Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 2 and 4 and agree to the House amendment to the Senate amendment numbered 5.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Leahy has an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business with certain administrative wrapup responsibilities.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, since I don't see any colleagues here on the floor wanting to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to take this time during the debate on the bankruptcy bill to give a little bit of history on bankruptcy reform. I want to say a few words about how we thought about the proper role of bankruptcy over the course of our Nation's history. Congress' authority to create bankruptcy legislation derives from the body of the Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 4, authorizing Congress to establish ``uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.'' Until 1898, we did not have permanent bankruptcy laws in our country. The previous bankruptcy laws that were on the books throughout that early 100 years were temporary reactions to particular economic problems, and with each successive bankruptcy act and each major reform of our bankruptcy laws, we refined our conception of how bankruptcies should promote the important social goal of giving honest but very unfortunate Americans a fresh economic start, while at the same time after giving that fresh start guarding against the moral hazard of making bankruptcy too lax, easy, and in fact encouraging bankruptcy. Right now, I think we have a situation where too many Americans see bankruptcy as an easy way out. A huge majority of Americans recently told pollsters that bankruptcy is too easy and more socially acceptable than a few years ago. I refer to the chart from Penn and Schoen Associates. The question they ask: ``Is bankruptcy more socially acceptable than a few years ago?'' You get an overwhelming 84 percent who say, gee, it is more socially acceptable. As few as 10 percent say that it is not more socially acceptable, and 6 percent said they did not have an opinion. A very dramatically high proportion of the American people know that the present policies of bankruptcy in this country are not right, and they tend to encourage people to file for bankruptcy. The bill we are considering today and tomorrow and will hopefully pass at 4 o'clock tomorrow under the unanimous consent agreement proposes fundamental reforms which are a logical outgrowth and an extension of our prior bankruptcy reform efforts. From 1898 until 1938--a 40-year period of time--consumers had only one way to declare bankruptcy. It was called in the terms of the profession ``straight bankruptcy.'' Today we refer to it as ``chapter 7'' bankruptcy. Under chapter 7, which is still in existence, bankrupts surrendered some of their assets to the bankruptcy court. The court then sold those assets--today, for that matter--and used the proceeds to pay creditors. Any deficiency then is automatically wiped out. In 1932, the President recommended changes to the bankruptcy laws which would push wage earners into repayment plans. In the 1930s--in fact, specifically in 1938--Congress then created a chapter 13 in addition to a chapter 7. Chapter 13 permits but does not require a debtor to repay a portion of his or her debts in exchange for limited debt cancellation and protection for debt collectors' efforts. Chapter 13 is still on the books to this day, although it has been modified several times. Most notably, modification to it came in the year 1978. Under current law, the choice between chapter 7 and chapter 13 is entirely voluntary. In the late 1960s, Senator Albert Gore, Sr.--the father of the Vice President of the United States--introduced legislation to push people into the repayment plans. This proposal was reported to the Senate as a part of a bankruptcy tax bill passed by the Finance Committee. But it ultimately died in the Senate. Later, in the mid-1980s, Senator Dole on the part of the Senate and Congressman Mike Synar on the part of the House tried to steer higher income bankrupts--those who could pay some of their debt--into chapter 13. The efforts of Senator Dole and Congressman Synar ultimately resulted in the creation of section 707(b) of the bankruptcy code. This section gives bankruptcy judges the power to dismiss the bankruptcy case of someone who has filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy if that case is, in the words of the law, ``substantial abuse'' of the bankruptcy code. While this idea sounds good and well intended, it has not worked well in the real world of people who do not pay their bills--and the people who enforce the bankruptcy laws and the lawyers who work with them. First, the problem is that no one knows what the term ``substantial abuse'' actually means. We have conflicting court decisions around the country, and people just aren't sure what the rules are. Second, creditors and private trustees are actually forbidden from bringing evidence of abuse to the attention of a bankruptcy judge. Look at that situation. No. 2, if somebody knows about abuse, and it is very obvious--and even if it isn't so obvious--they can bring it to the attention of the bankruptcy judge and something can be done about it. The law doesn't allow that to be done. As