Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending consent regarding the Wellstone amendment be temporarily suspended and the Senate now resume the Dodd amendment No. 2532, and there be 10 minutes remaining and a vote occur on or in relation to the amendment at the end of that time. I further ask consent that the Senate then turn to the Wellstone amendment and that all debate but 1 hour equally divided be used during the session of the Senate today. I also ask that 1 hour of debate occur on Wednesday, November 17, and a vote occur on or in relation to the amendment at the conclusion or the yielding back of time, provided that a vote in relation to the Wellstone amendment occur prior to a cloture vote, if cloture is filed on the bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Five minutes on our side and 5 minutes on the other side.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will be somewhat repetitive of what Senator Reid has said, but I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside, and that the Senate now proceed to amendment No. 2515, and following the reporting by the clerk, the amendment be modified with the text I now send to the desk, and that the amendment be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, and when people understand what we are up to, there will not be any objection. We have a unanimous consent request on the managers' amendment that will take 30 seconds. I would like to get that out of the way.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. Second, I thank the Senator for being a very cooperative member of the Judiciary Committee to help Members move the bill out of committee, particularly on this very issue that he has brought to the floor. He was hoping to bring this up in committee. It would have been very divisive in committee. It probably would have kept Members from getting the bill out of committee. He cooperated fully. I said when he brought it to the floor I would speak for and support his amendment. I am here to do that. But I think it is more important I tell him and his constituents who are interested in bankruptcy reform that he has been very helpful through this process. One of the most unfair aspects of the bankruptcy code is the ability of very wealthy people to shield large amounts of assets in homesteads. As do many parts of our bankruptcy laws, the homestead exemption has a noble purpose. I don't deny that. That noble purpose is to protect the poorest of the poor from being thrown out into the streets to pay creditors. Everybody is entitled to a roof over their head. As so many parts of our bankruptcy laws, this noble idea has been perverted by rich scoundrels and well-paid bankruptcy lawyers. Obviously, we need to do something about any part of the law that lets people hide money while paying nothing to their creditors. We said one of the motivations of this legislation is to make sure that the people who have the ability to pay who go into bankruptcy are not going to get off scot-free. Allowing people to shield assets while paying nothing to their creditors creates perverse incentives for wealthy scoundrels. A recent General Accounting Office study on this subject confirms the homestead exemption is used by a select few to avoid paying their bills. Unlike other areas where Congress attempts to regulate with very little constitutional basis for doing so, the text of the Constitution in this instance gives Congress the authority to set uniform bankruptcy laws, one of the specific powers of Congress in article I. A homestead cap with a provision allowing some States to opt out and to have unlimited homestead will continue the unfairness of current law and will run counter to our constitutional mandate to have uniform bankruptcy laws. I support a strong cap and oppose a State opt-out. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Our colleagues should also be aware the underlying bill deals with very wealthy people in bankruptcy by pushing them in chapter 11 with special modifications designed to deal with individuals instead of corporations. Allowing the super rich to live high on the hog is a more widespread problem than homestead abuse. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his leadership in this area.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. We also yield the remainder of the time on this side. I assume we can go to a vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I make my final point, and then yield the floor--hopefully, the Senator from Vermont will hear this--I hope we can get some agreement on both sides to yield back some time when the present speakers are done speaking. The issue of household goods is where I left off when the Senator from Vermont asked me to yield for a minute. On this next statement, I might surprise Senator Dodd and some of my colleagues, but I do somewhat agree with what was said last night. Under the bankruptcy code, household goods can't be seized by creditors. The point, as I understand it, from the Senator from Connecticut, is that perhaps the definition of household goods in the bill now could be loosened up so creditors can't get certain essential household items. I do see merit in this point. If the Senator from Connecticut were to modify his amendment just to deal with household goods, I would be pleased to work with him on that to get the bill accepted. But right now, the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut does much more than just deal with the household goods issue. I simply can't accept the other changes he has suggested. Finally, last night, the Senator from Louisiana raised some criticism of the provision of the bill that fights fraud. Here is the problem we must address in doing bankruptcy reform: Some people load up on debts on the eve of declaring bankruptcy and then, of course, what they try to do to wipe those debts away by getting a discharge. Obviously, this is a type of fraud that Congress needs to protect against for the honest consumers who are paying that additional $400 per year. The bill now says debts for luxury items purchased within 90 days of bankruptcy in excess of $250 and also cash advances on credit cards made within 70 days in excess of $750 are presumed to be nondischargeable. Now, again, this is very flexible on its face. Under the bill now, you can't buy $249 worth of luxury items