Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, No. 2, I remind people the farmer savings accounts give the farmers an opportunity to level out years of high income versus years of low income. Very seldom, because of nature, can the farmers control their productivity to any great extent, so they have these peaks and valleys. This gives the family farmer an opportunity to manage his income to a greater extent. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3835 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit exemption and the qualified family-owned business interest deduction, to provide a refundable credit to certain individuals for elective deferrals and IRA contributions, and to provide an incentive to small business to establish and maintain qualified pension plans, to amend the Social Security Act to provide each American child with a KidSave Account, and for other purposes)

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself a final 30 seconds to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter in support of the amendment from the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Kansas for speaking on his portion of my amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield 1\1/5\ minutes to Senator Lugar.

Mr. GRASSLEY. No.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code. My bill will facilitate phased retirement programs. In April I held a hearing in the Special Committee on Aging. The subject of the hearing was employment of older workers. Several experts told us what could be done to encourage older individuals to remain in the labor market. In today's tight labor markets, older workers are in great demand. Employers have numerous strategies to attract and retain them--one of those is phased retirement. At our hearing, several witnesses testified that statutory changes to permit phased retirement programs would be helpful. One of those witnesses was Ms. September Dau from the Iowa Lakes Rural Electric Cooperative in Estherville, Iowa. Ms. Dau noted that the average age of the workforce at her Rural Electric Cooperative is high. Skilled workers are hard to come by and Iowa Lakes has implemented a phased retirement program in order to retain older workers. But they would like the comfort of knowing that their program is sanctioned. Phased retirement allows a worker to wind down his or her career, by working part-time and retiring part-time. It helps many people maintain their income level rather than quitting work all at once. Financially, it can allow an individual to postpone the time when he or she has to draw down retirement savings. A study performed by Watson Wyatt Worldwide concluded that 16 percent of larger companies already offer phased retirement in some form and another 28 percent show a moderate to high level of interest in offering it in the next two years. But plan sponsors have worries about running afoul of the ``in-service distribution'' rules. Tax rules bar employees from receiving pension distributions before they reach a pension's normal retirement age, which is usually pegged to Social Security. That rule makes it difficult for those who wish to retire gradually and use reduced pension payments to augment reduced pay. It also helps circumvent the ``do-it-yourself'' phased retirement that some workers are forced into where they retire one day from their long-term employer and go to work the next day for someone else. This bill is designed to overcome those problems. At the same time, this provision is completely voluntary and so will not burden plan sponsors. As I said, we heard from witnesses who supported phased retirement programs. I mentioned September Dau from the Iowa Lakes Rural Electric Cooperative. But another one was our friend and colleague, Congressman Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota. Congressman Pomeroy told the Committee that phased retirement programs should be allowed as a way of increasing the attractiveness of defined benefit pension plans. Phased retirement programs could also make defined benefit plans more adaptable to the human resource needs of plan sponsors. This is important to Congressman Pomeroy because he is introducing a phased retirement bill that is identical to mine. Defined benefit plans provide a stream of payments to retirees. They can go a long way to supplementing Social Security. But defined benefit plans are on the decline, especially among small businesses, whose employees are the least likely group to be covered by any form of retirement plan. We know that life expectancy is increasing. We also know that Americans are not saving enough to maintain their standard of living in retirement. By making defined benefit plans more attractive to employers and workers--such as by facilitating phased retirement--we are helping to improve the lives of everyday American people. I hope that this bill is one step in that direction. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code. My bill will facilitate phased retirement programs. In April I held a hearing in the Special Committee on Aging. The subject of the hearing was employment of older workers. Several experts told us what could be done to encourage older individuals to remain in the labor market. In today's tight labor markets, older workers are in great demand. Employers have numerous strategies to attract and retain them--one of those is phased retirement. At our hearing, several witnesses testified that statutory changes to permit phased retirement programs would be helpful. One of those witnesses was Ms. September Dau from the Iowa Lakes Rural Electric Cooperative in Estherville, Iowa. Ms. Dau noted that the average age of the workforce at her Rural Electric Cooperative is high. Skilled workers are hard to come by and Iowa Lakes has implemented a phased retirement program in order to retain older workers. But they would like the comfort of knowing that their program is sanctioned. Phased retirement allows a worker to wind down his or her career, by working part-time and retiring part-time. It helps many people maintain their income level rather than quitting work all at once. Financially, it can allow an individual to postpone the time