richest captain of industry could walk into a bankruptcy court tomorrow and walk out with his debts erased. And, as I described earlier, the rest of America will pay higher prices for goods and services as a result. I ask my liberal friends to think about that for a second. If we had no bankruptcy system at all, and we were starting from scratch, would we design a system that lets the rich walk away from their debts and shift the costs to society at large, including the poor and the middle class? That would not be fair, but that is exactly the system we have now. Fundamental bankruptcy reform is clearly in order. I want my colleagues to know that the conference agreement preserves the Torricelli-Grassley amendment to require credit card companies to give consumers meaningful information about minimum payments on credit cards. Consumers will be warned against making only minimum payments, and there will be an example to drive this point home. As with the Senate-passed bill, the bicameral agreement will give consumers a toll- free phone number to call 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. This new information will truly educate consumers and improve the financial literacy of millions of American consumers. Yesterday's vote shows that the mainstream of opinion in the Senate supports bankruptcy reform. But that has not stopped the tiny handful of liberals who oppose bankruptcy reform have waged a campaign to spread disinformation about the bankruptcy bill. The article in Time magazine that Senator Wellstone constantly refers to is a case in point. This article purports to prove that bankruptcy reform will harm low-income people or people with huge medical bills. This article is simply false. I spoke about this on the floor last summer but a little reminder might be helpful for some of my colleagues who don't follow this bill as closely as I do. What is most interesting about this Time article is what it fails to report. Time, for instance, fails to mention that the means test, which sorts people who can repay into repayment plans, doesn't apply to families below the median income for the State in which they live. The Time article then proceeds to give several examples of families who would allegedly be denied the right to liquidate if bankruptcy reform were to pass. Each of these families, however, would not even be subjected to the means test since they earn less than the median income. While this sounds technical, it's important--not even one of the examples in the Time article would be affected by the means test. The Time article fails to mention the massive new consumer protections in our bankruptcy reform bill. The Time article fails to mention the new disclosure requirements on credit cards regarding interest rates and minimum payments. In short, the Time article fails to tell the whole truth. I think that the American peopled deserve the whole truth. The truth is that these bankruptcies represent a clear and present danger to America's small businesses. Growth among small businesses is one of the primary engines of our economic success. With the predictions of a new tidal wave of bankruptcies next year, we have to be concerned about a domino effect. As more and more consumers use bankruptcy to escape paying their debts, more and more small businesses will face unsustainable losses. And if we don't act to protect small businesses, then one of the main sources or our prosperity will be in serious jeopardy. As responsible legislators, we cannot let that happen. The truth is that bankruptcies hurt real people. Sometimes that is inevitable, but it is not fair to permit people who can repay to skip out on their debts. I think most people, including most of us in Congress, have a basic sense of fairness that tells us bankruptcy reform is needed to restore balance. I will share with you what some of my constituents are telling me about bankruptcy reform. I will not go through all of these quotes. But a constituent from Des Moines, IA, said: It is insane that such a practice has been allowed to continue, only causing higher prices to consumers. . . . Debtors should be required to pay their debt. A lady from Keokuk, IA: Bankruptcies are out of hand. It's time to make people responsible for their actions--do we need to say this? I could go on and on. But I have given you two examples of many I have gotten from my State. Considering the fact that there were 83 people who voted for this bill when it passed the Senate the first time, this message must be getting through loud and clear in almost all of the 50 States in America or we would not have had that overwhelming vote. We are merely saying, if you have the ability to repay your debt and you go into bankruptcy court, you are not going to get off scot-free. The time has come to get this bill on the President's desk. That is what I hope we do tomorrow afternoon at 3:45. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous debate time with respect to the bankruptcy bill begin at 1:45 p.m. on Thursday, with a vote then to occur on passage at 3:45 p.m.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4827 which is at the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, pursuant to S. Res. 354, on behalf of the leader, I submit the following two Republican Senators to be members of standing committees of the Senate. The appointments that will be made are Senator Nickles to be a member of the Banking Committee and Senator Voinovich to be a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Hatch has a substitute amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4493 which is at the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. tomorrow. By previous consent, at 2 p.m. the Senate will have up to 2 hours remaining for debate on the bankruptcy conference report. A vote is scheduled to occur at 4 p.m. on the conference report. Senators should be aware that a vote on a continuing resolution is expected during tomorrow's session. Therefore, a vote could occur on that measure.