well intentioned as what Senator Dole and Congressman Mike Synar ended up doing--their original intentions were right but they had to compromise to get it done in 707--it just hasn't accomplished what that compromise was supposed to have accomplished. The bill before the Senate now corrects these shortcomings. Under the bill, 707(b) now permits creditors and private trustees to file motions and bring evidence of chapter 7 abuses to the attention of the bankruptcy judge. People who oppose this bill find fault with that. If somebody is using the courts of the United States to help them along, and if they don't deserve that help and there is abuse of power of government to the detriment of creditors and particularly to the consumers, and as a result of 1.4 million bankruptcies in America a family of four pays $400 more for goods and services than they would otherwise pay--and that is wrong--what is wrong with that information being presented through the transparency process to the judge? We do that here. It should be done. I don't know why anybody would find fault where there is outright abuse being presented. The change is very important, since creditors have the most to lose from bankruptcy abuse, and private trustees are often in the very best position to know which cases are abusive in nature. In certain types of cases where the probability of abuse is very high, the Department of Justice is required to bring evidence of abuse to the attention of bankruptcy judges. And they should be required to bring this abuse to their attention. Additionally, the bill requires judges to dismiss or convert chapter 7 cases where the debtor has a clear ability to repay his or her debts. Taken together, these changes will bring the bankruptcy system back into balance, particularly in relationship to the evolution of the bankruptcy code from an ad hoc sort of passage by Congress for the first 100 years--the last 100 years being more permanent, and in the last 20 years it has been very liberalized--to make it a little more balanced. It is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Importantly, these changes preserve the element of flexibility so that each and every debtor can have his or her special circumstances considered. This means that each bankrupt will have his or her own unique circumstances taken into account at the time of judgment. As we consider this bill, I hope my colleagues will keep in mind the remainder of the bill, and the fair nature of this legislation as well as its historical roots. I see that the Senator from Alabama has come to the floor. I think he is waiting to speak. Soon I will yield the floor. But I also take this opportunity to praise, as I have had the opportunity in times past, the efforts of the Senator from Alabama to help us bring this bill this far, and for his willingness to be flexible in some things where he would like to go further in making sure that debts are repaid that maybe otherwise would not be repaired but understanding the extremes on both sides helping us to get to a middle so that a moderate bill such as this can become law. I thank, publicly, Senator Sessions of Alabama. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes of the 5 minutes on our side to Senator Biden.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss some of the health care provisions in the tax bill. It's not a perfect bill, but it contains a lot of items that will improve health care in this country. Let me touch on the issue of Medicare equity. We in Iowa have been frustrated by the inequitable payment formulas that hurt cost-efficient states like ours. These disparities exist in both traditional Medicare and in the Medicare+Choice program. Well, this bill takes a major step toward correcting this injustice. I'd like to walk through some of the reasons why this bill is good for health care in Iowa. This bill corrects the Medicare Disproportionate Share program, known as ``DISH,'' as proposed in a bill I sponsored with Senator Roberts and others. This program helps hospitals that treat large numbers of uninsured patients. It's obvious that many rural Americans are uninsured, and that rural hospitals meet their duty to treat these people. But from its inception, this program has discriminated against rural hospitals. They have had to meet a much higher threshold than large urban hospitals have. Well, this bill finally equalizes the thresholds for all hospitals. There's still more work to do on this program, but this is a major step forward for equity in Medicare. The bill also reforms the Medicare Dependent Hospital program, as proposed in legislation I co-sponsored with Senator Conrad and many others. Many rural areas have aged populations, and this is especially true in Iowa. So this designation benefits small rural facilities that have more than 60% Medicare patients. But incredibly, hospitals only receive this benefit if they met that level way back in 1988! Unfortunately, the Medicare program is full of this kind of outdated, unreasonable rules. That's why we need Medicare reform. But in the meantime, I'm glad to report that this bill would correct this particular problem: if a rural hospital has been over that 60% level in recent years, it qualifies. That's great news for rural hospitals. Other key provisions of the bill strengthen our Sole