when he or she has to draw down retirement savings. A study performed by Watson Wyatt Worldwide concluded that 16 percent of larger companies already offer phased retirement in some form and another 28 percent show a moderate to high level of interest in offering it in the next two years. But plan sponsors have worries about running afoul of the ``in-service distribution'' rules. Tax rules bar employees from receiving pension distributions before they reach a pension's normal retirement age, which is usually pegged to Social Security. That rule makes it difficult for those who wish to retire gradually and use reduced pension payments to augment reduced pay. It also helps circumvent the ``do-it-yourself'' phased retirement that some workers are forced into where they retire one day from their long-term employer and go to work the next day for someone else. This bill is designed to overcome those problems. At the same time, this provision is completely voluntary and so will not burden plan sponsors. As I said, we heard from witnesses who supported phased retirement programs. I mentioned September Dau from the Iowa Lakes Rural Electric Cooperative. But another one was our friend and colleague, Congressman Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota. Congressman Pomeroy told the Committee that phased retirement programs should be allowed as a way of increasing the attractiveness of defined benefit pension plans. Phased retirement programs could also make defined benefit plans more adaptable to the human resource needs of plan sponsors. This is important to Congressman Pomeroy because he is introducing a phased retirement bill that is identical to mine. Defined benefit plans provide a stream of payments to retirees. They can go a long way to supplementing Social Security. But defined benefit plans are on the decline, especially among small businesses, whose employees are the least likely group to be covered by any form of retirement plan. We know that life expectancy is increasing. We also know that Americans are not saving enough to maintain their standard of living in retirement. By making defined benefit plans more attractive to employers and workers--such as by facilitating phased retirement--we are helping to improve the lives of everyday American people. I hope that this bill is one step in that direction. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at this time, I am seeking recognition in order to call to my colleagues' attention something that will happen today. At midnight today, bankruptcy protections for family farmers will disappear. Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code will expire. And America's family farming operation will be exposed to foreclosure and possible forced auctions. I think this will be a clear failure on the part of the Congress and the President to do their duty. How did we get here? After all, the Senate and House have passed bankruptcy reform bills which made chapter 12 permanent. But a small minority of Senators who oppose bankruptcy reform have apparently decided that they would rather see America's family farmers with no last-ditch safety net than let the House and Senate even convene a conference committee in order to get the two bills reconciled. But even with these stall tactics, the House and Senate have met informally to resolve the bankruptcy bills. The informal agreement, of course, will make chapter 12 permanent. If we were allowed to pass this bill, America's family farmers would never again face the prospect of having no bankruptcy protections. That's right Mr. President, we have the power right now to give family farmers last-ditch protection against foreclosures and forced sales. But, some of our more liberal friends won't let that happen. Some members of this body have just decided to play political chess games with bankruptcy reform, and they're willing to use family farmers as pawns to be expended in pursuit of some larger goal. Mr. President, with the sluggishness we have in the farm sector, I think it's just plain wrong to play games with family farmers. Senator Lott and the Republican leadership have tried to move the bankruptcy bill repeatedly and have been stymied every step of the way. We need to help our family farmers, not play games with their futures. The opponents of bankruptcy reform have resorted to tactics which are morally bankrupt. Mr. President, back in the mid-1980's when Iowa was in the midst of another devastating farm crisis, I wrote chapter 12 to make sure that family farmers would receive a fair shake when dealing with the banks and the Federal Government. At that time, I didn't know if chapter 12 was going to work or not, so it was only enacted on a temporary basis. Chapter 12 has been an unmitigated success. As a result of chapter 12, many farmers who once faced total financial ruin are still farming and contributing to America's economy. As was the case in the dark days of the mid-1980s, some are again predicting that farming operations should be consolidated and we should turn to corporate farming to supply our food and agricultural products. As with the 1980s, some people seem to think that family farms are inefficient relics which should be allowed to go out of business. This would mean the end of an important part of our Nation's heritage. And it would put many hard working American families--those who farm and those whose jobs depend on a healthy agricultural sector--out of work. But the family farm didn't disappear in the 1980s, and I believe that chapter 12 is a major reason for the survival of many financially troubled family farms. An Iowa State University study prepared by professor Neil Harl found that 85 percent of the Iowa farmers who used chapter 12 were able to continue farming. That's real jobs for all sorts of Iowans in agriculture and in industries which depend on agriculture. According to the same study, 63 percent of the farmers who used chapter 12 found it helpful in getting them back on their feet. In short, I think it's fair to say that chapter 12 worked in the mid 1980s, and it should be made permanent so that family farmers in trouble today can get breathing room and a fresh start if that's what they