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4640, which is at the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Allard has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for our majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 10 a.m. on Thursday, December 7. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 2 p.m. with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Murray, 10 to 11 a.m.; Senator Thomas or his designee, 11 to 12 noon; Senator Graham of Florida, from 12 to 12:30, and the remaining time be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House to accompany H.R. 3048, to amend section 879 of title 18, United States Code, to provide clearer coverage over threats against former Presidents and members of their families, and for other purposes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4281, which is at the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Kennedy, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Grassley.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak on the pending business, which is the bankruptcy bill. I had an opportunity to hear about one-fourth of the presentation of my good friend, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli. I heard him compliment my efforts as author of this legislation. In fact, this bill has been so successful in the Senate only because Senator Torricelli, as ranking Democrat on the Courts Subcommittee, has been so cooperative, recognizing there is a problem that should be addressed and working in a bipartisan way to make sure such a bill was put together and introduced by me and him, and then working through a long hearing process in the subcommittee and the full committee to develop a bill that would be reported out of the Judiciary Committee, a committee that tends to be very evenly divided on a lot of issues, by a very wide margin. Our bill came out with a fair sized majority. Then it passed overwhelmingly in the Senate with only 14 dissenting votes. We had a very difficult time conferencing this bill, but there was finally an effort to go to conference. Senator Torricelli was very helpful in working out the details of the conference. This afternoon, I saw, and the people of this country saw, through his remarks that continued cooperation, and that continued cooperation evidently goes way beyond what is going on in this Chamber on bankruptcy reform. It continues, through his own admission, through his recommendation to the President, when the President gets this bill, that the President should sign this bill. There will be people from the other side requesting the President not sign this bill. I hope the President knows this bill has broad bipartisan support. We not only saw it in that vote of only 14 dissenting votes when it passed the Senate several months ago, but we also saw it yesterday in the vote on cloture where there were 67 Senators, 7 more than needed, to stop debate on this bill. That brings me to the issue of how this bill has finally been conferenced and brought to the floor and has passed through the House of Representatives already, to be presented to the President hopefully after a successful vote tomorrow afternoon at 4 o'clock under the unanimous consent agreement. We had an opportunity yesterday and today to hear the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, and we also heard others complain about the parliamentary process of getting this bankruptcy bill to the floor. It is an unbelievable thing for him and other Senators to condemn the way this bill finally got to conference. The Senate passed the bankruptcy bill after weeks of debate and after disposing of hundreds of amendments. On the issue of disposing of hundreds of amendments, I compliment Senator Harry Reid for his work in helping us work through those amendments. The Senator from Minnesota still continues to object to the way in which this conference was handled saying it was not handled in the regular order of doing business in the Senate. The fact is, not only Senator Torricelli and the Senator from Iowa worked to get this bill to conference, but we also had many meetings between Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, and Senator Lott, the Republican leader, on how to get the bill before the Senate. In every respect, on the motions it would take to accomplish that under the regular order, the Senator from Minnesota was in a position to object saying he was going to object and, consequently, then conferees could never be appointed in the way they are for most bills. So it is misleading, it seems to me, for the Senator from Minnesota to pretend that he is not the reason this bill has not moved in the conventional way that bills ought to move, and then to blame others for finding a way of bringing a conference report. It seems to me that if we did not find another way, it would be irresponsible on our part not doing our duty to the 83 Senators who voted for this bill the first time it passed the Senate. So we found a way to conference this bill with an unrelated piece of legislation. By the way, very rarely are conference committees three Republicans and three Democrats, but this committee was made up that way. So for this