such as caviar the day before you declare bankruptcy and still walk away scot-free. Under the bill now, you can get $749 worth of cash advances minutes before you declare bankruptcy and still walk away scot-free. The question we have to answer is, How much more fraud do we want to tolerate in this bill? Haven't we tolerated enough in this bipartisan compromise, which I thank the Senator from New Jersey for working so hard with me on to get it put together? So we go to the amendment offered last night. This would allow $1,000 worth of fraud. In my view, that is way off base. So if you want to crack down on out and out fraud, you should support this bill Senator Torricelli and I have introduced. If you want to make it easier for crooks to game the bankruptcy system and to get a free ride at everybody else's expense, then you should support the amendment that was offered last night. Well, obviously, unless the Senator from Connecticut would modify his amendment to limit it to household goods, I oppose that amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Two hours equally divided. Would the Chair please tell us how much time is left?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Is this within the timeframes we already have under the agreement?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, and I won't.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I consume. First of all, on the issue of the Hatch-Abraham-Ashcroft amendment on drugs that is now before the Senate, I am very pleased that this action is being taken on this bill by the Senate because any action we can take to stiffen the laws against drug use, to discourage drug use, or anything else connected with the horrors of drug use and abuse in America is a very important thing for the Senate to be working on because drug abuse is a serious problem. I believe the methamphetamine antiproliferation amendment that is before us will assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials, treatment professionals, prevention groups, and others who are on the front lines of the drug fight. So I will take a few minutes to highlight some important sections of this amendment. In particular, I am happy to see additional resources in this legislation for training programs for State and local law enforcement officials. That is because methamphetamine is a new challenge for law enforcement. Of course, this methamphetamine problem is spreading across America. It may just be a California and Midwest issue right now, but it will not be long before it will be an issue all over the United States because, unlike other drugs that have to be imported, meth can be produced here in the United States with recipes available off the Internet. It can be made from chemicals available at your local drugstore. These home-grown laboratories contain chemicals and chemical combinations that are hazardous both to the environment and to the people. They are potentially explosive. Even in my State of Iowa, some people have been injured in the process of making drugs. Most importantly, when it comes to law enforcement or for an individual who is violating the law by making methamphetamines, the disposal of this laboratory requires specialized handling. We have all heard these horror stories about the dangers methamphetamine labs pose to both the manufacturers and to the people in the neighborhood. Because of the smell associated with it, you find a lot of this going on in the really rural parts of our States. So what this means is, the local county sheriff has more risk. Because of this, there is a need for training and for more equipment to clean up these labs. This amendment provides for additional training opportunities for State and local law enforcement in techniques used in meth investigations. It supports training in handling meth manufacturing chemicals and chemical waste from meth production. In addition, this amendment provides for additional DEA agents to assist State and local law enforcement in small and midsized communities in all phases of drug investigations, including foreign language assistance, investigative assistance, and drug prevention assistance. I am pleased to see the proposal Representative Matt Salmon and I have worked on to encourage Government web sites to include antidrug information in this legislation. This is the second provision of this bill about which I am very happy. Positive antidrug messages are an affordable and creative way to especially reach the young audience. Funding is needed for research to discover chemical agents that can be added to anhydrous ammonia to make it unusable for meth manufacture. This is a long-term solution that has the potential to be very beneficial. The authorized funding provided for in this bill will allow continued and expanded research to find an appropriate additive to ensure anhydrous ammonia can not be misused. In the agricultural regions of the United States, a nitrogen additive to the soil is used to get a greater amount of productivity. That is involved with the raising of corn in the Midwest, as an example. Anhydrous ammonia is a source of nitrogen that farmers knife into the ground. We have seen these clandestine methamphetamine laboratories steal the anhydrous ammonia to use it in manufacturing methamphetamine. It is very dangerous to steal anhydrous ammonia. We have even had people hurt by that. But it is a cheap way to get some of the ingredients for this product. So what we want to do, through this research--and Iowa State University is involved in this research--is to have a chemical agent that can be added to anhydrous ammonia so if a person steals it from the tanks that are around the countryside during the period of time when farmers are putting it on in the spring of the year, it won't do the manufacturer of methamphetamine any good because it would not be able to be used at that point--if such a chemical additive can be made. A vital part of this bill, then, is the growing problem of this theft of anhydrous ammonia. States have even adopted tougher laws to combat the theft of anhydrous ammonia. But because these are separate State laws--the laws are not uniform --this has encouraged thieves to steal anhydrous in one State and transport it to an adjoining State with lesser penalties where it is used for the manufacture of methamphetamine. A Federal statute, as provided