need to make it. It's shameful that some Senators who know better are continuing to play politics and deny a fresh start to family farmers. But the bankruptcy reform bill doesn't just make chapter 12 permanent. Instead, the bill makes improvements to chapter 12 so it will be more accessible and helpful for farmers. First, the definition of family farmers is widened so that more farmers can qualify for chapter 12 bankruptcy protections. Second, and perhaps most importantly, the House and Senate agreed to reduce the priority of capital gains tax liabilities for farm assets sold as a part of a chapter 12 reorganization plan. This will have the beneficial effect of allowing cash-strapped farmers to sell livestock, grain and other farm assets to generate cash flow when liquidity is essential to maintaining a farming operation. Together, these reforms will make chapter 12 even more effective in protecting America's family farms during this difficult period. Mr. President, it's imperative that we keep chapter 12 alive. Before we had chapter 12, banks held a veto over reorganization plans. They wouldn't negotiate with farmers, and the farmer would be forced to auction off the farm, even if the farm had been in the family for generations. Now, because of chapter 12, the banks are willing to come to terms. We must pass the bankruptcy reform bill to make sure that America's family farms have a fighting chance to reorganize their financial affairs. Disclosure by Section 527 Organizations

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to tell my colleagues why I oppose the nomination of Mr. Donald Mancuso. I would like my colleagues to understand why I have placed a hold on Mr. Mancuso's nomination. Mr. Mancuso has been nominated to be the Inspector General (IG) at the Department of Defense (DOD). Mr. President, over the years, I have made a habit out of watching the watchdogs. I have tried hard to make sure the IG's do their job. I want the IG's to be a bunch of junk yard dogs when it comes to overseeing their respective departments. In doing this oversight work, I have learned one important lesson: the IG's must be beyond reproach. Now that Mr. Mancuso's nomination has been submitted to the Senate for confirmation, this is the question we--in this body--must wrestle with: Does Mr. Mancuso meet that standard? Is Mr. Mancuso beyond reproach? That's the question now before the Senate. I have to ask myself that question because of something that happened a year ago. In June 1999, a former agent from the Defense Criminal Investigative Service or DCIS walked into my office. He made a number of very serious allegations of misconduct about senior DCIS officials, including Mr. Mancuso. And he had a huge bag full of documents to back them up. Mr. Mancuso was the Director of DCIS from 1988 until 1997 when he became the Deputy DOD IG. Mr. Mancuso was the Pentagon's top cop. He was in charge of the DOD IG's criminal investigative bureau. He was a senior federal law enforcement officer. The allegations were very serious. Many concerned Mr. Mancuso's internal affairs unit. It was alleged that an agent assigned to the internal affairs unit had a history of falsifying reports to damage the reputation of fellow agents. It was further alleged that Mr. Mancuso was aware of this problem yet failed to take appropriate corrective action. It was alleged that Mr. Mancuso personally approved a series actions to protect a senior deputy who was under investigation for passport fraud. It was alleged that Mr. Mancuso and the senior deputy were close personal friends. The senior deputy happened to be in charge of the internal affairs unit. While head of that unit, this person is suspected of committing about 12 overt acts of fraud. He was eventually convicted and sent to jail. Mr. Mancuso allegedly took extraordinary measures to shield this individual from the full weight of the law and departmental regulations. It was also alleged that Mr. Mancuso engaged in retaliation and other prohibited personnel practices. The Majority Staff on my Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts conducted a very careful examination of the allegations. The results of this investigation were presented in a Majority Staff Report issued in October 1999. Mr. President, I came to the floor on November 2, 1999 to discuss the contents of the report. All supporting documentation--and there was a mountain of material-- was simultaneously placed on the Judiciary Committee's web site. The Majority Staff Report substantiated some of the allegations involving DCIS officials, including Mr. Mancuso. I also sent a copy of the report and supporting documentation to Secretary of Defense Cohen. Mr. President, I also wanted to be certain that my friend, Senator Warner, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and my friend Senator Thompson, Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, were up to speed on this issue. I have continued sending them material as the case has developed. I want them to be informed about what I am doing and where I am headed with Mr. Mancuso's nomination. Mr. President, after the staff report was issued, my office was inundated with phone calls from current and former DCIS agents with new allegations of misconduct by Mr. Mancuso and others. The Majority Staff has investigated some of the new allegations, as well. Some have been substantiated and some have not. The new findings have been summarized in letter reports. Those have been shared with Secretary Cohen. And I met with the new Deputy Secretary, Mr. Rudy de Leon, on May 24th to express my concerns about the allegations involving Mr. Mancuso. Mr. President, I am not alone in raising questions about Mr. Mancuso's conduct. At least six other government entities believe that the allegations are serious enough to warrant further investigation. These include: Chief of the Criminal Division, Eastern District of Virginia Integrity Committee of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency Public Integrity Section at the Justice Department Inspector General, Department of the Treasury U.S. Office of Special Counsel Inspector General, General Services Administration Most of these investigations