Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 232, submitted earlier by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in response to what the Senator from Vermont said, obviously I am in no position to speak for our majority leader or assistant majority leader on some of the things he said. But I do share his view, especially coming from a rural State, as the Senator from Vermont does, that there is very much benefit for our rural constituents in that satellite viewers legislation. I, too, would like to see it pass. I can say again, not for the leader but for myself, I have observed a lot of contact between important Senators around here on that issue. There is a real effort being made to find a solution so that can be passed so on December 31 what you said would happen, and what would actually happen if the bill does not pass will not in fact happen. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene on Friday for a pro forma session only. No business will be transacted on Friday. On Tuesday, the Senate will convene and begin processing the appropriations items and various conference reports received from the House. On Wednesday morning, the Senate will conduct a rollcall vote in relation to the agricultural amendment by Senator Wellstone. Additional votes can be anticipated in an effort to complete the first session of the 106th Congress. Therefore, Senators should adjust their schedules for the possibility of votes throughout the day and into the evening on Wednesday. I appreciate the patience and cooperation of our colleagues as we attempt to complete the appropriations process and end the first session of the 106th Congress.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Friday, November 12, for a pro forma session only. I further ask consent that the Senate immediately adjourn until 10 a.m., on Tuesday, November 16, and immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later that day.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following convention transmitted to the Senate on November 10, 1999, by the President of the United States: Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Treaty Document No. 106-16). I further ask that the convention be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 224 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. It is a 6-month extension.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1916 introduced earlier by Senator McCain.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Nos. 59, 98, 99, 133, 203, 204, 244, 245, 246, 253, 254, 255, 256, 270, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 238, 239, 281 through 290, 293, 321, 322 through 325, 328, 330, 335 through 342, 344 through 365, 367 through 376, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 393, 395, 396, 397, 398, 402, 403, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Foreign Service. In addition, I ask unanimous consent the nomination of Paul Fiddick be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and that the Senate proceed to that nomination, en bloc. I further ask unanimous consent the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed immediately to the executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: No. 401, and nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy. I finally ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside, and I call up amendment No. 2648, and ask that the amendment be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to point out the big deal the Senator from Connecticut made about the IRS regulations and the guidelines not mentioning the word ``children.'' The point is very clear, from the General Accounting Office, but in their study of the IRS guidelines, under a category ``other necessary expenses,'' if it does not mention children, if it does not take the needs of children into consideration, what in the heck do the words ``child care'' mean? What does ``dependent care'' mean, if the needs of children are not taken into consideration? It may not be mentioned in the IRS guidelines per se, but under ``other necessary expenses,'' it is very clear that the needs of every child will be taken care of. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute so I can have the same 1 minute the other side had.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the Senator from Delaware 1 minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this bill, the original bill, contains many provisions to help collect past due child support. This is not just the authors saying this. These provisions are endorsed by the prosecutors who actually enforce child support laws. On another point, in response to what the Senator from Connecticut has said, if one is under the median income, the means test doesn't even apply to that person. The people Senator Dodd is worried about won't be affected. In a more broad sense, this amendment should be defeated. First, the means test we now have in the bill is very flexible. The charge has been that we are not flexible enough. I will point out that flexibility. If a bankrupt is in a unique or special situation, our bill, the means test, allows that person to explain his or her situation to the judge or to the trustee and thus get out of paying these debts if there are special expenses. If these special expenses are both reasonable and necessary and this reduces repayment ability, the debtor doesn't have to repay his or her debts. The way we determine living expenses in this bill is to use a template established by the Internal Revenue Service for repayment plans involving back taxes. I have a chart and a study of the bill which was done by the General Accounting Office. The General Accounting Office noted in its June 1999 report, which was to Congress, and a report about bankruptcy reform, that this template includes a provision allowing a debtor to claim child care expenses, dependent care expenses, health care expenses, or other expenses which are necessary living expenses. Tell me, with all these things included, and with the General Accounting Office backing up the intent of our legislation, that this bill is not flexible, that this bill does not take into consideration the living expenses and needs of the potential person in bankruptcy. This is, frankly, as flexible as you can get. According to the General Accounting Office and the Internal Revenue Service, living standards in the bill now provide that any necessary expense can be taken into account. The only living expenses not allowed under this bill are unnecessary and unreasonable expenses. What is wrong with not allowing unreasonable and unnecessary expenses? The only people who oppose the means test as currently written are people who want deadbeats looking to stiff their creditors to dine on fancy meals and to live in extravagant homes and to take posh vacations. On the issue of household goods, this might by a surprise to the Senator from Connecticut, but I tend to agree with some of what he said now and last night. If Senator Dodd were to modify his amendment, just to deal with household goods, I will be pleased to work with him on that, to get the amendment accepted. But his amendment does much more than just deal with the household goods issues. I simply cannot accept these other changes. Finally, this amendment by the Senator from Connecticut makes fraud much easier because the problem we must address in doing bankruptcy reform is that some people load up on debts on the eve of bankruptcy and then try to wipe out those debts, wipe them all away, by getting a discharge. Obviously, this is a type of fraud which Congress needs to protect against. The bill now says that debts for luxury items purchased within 90 days of bankruptcy in excess of $250, and cash advances on credit cards made within 70 days in excess of $750, are presumed to be nondischargeable. This is pretty flexible on its face. Under the bill now, you can buy $249 worth of luxury items such as caviar the day before you declare bankruptcy and still walk away scot- free. Under the bill, you can get $749 worth of cash advances minutes before you declare bankruptcy and still walk away scot-free. But this is not enough for the people proposing this amendment. So the question we have to answer is how much fraud do we want to tolerate? This amendment is way off base. If you want to crack down on out-and-out fraud, and that is what we are talking about, you should support the bill and you should be against this amendment because by supporting the amendment, you make it easier for crooks to game the bankruptcy system and get a free ride at everyone else's expense. Consequently, if you do not want to do that, you will not support the Dodd amendment. I oppose the amendment and I ask my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Can we move forward with the agreement?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Then the answer is yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. As far as I am concerned, the answer is yes. But let me say it is my understanding under the agreement we have now that there can be an objection to the Senator offering her amendment if, for instance, somebody on the Banking Committee----

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am trying to satisfy the Senator from California, although I don't think I can do any better than the Senator from Nevada has just done. But I pled for two reasons. No. 1, I still hope to work with the Senator from Texas, the chairman of the Banking Committee, to see what we can do to facilitate the amendment, whether it is now or a week from now or next year, if we aren't finished with this bill. No. 2, we are trying to get to a situation where we can get to a vote, which is something we promised a Member who has been waiting for a long, long time. We still have the third situation where Senator Reid and I are going to sit down with our staffs to see what we can do with all of the amendments so we know where we are and have a complete picture. That is why I would plead with her to let the unanimous consent request go through.