bill to move to the floor of the Senate, there had to be members of Senator Wellstone's political party, the Democrat Party, who agreed that this is such an important piece of legislation, with 83 or 84 Senators voting for it in the first place, that it had to happen and it had to come to the floor. So we got this bill out of conference with the help of Senators on the other side of the aisle. I thank them for their cooperation. Also earlier in this debate, Senator Wellstone referred to the fact that there seems to be no evidence at all that you can decrease the number of bankruptcies filed by the usual stigma against bankrupts that has been traditional throughout American society. I have to admit in recent years that has not been true. That is one of the very basic reasons we have had a dramatic increase in the number of bankruptcies since the last bankruptcy reform legislation that was passed in the late 1970s. In the early 1980s, we had about 300,000 bankruptcies filed. It did not go up very dramatically until about the early 1990s, when it shot up very dramatically from maybe reaching 700,000 to almost doubling that amount, and continuing to rise until it got to a high of 1.4 million bankruptcies. There is some evidence that it has come down just a little bit, but I am also going to be speaking shortly about evidence showing that the number of bankruptcies is going to shoot up again this year by 15 percent. But I think there is not the stigma in our society against people going into bankruptcy that there used to be. And that is one reason. But Senator Wellstone has spoken to the point that there is no evidence at all that the decrease in stigma associated with bankruptcy is related to this increase in bankruptcy filings. This is simply not true. I have before me a study from 1998, from the University of Michigan, entitled ``The Bankruptcy Decision: Does Stigma Matter?'' by Scott Fay, Erik Hurst, and Michelle J. White, economists at the University of Michigan. They concluded--and I will read just one sentence from the abstract-- We show that the probability of debtors filing for bankruptcy rises when the level of bankruptcy stigma falls. I am not going to spend the taxpayers' money to put this entire document in the Record, but the address is the Department of Economics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, if people want to refer to this and read from it. I advise them to do it because they will see, in a very statistical way, in a very in-depth way, that when there is stigma associated with bankruptcy--the societal disapproval of people filing for bankruptcy--we do not have as high a number of bankruptcy filings as we do now. Mr. President, with that somewhat pointed reaction to some of the statements the Senator from Minnesota legitimately brought to the floor--but I think he is wrong in his approach in what he is saying--I hopefully have put another side of the coin out there for people to consider. That is a strong basis for why this legislation should be before us, why it is before us, and why it needed to come here in a fairly unconventional way. I am glad we are having a chance to debate the merits of the bankruptcy reform conference report today, and for a short time tomorrow, before we vote tomorrow on sending it to the President. When the Senate last considered this bill, we heard a lot about the declining number of bankruptcies. Our opponents pointed to a temporary downward spike in the number of bankruptcies to say that this bill is not needed. They have said the economics have taken care of the situation. Not so. Even with a slight downturn, having 1.3 million bankruptcies, when we are in our 9th or 10th year of recovery, is an unconscionable index for bankruptcies. That is why the very liberal bankruptcy legislation that was passed in 1978 has to be changed somewhat, so that the legislation does not encourage bankruptcies, so that, in fact, it encourages those who have the ability to repay to know that they are never going to again get off scot-free. I said just a few minutes ago that I was going to point to a study that would take away any weight to the arguments that we do not need this bill because there has been a downturn in the number of bankruptcies in the last year. This new study predicts that bankruptcies will rise by 15 percent next year. This was reported in the December 1st Wall Street Journal. The research was done by SMR Research Corporation, a consumer-debt research firm in Hackettstown, NJ. The SMR Research president, Stuart Feldstein, said this as a result of their study: But now that we've caught our breath, they're [meaning bankruptcies] about to go way up again. We're on the verge of another flood. The suggestion is that they will increase by 15 percent. That is what we are facing: Another flood of bankruptcies. We have our critics, with their heads in the sand, acting as if there is nothing for us to worry about. The fact that we have a bankruptcy crisis on our hands--and have had for several years--and it looks as if things are going to get even worse, is an unconscionable situation when we can do something about it. That is why we need to pass this bill, and we need to pass it right now. The bankruptcy reform bill will do a lot of good for the American people. More importantly, it is going to do a lot of good for our economy. This bill will avert a disaster for our economy. There are signs that the economy is slowing down. There are signs that we are in the middle or at the beginning of a Clinton era recession. Remember, President Clinton is President of the United States. The manufacturing