are ongoing. However, at least one has been completed. The Inspector General at the Treasury Department has corroborated some of the facts and conclusions in the Majority Staff Report. I also know that the U.S. Attorney, who prosecuted Mr. Mancuso's senior deputy for passport fraud, is very unhappy with Mr. Mancuso's conduct in that case. The U.S. Attorney has characterized Mr. Mancuso's conduct in that case as: ``egregious and unethical.'' Mr. President, at this point, there are just too many unanswered and unresolved questions bearing on the allegations. I think it would be accurate to say the case against Mr. Mancuso would not stand up in a court of law. Successfully meeting that test, however, does not mean that Mr. Mancuso is ready to be the Pentagon's Inspector General. The IG's must meet a much higher standard. The IG must be beyond reproach. Having questions about judgment and appearance--like in Mr. Mancuso's case--is not beyond reproach. Mr. President, I will have much more to say about this at a later date. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am joining Senator Feingold of Wisconsin in introducing the Medicare Home Health Refinement Act of 2000. I want to thank my colleague for inviting me to join him in this effort to preserve our nation's home health providers. In my work as Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, of which Senator Feingold is a member, I have been monitoring our nation's critical home health care system closely. In 1997, we investigated distressing examples of fraud and abuse among a few home health agencies (HHAs). In 1998, I chaired a hearing on the devastating effects of the Interim Payment System (IPS) for home health. Unfortunately, my legislative efforts to improve the payment system that year were blocked. Last year, the Aging Committee held a hearing on the new OASIS information collection instrument, and on the burden it imposed on home care providers. At this point in 2000, the main challenge facing our system of home care is the new Prospective Payment System (PPS), which will take effect on October 1 of this year. We've been working toward this for many years, and I am gratified that it will finally happen. The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) published the final PPS rule on June 28, and I was pleased to hear that many home health providers consider it an improvement over the proposed rule. After the trauma of the Interim Payment System, I have high hopes that the PPS will be great news for our Medicare beneficiaries who need home care. Even so, the new PPS will pose major transitional challenges for home health agencies, and this bill seeks to ease that transition so that the PPS will succeed. The bill does the following: 1. Emergency cash flow assistance. The bill provides one-time advance payments to home health agencies during transition from IPS to PPS. Eligible agencies either have low cash reserves, have negative cash flow under PPS as defined by the Secretary of HHS, or were eligible to receive funds from the Periodic Interim Payment (PIP) system on September 30, 2000. Payments equal the average total Medicare costs incurred by the agency in a three-month period as reported on the agency's most recently settled cost report. Payments would be available for six months and repaid within twelve months. Agencies would also receive 80 percent of the 60-day episode payment rate after notifying HCFA of admission, with the remaining 20 percent coming after submission of final episode claim, instead of 60/40 under the rule published on June 28, 2000. HCFA would also be prohibited from imposing conditions on a claim based on the status of an earlier claim for the same beneficiary. The rationale for this is that PIP, which largely serves nonprofit, community-based agencies with minimal cash reserve, will be discontinued as of October 1. If PPS delays a substantial portion of payment until after termination of patient episode, providers will have significant cash flow problems. Many agencies are unable to secure lines of credit or other loans because of the effect of IPS on cash reserves. 2. Reimbursement for unfunded PPS-related costs. The bill reimburses agencies for technology costs required for PPS compliance, up to $10 per beneficiary. Payments would be authorized for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2003. The rationale for this item: agencies have had to purchase new hardware, software, and other technology to comply with new rules. These costs are not reimbursed by Medicare. 3. Reimbursement for OASIS labor costs. It reimburses agencies for labor costs associated with OASIS assessments, up to $30 per beneficiary annually. Payments are authorized for FY 2001-2003. This is needed because the final rule provides for only a modest payment per episode, despite an estimated hour of time needed for a skilled clinician to collect information at admission, plus time for data quality review and follow-up. 4. Creation of a fee schedule for non-routine medical supplies. The bill develops a separate fee schedule for medical supplies under prospective payment. This is essential because PPS rates include the average medical supply cost, but some agencies' patient populations have greater or lesser medical supply needs. The original rates would underpay agencies that treat these vulnerable populations and overpay agencies that treat patients with low medical supply needs. This provision has no budget impact. Mr. President, I recognize that there are other issues that pose a major threat to our home care system, including the 15 percent cut scheduled for October 2001. This bill does not address that issue, though it is obvious that Congress will have to do so. But this bill will help make the new PPS a success, so home care providers can use their resources to see patients, which is what they do best. I will seek the inclusion of this bill in any Finance Committee Medicare provider package we put together this year.