Community Hospitals, knock down obstacles to the success of the Critical Access Hospital program for rural areas, and enhance rural patients' access to emergency and ambulance services. The bill also helps hospitals--including all Iowa hospitals, both urban and rural--by providing a full Medicare payment increase to offset inflation in 2001. Low payment rates for Iowa and other efficient states have prevented the Medicare+Choice program from taking root in Iowa and offering seniors the full range of health care options available elsewhere. I am pleased that the bill provides a major boost to entice plans to enter such regions, raising the minimum monthly payments for plans in rural areas from $415 to $475 per month, and for urban areas from $415 to $525 per month. These increases were proposed in a bill I co-sponsored with Senator Domenici and others, and I am hopeful that they will soon provide Iowans with the same range of choices available to seniors in other areas. The bill gives rural seniors access to the best medical care through telemedicine, as I have worked with Senator Jeffords and many others to do. In rural areas, medical specialists are not readily available. For many seniors, traveling long distances is simply not feasible. But technology now makes it possible for patients to go to their local hospital or clinic and be seen by a specialist hundreds of miles away. We in Iowa have tremendous capacity to take advantage of this. Yet for too long, the Medicare bureaucracy has put up every barrier it could think of to telemedicine. But this bill changes that, greatly expanding the availability of Medicare payment for services provided by telemedicine, Medicare patients will now have access to the world's best doctors and medical care regardless of where they live. The bill protects funding for home health services by delaying a scheduled 15% cut in payments, as well as providing a full medical inflation update. It's not secret that I, like many of my colleagues, would have preferred to see that 15% cut canceled permanently rather than simply delayed for another year. I hope that we will accomplish that next year. The bill also protects the access of our neediest beneficiaries to home health services when they use adult day care services. Patients can only receive home care under Medicare if they are ``homebound,'' and the bureaucracy has said that patients who leave their home for health care at an adult day care facility--such as many Alzheimer's patients--are no longer homebound. This has forced patients who are capable of living in their homes to move into institutions, just to get health care. I am very pleased that this bill includes the common-sense legislation I co-sponsored with Senator Jeffords to correct this Catch- 22. I am also very pleased that the bill addresses the Medicare hospice benefit, providing for a higher payment increase for inflation. The bill also deals with the ``six-month rule'' for hospice eligibility, clarifying that it is only a guideline, not an inflexible requirement. These provisions respond to concerns aired at my Aging Committee hearing on hospice in September, and I look forward to continued work in the 107th Congress to strengthen hospice care. The legislation extends the moratorium on therapy caps and provides Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes with access to critical services. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included a $1,500 cap on occupational, physical and speech-language pathology therapy services received outside a hospital setting. Thirty-one days after the law was implemented, an estimated one in four beneficiaries had exhausted half of their yearly benefit. Furthermore, it was those beneficiaries in need of the most rehabilitative care that were penalized by being forced to pay the entire cost for these services outside of a hospital setting. I fought successfully during last year's Balanced Budget Refinement Act for a two-year moratorium on the therapy caps while the Health Care Financing Administration studies the issue; I am pleased to see this effort recognized and the moratorium extended for an additional year. The bill protects the right of patients in Medicare+Choice plans to return to their Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility of origin if they have to leave that facility for a brief hospitalization. Without this right, there have been instances in which patients in religiously affiliated nursing facilities have not been permitted to return to those facilities after hospitalization. I am gratified that the bill includes the legislation I co-sponsored with Senator Mack on this issue. The bill discontinues a policy to phase out Medicaid cost-based reimbursement to our nation's 3,000 Rural Health Clinics and 900 Community Health Centers. In its place, it provides a reimbursement solution to ensure that these essential primary care providers can continue to serve millions of uninsured and under-insured Americans. The bill establishes a prospective payment system in Medicaid for federally certified Rural Health Centers and Community Health Centers. This provision creates an equitable payment system for these providers and ensures that the health care safety net remains strong and secure. As one example, the legislation also provides Medicare beneficiaries