sector is already in a recession. Several other indices in the last couple months have shown downward trends. If they continue, obviously, we will be in a recession. That recession is probably apt to happen when we have a President Bush. I want to make it clear right now: We are not going to let that be a Bush recession, if the downturn started in a Clinton administration. We are not going to let the Democrats get away with taking credit for a recovery in 1993 that started 8 months before the election of President Clinton in 1992. That is when the recession of 1990-1991 turned around. It was 1992. Yet from February through the middle of November 1992, somehow we were still in a Bush recession, not in a recovery that happened in February 1992. But just as soon as Clinton was elected, it was all over. The media weren't doing their job or it would never have been reported that way or the hysteria Clinton provided the country in 1992 would have never taken root. But we are in a situation now where there will be some people, if there is a downturn next year, who are going to want to blame the new President for that. They won't be able to, if it started now. I hope these indices will turn around. I think we have an opportunity, under a new President with the proper economic policies in place and fair tax cuts that the working men and women of America are entitled to, to do some things to make sure that such a situation doesn't happen. But right now, we have had 9 years of growth, starting at the tail end of the last Bush administration. Yet we have the highest number of bankruptcies over a long period of time, and it is presumably going to get worse. If we have a recession, they are going to get a lot worse. That is why we need this legislation. We have also seen quite a fall in the stock market recently, and we know that Americans are anxious about their economic future. If we hit a recession without fixing the bankruptcy system, we could face a situation of bankruptcies spiraling out of control. The time to act is now before any recession is in full swing. As I did earlier this year, when we voted on cloture on this bill, I will summarize a few of the things that are in the bill that my colleagues may not know are there as a result of the disinformation campaign waged by our liberal opponents. Right now, farmers in my State and in Minnesota--maybe in every State but particularly in the upper Midwest where it is a grain growing region and we have a 25-year low in grain prices--have no chapter of the bankruptcy code that fits them and their own special needs. They did from 1933 to 1949. Then they didn't have it. They have had it as a result of my getting it passed in 1986, a chapter 12 for farmers. But it has lapsed now because the people on the other side of the aisle, who every day talk about helping the American farmer, are voting against this bill or stalling it. And chapter 12 has lapsed, so there is no chapter 12 to help farmers. Yet we have farmers facing foreclosure and forced auctions just because chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code, which gives essential protections for the family farmers, expired in June of this year. It expired for the reasons I gave. Shame on those who are blocking us from doing the right thing by reinstituting chapter 12 and going beyond how we have normally done it, just do it for a few years at a time. In this bill we say that farmers are entitled to the same permanency of their chapter in the bankruptcy code as the big corporations have in chapter 11, as small business and individuals have in chapter 13. We are not going to leave farmers then with this last ditch effort. We went beyond that because we have also changed the tax laws so that farmers will be able to avoid capital gains taxes when they are forced to sell something by the referee of bankruptcy. This will free up resources then to be invested in a farming operation that would otherwise go down the black hole of the IRS. We have a fundamental choice. The Senate could vote as the Senator from Minnesota wants us to vote, and the Senate would then kill this bill and leave farmers without this safety net, or we can stand up for the farmers. We can do our duty and make sure that the family farmers are not gobbled up by giant corporate farms when they are forced into foreclosure. We can give farmers in Iowa and Minnesota a fighting chance. I hope the Senate will stand with the farmers of Iowa and Minnesota and other farmers around the United States on supporting this legislation. I hope the Senate doesn't give in to the liberal establishment which has decided to fight bankruptcy reform no matter who gets hurt or what the cost is to the farming operators. There are a lot of other things in this conference report. The bill will give badly needed protection for patients in bankrupt hospitals and nursing homes. The Senate adopted this as an amendment. I offered it. It was accepted unanimously. Again, my colleagues may be unaware of the fact that there aren't any provisions in the bankruptcy code to protect people in nursing homes, if that nursing home goes into bankruptcy. By killing this bill, they are killing some of that protection. I had hearings on the fate of patients in bankrupt nursing homes in my judiciary subcommittee. As my colleagues know, Congress is still trying to put more money into nursing homes through the Medicare Replenishment Act that is now before the Senate because of nursing homes being in bankruptcy. So the potential for real harm to nursing home residents is there. I would like to provide an example of that. Without the patient