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I've long been committed to the effective and efficient management of the Medicare program, specifically the detection of fraud and abuse. I supported the creation of the MIP program, established under HIPAA, to provide a stable and increasing funding source for fraud and abuse detection efforts. Prior to MIP, Medicare contractor funding for anti-fraud and abuse activities was often reduced because of other spending priorities in the annual appropriations process. MIP was created to prevent that from happening again. The House Appropriations Committee recommendation is in clear disregard of congressional intent. Additionally, I am concerned about the Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation to flatline the Medicare contractor budget. HCFA requested a $57 million increase to the Medicare contractor budget, in part to ensure implementation of certain balanced budget amendment provisions. Without this money, I am told by HCFA, that the final provisions of BBA will not be implemented. It doesn't make much sense to pass laws, if we don't provide the funding to ensure their implementation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am joining Senator Feingold of Wisconsin in introducing the Medicare Home Health Refinement Act of 2000. I want to thank my colleague for inviting me to join him in this effort to preserve our nation's home health providers. In my work as Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, of which Senator Feingold is a member, I have been monitoring our nation's critical home health care system closely. In 1997, we investigated distressing examples of fraud and abuse among a few home health agencies (HHAs). In 1998, I chaired a hearing on the devastating effects of the Interim Payment System (IPS) for home health. Unfortunately, my legislative efforts to improve the payment system that year were blocked. Last year, the Aging Committee held a hearing on the new OASIS information collection instrument, and on the burden it imposed on home care providers. At this point in 2000, the main challenge facing our system of home care is the new Prospective Payment System (PPS), which will take effect on October 1 of this year. We've been working toward this for many years, and I am gratified that it will finally happen. The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) published the final PPS rule on June 28, and I was pleased to hear that many home health providers consider it an improvement over the proposed rule. After the trauma of the Interim Payment System, I have high hopes that the PPS will be great news for our Medicare beneficiaries who need home care. Even so, the new PPS will pose major transitional challenges for home health agencies, and this bill seeks to ease that transition so that the PPS will succeed. The bill does the following: 1. Emergency cash flow assistance. The bill provides one-time advance payments to home health agencies during transition from IPS to PPS. Eligible agencies either have low cash reserves, have negative cash flow under PPS as defined by the Secretary of HHS, or were eligible to receive funds from the Periodic Interim Payment (PIP) system on September 30, 2000. Payments equal the average total Medicare costs incurred by the agency in a three-month period as reported on the agency's most recently settled cost report. Payments would be available for six months and repaid within twelve months. Agencies would also receive 80 percent of the 60-day episode payment rate after notifying HCFA of admission, with the remaining 20 percent coming after submission of final episode claim, instead of 60/40 under the rule published on June 28, 2000. HCFA would also be prohibited from imposing conditions on a claim based on the status of an earlier claim for the same beneficiary. The rationale for this is that PIP, which largely serves nonprofit, community-based agencies with minimal cash reserve, will be discontinued as of October 1. If PPS delays a substantial portion of payment until after termination of patient episode, providers will have significant cash flow problems. Many agencies are unable to secure lines of credit or other loans because of the effect of IPS on cash reserves. 2. Reimbursement for unfunded PPS-related costs. The bill reimburses agencies for technology costs required for PPS compliance, up to $10 per beneficiary. Payments would be authorized for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2003. The rationale for this item: agencies have had to purchase new hardware, software, and other technology to comply with new rules. These costs are not reimbursed by Medicare. 3. Reimbursement for OASIS labor costs. It reimburses agencies for labor costs associated with OASIS assessments, up to $30 per beneficiary annually. Payments are authorized for FY 2001-2003. This is needed because the final rule provides for only a modest payment per episode, despite an estimated hour of time needed for a skilled clinician to collect information at admission, plus time for data quality review and follow-up. 4. Creation of a fee schedule for non-routine medical supplies. The bill develops a separate fee schedule for medical supplies under prospective payment. This is essential because PPS rates include the average medical supply cost, but some agencies' patient populations have greater or lesser medical supply needs. The original rates would underpay agencies that treat these vulnerable populations and overpay agencies that treat patients with low medical supply needs. This provision has no budget impact. Mr. President, I recognize that there are other issues that pose a major threat to our home care system, including the 15 percent cut scheduled for October 2001. This bill does not address that issue, though it is obvious that Congress will have to do so. But this bill will help make the new PPS a success, so home care providers can use their resources to see patients, which is what they do best. I will seek the inclusion of this bill in any Finance Committee Medicare provider package we put together this year.