with greater access to the most thorough type of colon cancer screening--colonoscopy. As Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I held a hearing earlier this year to raise awareness about the far-reaching and devastating effects of colon cancer. This year 129,400 Americans will be diagnosed with this type of cancer and 56,000 Americans will die from it. However, if detected and treated early, colorectal cancer is curable in up to 90 percent of diagnosed cases. I fully support an expanded colon cancer screening benefit for Medicare beneficiaries and urge all older Americans to put the benefit to use. For the first time, medical nutrition therapy may be reimbursed by Medicare for patients with diabetes or renal disease. As part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress instructed the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a study of the benefits of nutrition therapy. IOM reported that nutrition therapy would improve the quality of care and would be an efficient use of Medicare resources. I cosponsored legislation to expand Medicare coverage to include nutrition therapy; offering coverage for beneficiaries with diabetes or renal disease is a step in the right direction. In another first, this bill eliminates the arbitrary time limitation on Medicare coverage of immunosuppressive drugs following an organ transplant. Medicare covers expensive transplant operations but fails to follow through with coverage of the drugs necessary to preserve the transplanted organ; reimbursement is currently limited to the first three years following the procedure. While last year's BBRA extended coverage in some cases for an additional eight months, this legislation drops any time limitation for coverage of drugs critical to the health of transplant patients. This is common sense policy I am glad to support. I plan to come to the floor on other occasions to discuss other provisions of this bill. While I'm not completely satisfied, I think there is a lot that will help Americans get the health care they need and deserve. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the tax relief bill we are about to pass contains many very popular tax cut measures that will be good for Americans and good for the country. One of the provisions included in the package is The Farm, Fisherman, and Ranch Risk Management Act-- FFARRM. This is a proactive measure that would give farmers a five-year window to manage their money. It would allow them to contribute up to 20% of the annual income to tax-deferred accounts, known as FFARRM accounts. The funds would be taxed as regular income upon withdrawal. If the funds are not withdrawn five years after they were invested, they are taxed as income and subject to an additional 10% penalty. So, farmers will be able to put away savings in good years so they will have a little bit of a cushion in bad years. Agriculture remains one of the most perilous ways to make a living. The income of a farm family depends, in large part, on factors outside their control. Weather can completely wipe out a farm family. At best, it can cause their income to fluctuate wildly. The uncertainty of International markets also threatens a farm family's income. If European countries impose trade barriers on farm commodities, or if Asian countries devalue their currency, agricultural exports and the income of farmers will fall. Today, farmers face one of their most severe crises with record low prices for grain and livestock. The only help for these farmers has been a reactionary policy of government intervention. While this aid is necessary to help farmers pull through the current crisis, it's merely a partial short-term solution. Farmer Savings Accounts will help the farmer help himself. It's not a new government subsidy for agriculture and it will not create a new bureaucracy purporting to help farmers. It will simply provide farmers with a fighting chance to survive the down times and an opportunity to succeed when prices eventually increase. Another important provision in this bill deals with farmers who want to income average but aren't able to because of the alternative minimum tax. A few years ago, Congress reinstated income averaging for farmers because we recognized that farmers' income fluctuated from year to year. Unfortunately, many farmers are not able to make use of this benefit because they're subject to the alternative minimum tax. Our tax relief bill will fix this problem for tens of thousands of farmers. There are many other farmer-friendly measures that I and others advocated in the Senate bill. Unfortunately, some of our House counterparts didn't agree with us. I believe that will change next year and I will certainly be working hard to pass these in the next Congress. In the meantime, we have some very good and necessary pro-farmer proposals before us that can be passed this year. I only hope the Clinton-Gore administration doesn't veto the family farmer by vetoing this bill. Thank you Mr. President.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for the leader, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business until 3 p.m. with the time between now and 3 p.m. divided between the two leaders.