protections contained in this conference report, we learned, through our hearing process, of a situation in California where the bankruptcy trustee just showed up at the nursing home on a Friday evening and evicted residents. The bankruptcy trustee didn't provide any notice that this was going to happen. There was no chance to relocate the residents of the nursing homes. The bankruptcy trustee literally put these frail elderly people out onto the street and changed the locks on the doors so they couldn't get back into the nursing home. But this bankruptcy bill will prevent that from ever happening again. If we don't stand up and say that residents of nursing homes can't be thrown out onto the street, then Congress will fail in its duty to these people. Again, we have no choice. We can vote this bill down and tell nursing home residents and their families that it just doesn't matter to anybody in the Senate. That is the end result of the position advanced by the Senator from Minnesota. I hope the Senate is much better at humanitarian responsibilities than that. I hope the Senate stands for nursing home residents and not for the inside Washington liberal special interest groups that don't care about some nursing home resident being out on the street on a Friday night. There is more to this bill. The bankruptcy reform bill contains particular bankruptcy provisions advocated by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. I think both of these people--for the benefit of the Senator from Minnesota--are appointees of President Clinton. They have good things to say about the need for bankruptcy reform. These particular provisions I am talking about will strengthen our financial markets and lessen the possibility of domino-style collapses in the financial sector of our economy. According to both Chairman Greenspan and Secretary Summers, these provisions will address significant threats to our prosperity. As I said earlier, we are seeing the early warning signs of a recession. We need to put these safeguards into place so that the financial markets, which are the key components of our economy, don't face the unnecessary risk of what might be the beginning of a Clinton recession. Again, we have a very fundamental choice: We can strengthen our financial markets by passing this bill or we can side with the liberal establishment and fight reform no matter what the cost is to our society. So I think the American people do in fact want us to strengthen the economy, not turn a deaf ear to pleas for help from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Secretary. I hope the Senate decides to vote to safeguard our prosperity and not put it at risk. At this point, I will talk about the issue of how the bankruptcy bill will impact people with high medical expenses. I am going to refer to a nearby chart. Earlier this year, I had an opportunity to address this very issue. I want to assure my colleagues with any remaining questions about the full deductibility of health care costs to a person going into bankruptcy, whether or not those are factored into the ability to repay, and the answer is, yes, 100 percent. I know the Senator from Minnesota has heard my explanation on that. I haven't heard him contradict anything I have had to say that the General Accounting Office has said to back this up. Yet he will continually come to the floor of the Senate and make the same point that it could be possible for people with high medical expenses not to be able to go into bankruptcy and get those considered as part of the process of discharge or not. The bankruptcy bill says people who can repay a certain amount of their debt can't file for chapter 7, the point being that they are then channeled into a repayment plan under chapter 13. At this time, the question of medical expenses comes into play when determining whether someone has the ability to repay their debt. According to the nonpartisan General Accounting Office, the conference report before the Senate allows for 100-percent full deductibility for medical expenses before examining repayment ability. Right here you have it, from the IRS--other necessary expenses that are deducted. It says that no standard other than expense must be necessary and reasonable. But it says it includes such expenses as charitable contributions, child care, dependent care, health care. Right now I emphasize the words ``health care'' because that is what we are being told by the Senator from Minnesota--that that would not be deductible. It says payroll deductions such as union dues and life insurance. So maybe all of those things together would tell people that there are assurances way beyond just the health care expense issue of the deductibility. But it also emphasizes in this General Accounting Office report that we take care of all of the concerns anybody ought to have in that particular area. So, bottom line: If you have huge medical bills, you get to deduct them in full before even looking at whether you get channeled into a repayment plan. So I don't know what could be more fair and how it could be any clearer. The Senator from Minnesota has told us he wants to learn more about this bankruptcy bill. It is quite obvious that he needs to know more about this bankruptcy bill. So I hope he does, and I hope he will let me talk to him, because once we look into this bill in its totality, I am confident that Members of the Senate will do the responsible thing and will vote for final passage tomorrow at 4 o'clock. I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Wall Street Journal previously referred to be printed in the Record.