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor the Plan Colombia Trade Act along with my colleague, Senator Bob Graham. This important bill will supplement Plan Colombia by expanding trade benefits to the countries of Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. Plan Colombia is an important package that provides about a billion dollars to the government of Colombia, and other countries in that region. These funds will go to fight drugs, eradicate the crops which create them, and provide for alternative development. Unfortunately, Plan Colombia does not provide for an important measure that we can do to help these countries, that is to stimulate their economy. We can achieve this by passing the Plan Colombia Trade Act, which will provide assistance to develop their textile and apparel industries. Developing the apparel industry of these countries will encourage global trade, and offer the good people of that region a future filled with prosperity. Additionally, the trade benefits outlined in this bill will enhance peace, stability, and prosperity in that region, which will ultimately yield a better quality of life for all involved. This bill will not only benefit the struggling economies of Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru, but will advance the economy of the United States as well. As important as the assistance package to Colombia is, most of the money we provide will not reach ordinary Colombians. They also are engaged in the effort to combat illegal drugs. We need to ensure that they are not penalized for doing so. The current bill helps us help Colombians not with cash but with opportunity. It preserves legitimate jobs in a country sorely beset with problems. Most garments that are produced in Colombia are subject to a 20-30% duty rate upon importation into the U.S. As an example, swimsuits are subject to a duty rate of 33%. By granting duty-free and quota-free benefits to apparel assembled in these countries from U.S. made yarn, and U.S. made fabric, these countries will now be able to compete with other developing countries that currently enjoy duty-free and quota- free benefits. It will also afford them the opportunity to participate in the global economy. This will encourage additional export of U.S. made cotton and yarn, stimulate U.S. investment in the region and create needed jobs as well. This bill is an opportunity to help rebuild a region which has been plagued by the drug trade. We can assist these countries, not by giving them more money, but by providing these enhanced trade opportunities. By helping our neighbors in the south to maintain political and economic stability, we will in effect be securing the National Security of the United States. This legislation will provide these countries with the opportunity build their industry and their struggling economies and will improve the quality of their everyday lives. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill which will have a positive effect on the prosperity of our neighbors in Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am glad to join my colleagues in support of restoring funds to cuts made in the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill to the Social Services Block Grant program. This block grant program serves millions of older Americans, children and people with disabilities across the nation. The funding helps states provide services that no one else will provide. The money keeps people independent. It keeps them out of nursing homes. It keeps them employed. These are not frivolous services. They are critical to the well-being of thousands of people. In my state of Iowa, more than 100,000 Iowans receive services under this block grant Polk County, including the city of Des Moines, gets this funding to transport developmentally disabled residents to doctor visits, physical therapy, employment, and day treatment. The county provides 56,000 of these trips each year. Under a funding cut, these rides could stop. Polk County's developmentally disabled residents would be on their own for transportation. Polk County also funds residential treatment for developmentally disabled and mentally ill residents. The treatment costs $75 a day. That helps people avoid nursing home stays. It makes sense, because no one wants to go to a nursing home, and the expense is large. Under a funding cut, the county could eliminate residential treatment for 34 residents. Clay County is already having trouble providing placements for clients with mental health problems and developmental disabilities. The county has a waiting list for placements. Providers' fees have been frozen for over three years. I hope to spare any Iowans from more worry about this funding. It's a relief to hear assurances of complete funding of social services.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation to make technical corrections to the Bipartisan Social Security Reform bill my colleagues and I introduced last summer. The purpose of this legislation is simple: to conform our previous legislative language to changes that have been made in the Social Security program--such as eliminating the earnings limit--since last July; to correct some inadvertent errors we discovered; and to update our assumptions to reflect the new reality of the Trust Funds as reported in the 2000 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Report which came out earlier this year. Since July 16, 1999 when Senators Gregg, Kerrey, Breaux, Thompson, Thomas, and Robb and I introduced our legislation to save Social Security, the issue has taken on new life, due to Governor Bush's willingness to make Social Security reform a primary issue in his presidential campaign. He should be commended for his leadership and for grabbing the third rail of American politics fearlessly in order to create a truly secure Social Security system so that future generations will be able to rely on Social Security like their parents and grandparents. I want to urge my colleagues to take a serious look at our proposal to save Social Security. It was designed in a bipartisan, bicameral manner: four Republicans and three Democrats cosponsored the Bipartisan Social Security Reform Bill, and Congressmen Kolbe and Stenholm sponsored similar legislation in the House of Representatives. The bipartisan plan would maintain a basic floor of protection through a traditional Social Security benefit, but two percentage points of the 12.4 percent payroll tax would be redirected to individual