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are about to vote on cloture on the bankruptcy bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. The conference committee that produced this Bankruptcy Conference Report had an even 3-3 ratio. Obviously with this ratio, Democrats on the conference held an absolute veto over the bankruptcy bill. But here we are voting on a conference report that has the support of conferees on both sides of the aisle. What's at stake with this vote? If you vote ``no'' on cloture you are voting against bankruptcy protections for family farmers. If you vote ``no'' on cloture you are voting against targeted capital gains tax relief for family farmers in bankruptcy. If you vote ``no'' on cloture you are voting against a ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' for residents of bankrupt nursing homes. If you vote ``no'' on cloture you are voting against provisions that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretary Larry Summers say are crucial for protecting our financial markets. There's a lot at stake with this vote. Let's vote for farmers. Let's vote for a ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' for residents of bankrupt nursing homes. Let's vote to protect our financial markets. Let's vote to protect our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 15 minutes, and hopefully less, to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, November 1st. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, 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 proceed to a cloture vote on H.R. 2415, the bankruptcy legislation, as under the previous order.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. In other words, once again, just to make it very clear the Congressional Research Service has searched every known case, and I have here, as my colleagues can read, the only case that is available, in which the result is that an abortion protester wasn't able to discharge his debts. The court was very clear that they were not able to get a discharge for that purpose. Mr. President, I see my friend from New Jersey, who is on the other side of the aisle but very supportive of our legislation, who needs time because he supports this legislation from our side of the aisle. So I am going to quit at this point. I ask if I can have the floor back after he has finished.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to do that, so I can defer to the Senator from New Jersey right now.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will ask this way, that when the Senator from New Jersey has finished, to give the Senator from Wyoming the floor, and then me, because I want to continue presenting our case on the bankruptcy reform.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we had an opportunity to listen to 2 hours of debate and speeches from some on the other side of the aisle earlier this afternoon trashing a piece of legislation and the process connected with that legislation that originally passed the Senate 83-14 earlier this year. I have heard the Senator from Minnesota and others complain about the process of getting the bankruptcy bill to the floor. It seemed to me, as I listened to what he said that it is almost an unbelievable thing for him to say that. The Senate passed the bankruptcy bill after weeks of debate and after disposing of literally hundreds of amendments. The Senator from Minnesota objected to going to the conference committee in the regular order. We tried to do things in the regular way, but he was one of those Senators who blocked our efforts to get to conference. I think the speeches we have heard this afternoon, particularly from the Senator from Minnesota, are misleading. It is very misleading for Senator Wellstone to pretend he is not the reason for this bill not moving in the regular way and then to find fault with the unconventional way in which we finally did it. Also, looking at that process, there are few conference committees around here that have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. This conference committee had three Democrats and three Republicans. So obviously Democrats had to sign the conference report, or we would not even have it before us. But that is the way this process has been--not only this year but last year and the year before and the year before. We have been trying to bring about badly needed bankruptcy reform. It has been done in a bipartisan way. The best evidence of that bipartisanship, both from the standpoint of substance and the standpoint of the process, is the 83-14 vote by which the original bill passed the Senate and Democrats signing the conference report that is now before us. So I am glad we finally have a chance to get to debate on the merits of the bankruptcy reform conference report. Today is Halloween. That is an appropriate day to take the bill up because of our liberal friends who have tried to dress the bankruptcy bill in a scary costume in a tired effort to frighten the American people for crass political purposes. The fact is, the bankruptcy reform bill we are going to vote on tomorrow will do a lot of good for the American people and for the economy. Remember, we are talking about 1.4 million bankruptcies. Remember, we are talking about a very dramatic explosion of bankruptcies just in the last 6 or 7 years. Remember, the last time we had bankruptcy reform, there were about 300 thousand bankruptcies filed