accounts. Individuals could invest their personal accounts in any combination of the funds offered through the Social Security system. An individual who invested his or her personal account in a bond fund would receive a guaranteed interest rate. However, individuals who wish to pursue a higher rate of return through investment in a fund including equities could do so. Our proposal would eliminate the need for future payroll tax increases by advance funding a portion of future benefits through personal accounts. With individual accounts, we provide Americans with the tools necessary to build financial independence in retirement-- especially to those who previously had limited opportunities to create wealth. The legislation provides incentives for low and middle income working Americans to save additional funds for retirement by matching their voluntary contributions to their individual accounts. Under our plan, they will be able to save for retirement and benefit from economic growth. As all the cosponsors have said a hundred times, our proposal offers no ``free lunch''. In order to save Social Security for future generations it must be modernized. We have crafted a responsible plan to save Social Security for generations to come. By making incremental, steady changes to the Social Security system, we will be able to ensure the long-term solvency of the program. With this technical corrections bill we have improved upon our original legislation and I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan proposal to save Social Security. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation to make technical corrections to the Bipartisan Social Security Reform bill my colleagues and I introduced last summer. The purpose of this legislation is simple: to conform our previous legislative language to changes that have been made in the Social Security program--such as eliminating the earnings limit--since last July; to correct some inadvertent errors we discovered; and to update our assumptions to reflect the new reality of the Trust Funds as reported in the 2000 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Report which came out earlier this year. Since July 16, 1999 when Senators Gregg, Kerrey, Breaux, Thompson, Thomas, and Robb and I introduced our legislation to save Social Security, the issue has taken on new life, due to Governor Bush's willingness to make Social Security reform a primary issue in his presidential campaign. He should be commended for his leadership and for grabbing the third rail of American politics fearlessly in order to create a truly secure Social Security system so that future generations will be able to rely on Social Security like their parents and grandparents. I want to urge my colleagues to take a serious look at our proposal to save Social Security. It was designed in a bipartisan, bicameral manner: four Republicans and three Democrats cosponsored the Bipartisan Social Security Reform Bill, and Congressmen Kolbe and Stenholm sponsored similar legislation in the House of Representatives. The bipartisan plan would maintain a basic floor of protection through a traditional Social Security benefit, but two percentage points of the 12.4 percent payroll tax would be redirected to individual accounts. Individuals could invest their personal accounts in any combination of the funds offered through the Social Security system. An individual who invested his or her personal account in a bond fund would receive a guaranteed interest rate. However, individuals who wish to pursue a higher rate of return through investment in a fund including equities could do so. Our proposal would eliminate the need for future payroll tax increases by advance funding a portion of future benefits through personal accounts. With individual accounts, we provide Americans with the tools necessary to build financial independence in retirement-- especially to those who previously had limited opportunities to create wealth. The legislation provides incentives for low and middle income working Americans to save additional funds for retirement by matching their voluntary contributions to their individual accounts. Under our plan, they will be able to save for retirement and benefit from economic growth. As all the cosponsors have said a hundred times, our proposal offers no ``free lunch''. In order to save Social Security for future generations it must be modernized. We have crafted a responsible plan to save Social Security for generations to come. By making incremental, steady changes to the Social Security system, we will be able to ensure the long-term solvency of the program. With this technical corrections bill we have improved upon our original legislation and I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan proposal to save Social Security. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to bring my colleagues attention to the importance of what we are trying to do with emergency aid to Colombia. Why is this aid important? And why is now an emergency? Illegal drugs pose a direct, immediate threat to the health and safety of the citizens of the United States. Today, a majority of the cocaine and heroin consumed in the United States, is grown, processed, and smuggled from Colombia. The Senate, today, has the opportunity to act. We have the opportunity to provide a needed boost to the Government of Colombia and their efforts to halt illegal drug production in their country. They have a plan, and they have asked the U.S. for support. We should provide it. That said, I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking this is either the perfect or final assistance package that will come before the Senate for Colombia. However, it is a good start. It will strengthen the Colombian military while emphasizing the importance of human rights. It will provide additional resources for the Colombian National Police, and strengthen U.S. Colombian, and other nations in regional interdiction capabilities in and around Colombia. Personally, I would like to see more money for intelligence collection, and more emphasis on coordination of activities between the Military and National Police, and more assistance to Colombia to strengthen the rule of law. However, these are all things that can be addressed in future appropriations. We also need to address economic and trade issues to help the legal economies in the region. This package provides important assistance needed now to a government with the will and ability to act. The drug problem is not going to be solved overnight. To confront this threat, we must work locally, as well as internationally. We must provide assistance so those who have been seduced by drug use can get help, but we also--and I would say this has to be our first focus--we also must keep people from becoming addicts in the first place. This means education and prevention. It means using the law to punish those who break it, providing the resources to help those who become addicted, and it also means focused programs to stop drugs at the source. That means that it is in both the moral and strategic interest of the United States to support the Government of Colombia in its efforts to rid the country of drug production. We should not squander this opportunity.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have an announcement on behalf of the leader. Following my statement, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Under the order, Senator Dodd will be recognized to offer his amendment regarding the Cuba commission, with up to 2 hours of debate. At approximately 11:30 a.m., Senator Murray will be recognized to begin debate on her amendment regarding abortion. As usual, the Senate will recess for the weekly party conferences from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. today. At 3:15 p.m., there will be up to four stacked votes, beginning with the Murray amendment, to be followed by the Hatch and Kennedy hate crimes amendment and the Dodd amendment. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak on the topic of bankruptcy reform. As many of my colleagues may know, 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 are using undemocratic tactics to prevent us from going to conference with the House of Representatives. As I'm speaking now, the House and Senate have informally agreed on 99 percent of all the issues and have drafted an agreement which has bicameral and bipartisan support. The remaining three issues are sort of side shows, and I'm confident we'll be able to move from the one yard line to the end zone. My remarks this morning relate the agreement we've reached on the core bankruptcy issues and the continuing need for bankruptcy reform. As I've stated before on the Senate floor, 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 isn't true. Even the 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's why the bill that passed the Senate--as well as the final bicameral 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 agreement on bankruptcy preserves fair access to bankruptcy for people truly in need. These are 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, we have a burgeoning stock market and most Americans are optimistic about the future. 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. 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 non? 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 would 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 wouldn't be fair. But that's exactly the system we have now. Fundamental bankruptcy reform is clearly in order. Mr. President, I want my colleagues to know that the bicameral 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. The bicameral agreement also makes chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code permanent. This means that America's family farms are guaranteed the ability to reorganize as our farm economy continues to be weak. As we all know from our recent debate on emergency farm aid, while prices have rebounded somewhat, farmers in my home State of Iowa and across the Nation are getting some of the lowest prices every for pork, corn, and soybeans. And fuel prices have shot up through the roof. The bicameral agreement broadens the definition of ``family farmer'' and permits farmers in chapter 12 to avoid crushing capital gains taxes when selling farm assets to generate cash flow. It would be highly irresponsible of my liberal friends to continue blocking bankruptcy protections for our family farmers in this time of need. The bicameral agreement is solidly bi-partisan and will pass by a huge margin when it comes up for a vote. The bill is fair and contains some of the broadest consumer protections of any legislation passed in the last decade. So, how can any person possibly argue against a bill which strengthens consumer protections while cracking down on abuses by the well-to-do? The tiny handful of fringe radicals who oppose bankruptcy reform have waged a disinformation campaign worthy of a Soviet Commissar. A recent article in Time Magazine 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. What's 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. For the convenience of my colleagues, I have collected the actual bankruptcy petitions of the families referred to in the Time article, and I will provide them to any Senator. Time fails to mention the massive new consumer protections in our bankruptcy reform bill. Time 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 people 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. The truth is bankruptcies hurt real people. Sometimes that will be inevitable. But it's 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. Let me share what my constituents are telling me. I ask unanimous consent to have some of their comments printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, bankruptcy reform will happen. Our cause is right and just, and average Americans are strongly supportive of restoring fairness to the bankruptcy system. I am going to yield the floor now. Before I do, I thank Senator Biden, who is next to speak on this subject. If it had not been for Senator Biden working with us in a bipartisan way to get bankruptcy reform, it would never have passed by the wide margin of 84-13. He is a sincere person working on this. He has contributed immensely to it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.