per year. That is up to 1.4 million. It is a cost to the economy for every working family in America of paying $400 per year more for goods and services because somebody else is not paying their debt. I want to summarize a few things that this bill will do that my colleagues may not know about as a result of the disinformation campaign waged by our liberal opponents. Right now, for instance, farmers in my State of Iowa, and for that matter in Minnesota and all across the country, have no protections against foreclosures and forced auctions. That is because chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code, which gives essential protections for family farmers, expired in June of this year. Why did chapter 12 expire leaving farmers without a last-ditch safety net? The answer is that chapter 12 ceased to exist because the Senator from Minnesota blocked us from proceeding on this bankruptcy bill we have before us. The bankruptcy bill will restore chapter 12 on a permanent basis. Never again will Iowa farmers or even Minnesota farmers be left with no defense against foreclosures and forced auctions. Congress will fail in its basic responsibilities to the American farmer if we fail to restore chapter 12 as a permanent part of the bankruptcy code. The bankruptcy bill does more for farmers than just make protections for farmers permanent. The bankruptcy bill enhances these protections and makes more Iowa farmers, more American farmers, and even more Minnesota farmers eligible for chapter 12. The bankruptcy bill lets farmers in bankruptcy avoid capital gains taxes. This will free up resources that would have otherwise been forced to go to the Federal Treasury, that would otherwise go down the black hole of the IRS, to be invested in farming operations. We have a real choice. The Senate can vote as the Senator from Minnesota wants us to vote and the Senate can kill this bill, or we can stand up for American farmers and Minnesota farmers. We can do our duty and make sure that family farms are not gobbled up by giant corporate farms. We can give our farmers a fighting chance. I hope the Senate will stand up for our farmers. I hope the Senate does not give in to the bankruptcy establishment that has decided to fight bankruptcy reform no matter who gets hurt, including the Iowa farmer, the Minnesota farmer--the American farmer. What else is in this conference report? The bankruptcy bill will give badly needed protection for patients in bankrupt hospitals and nursing homes. About 10 percent of the nursing homes in America are in bankruptcy, so this is a real problem for senior citizens of America. The Senate protected these people by unanimously adopting an amendment which I offered. Again, my colleagues may be unaware of the importance of this provision because the opponents of bankruptcy reform do not want us to realize what killing the bankruptcy reform bill will really do for those people who are in bankrupt nursing homes. I had hearings on patients in bankrupt nursing homes. As my colleagues know, Congress is trying to put more money into nursing homes through the Medicare replenishment bill. Because we have so many nursing homes that are in bankruptcy, the potential for harm is very real. Through the hearing process in committee, I learned of a situation in California where a bankruptcy trustee simply showed up at a nursing home on a Friday evening and evicted the residents. The bankruptcy trustee did not provide any notice that this was going to happen. He literally put these frail, elderly people out into the street and changed the locks so they could not get back into the nursing home. The bankruptcy bill that we will vote on tomorrow will prevent this from ever happening again. If we do not stand up and say that the residents of nursing homes cannot just be thrown out into the street, then Congress will have failed in its duty to the senior citizens of America. Again, we have a choice: We can vote this bill down and tell nursing home residents and their families that they can just go fly a kite. I hope the Senate is better than that. I hope the Senate stands for nursing home residents and not for inside-Washington liberal special interest groups that are trying to make a case against this bill but just cannot make a case against the bill. We have not heard them talking about helping farmers through chapter 12. We have not heard them talk about helping nursing home residents through the provisions that are in the Patients' Bill of Rights for nursing home residents. There is more to this bill. The bankruptcy reform bill contains particular provisions advocated by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and by Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. I hope the Senator from Minnesota takes note of those two people being appointed by the President of the United States, Larry Summers being a member of this administration as Secretary of the Treasury, to whom some from the other side of the aisle ought to listen. These provisions 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, the very prosperity that their candidate for President is out talking about every day saying it ought to be protected. Yet again, we have a 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, our economy, the farmers, or the people in nursing homes. The American people want us to strengthen the economy, not turn a deaf ear to the pleas for help from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and from the Treasury Secretary. I hope the Senate decides to vote to safeguard our prosperity, not put it at risk. The Senator from Minnesota said he wanted us to learn more about the bankruptcy bill. I do, too. Once we look at this bill in its totality I am confident that the Members of this body will see this is a responsible approach, that we will then do the responsible thing: We will vote for cloture, and then we will also do final passage. There is an issue about how the bankruptcy bill will impact people with high medical expenses. Earlier this year, I addressed this very issue, but I want to reassure my colleagues who have remaining questions about this that we have taken care of the problems they have legitimately raised. I do not find fault with their raising them; I only find fault with the fact that we have taken care of them and they have not found it out yet. Before the vote tomorrow morning, I want them to find it out. I want the Senator from Minnesota and I want my friend and colleague from the State of Iowa who raised this issue to be aware of it as well. My friend from Iowa was quoted in the Des Moines Register Sunday as saying about this bill: I am not for it. I think it's a bad bill. He talked with bankruptcy lawyers who said that it will hit hardest those who rack up big bills due to medical problems. As to the Time magazine article that was referred to earlier by the Senator from Minnesota which alleged that medical expenses drove some of the families profiled into bankruptcy, I would just say that this is flat out wrong. To the extent any person in bankruptcy has medical expenses, the bankruptcy bill deals with this issue in two ways. The General Accounting Office to look at the provisions of this bill from the point of view of medical expenses. You can see from this report that came from the General Accounting Office that all medical expenses that are deducted in determining whether you have the ability to go to chapter 7 or chapter 13. The bill is very clear health care expenses are covered because of ``other necessary expenses'' include such expenses as charitable contributions, child care, dependent care, health care, payroll deductions, life insurance, et cetera. All of these are used in determining your ability to repay your debts. So anybody who comes to the floor of the Senate and says that we do not take medical costs into consideration in determining this--those colleagues have not read the bill. There is one additional thing. Somebody can make a case that this does not take care of all of the instances. I do not know how much clearer it can be. But we still have application to the bankruptcy judge, under special circumstances, to argue any case you want to of something that should be taken into consideration in your ability to repay debt. Medical expenses, obviously, fall into that category if this provision is not adequate. But I do not know how much clearer it can be than when you say medical expenses are things that are deductible in making your determination of ability to pay. Several Senators have also, today, made reference to the issue of whether we need to modify the bankruptcy laws to prevent violent abortion protesters from discharging their debts in bankruptcy court. Now the fact is, our current law already prevents this from happening. I am releasing today a memo to me from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service that says, without a doubt, no abortion protester has ever, ever gotten away with using bankruptcy as a shield. So I hope my colleagues listen to this nonpartisan source and not the partisan political statements that were made yesterday on the Senate floor in regard to this. I want to put this in the Record, Mr. President, so I know that this is clearly stated. I ask unanimous consent that this memo be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to make sure that the time I use now does not come out of the Democrat time. So it will come out of the Republican time. And the Democrat time should be extended beyond 4 o'clock by the amount of time I speak.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for the majority leader, I wish to announce today's program. The Senate will be in a period of morning business until 6 p.m. with Senators Lott, Reid, and Wellstone in control of the time. Today the Senate will agree by unanimous consent to the continuing resolution that funds the Government until tomorrow. As a reminder, cloture was filed on the bankruptcy bill yesterday, and that vote will occur tomorrow morning possibly around 9:30 a.m. A vote on a continuing resolution will also take place during Wednesday's session. The President has vetoed the important legislative branch and Treasury-Postal appropriations bills. However, negotiations will continue to try to come to a consensus to fund all Government programs throughout the year. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 158 submitted by Senator Hatch.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House to accompany H.R. 1550.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the House amendments.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5410, which is at the desk.