for in this amendment, will provide a strong deterrent to thieves who cross State lines to avoid stiffer penalties back home. Last night, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, and the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, came to the floor to offer an amendment which would essentially gut this entire bill. In the process, they made some statements about the bill which, with all due respect to my very capable colleagues, are very inaccurate statements and analyses of this legislation. I would like to clear the air today on some points they made. I will hit three points they made: First, their analysis of my means test in this bankruptcy reform legislation; second, what is the proper definition of household goods; and, third, their judgment of the antifraud provisions, which would prohibit loading up on debt right before bankruptcy. I will respond to each of these points. This will not take me long, for those colleagues who are waiting to speak. First, the means test we now have in this bill is very flexible. Some of my colleagues would say it is too flexible. The means test says if a debtor in chapter 7 can pay $15,000 or 25 percent of his or her debts over a 5-year period after deducting living expenses and certain other types of expenses, such as child support, then that debtor in bankruptcy may have to repay some portion of the debts owed. Paying some portion of debts owed is very legitimate because the signal we are trying to send in this bill is, no longer will anybody get off scot- free if they have the ability to pay. If a bankrupt is in some sort of unique or special situation, the means test in this bill allows that person to explain his or her situation to the judge or to the trustee and actually get out of paying these debts. Again, a lot of my colleagues say, why would you have a provision like that in this bill? If somebody has special circumstances or not, if they owe, they ought to pay. Well, it is an attempt to make changes that are dramatically different, even with these compromises, than what we have had as a law of the land since 1978. If there are these special expenses which are both reasonable and necessary, and this reduces repayment ability, then, as I said, the debtor doesn't have to repay his or her debt. That is a simple process that everyone can understand. Somehow that has been interpreted by some people in this body as not actually doing what the bill says, or they are reading the bill a different way. I want to clear this up. The way we determine living expenses in the bill is to use a very simple template established by the Internal Revenue Service for repayment plans involved in back taxes. I am going to read from a chart. This study was done by the General Accounting Office. It noted, in this June 1999 report to Congress about bankruptcy reform, that the template we use as a basis for this legislation, to allow the debtor to declare necessary living expenses, does include child care expenses, dependent care expenses, health care expenses, and other expenses which are necessary living expenses. Right here is where it says: Other necessary expenses. I want this very clear, that this legislation allows, as you can see, child care, dependent care, health care, payroll deductions, on and on, life insurance. Let anybody tell me on the floor of this body that this is not a flexible test to accommodate very extraordinary circumstances or very regular circumstances. So the suggestion last night that the bill is unfair because it doesn't allow for child care expenses or these other expenses associated with raising children is misplaced. According to the General Accounting Office, the Internal Revenue Service living standards--and these standards are the basis for the court to decide the ability to repay--in the bill now provide that any --I emphasize any--necessary expense can be taken into account. So, again, how much more flexible can we get? The only living expenses not allowed under our bill are very unnecessary and unreasonable 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 or live in extravagant homes and take posh vacations. And there is no reason why we have a $40 billion bankruptcy problem in this country, and that honest people in this country, a family of four are paying $400 a year more in additional costs for the goods and services they buy to make up for deadbeats who aren't paying, and that we have to put up with still other people who have the capability of paying to live high on the hog. I think what is really behind the effort is the desire to have a means test which, quite frankly, doesn't do anything. Why have the bill at all? We could continue to go on under the 1978 law, where we doubled the number of bankruptcies in the last 6 or 7 years, from 700,000 to 1.4 million--an irresponsible public policy. Before I ever introduced this bill, I made numerous compromises to make the means test flexible, as I have said--more flexible, in fact. Some of the changes have even been suggested by this Democrat administration. They were suggested at the end of the last Congress when a bill that passed here 97-1 didn't get through. This bill has incorporated some of those. It is a compromise bill. I have taken heat from my side of the aisle for that.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to have the Senator from Minnesota have the floor to make a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have 5 seconds for a unanimous consent request after the amendment is offered.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. With respect to the individual amendments that the Senator from Vermont just gave details of, I ask unanimous consent the amendments listed be considered en bloc, agreed to en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. They are amendments Nos. 2745, 1723, 1731, 2743, 1714, 1715, 1725, 1726, 2654, 1727, 2514.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered en bloc, and modifications be considered agreed to, where noted, that the amendments be agreed to, en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate. I will give you the amendment Nos.: Amendment No. 1722 by Mr. Robb, as modified; amendment No. 2530 by Mr. Byrd, as modified; amendment No. 2546 by Mr. Bennett; amendment No. 2749 by Mr. Feingold dealing with PACs; amendment No. 2750 by Mr. Feingold dealing with FEC fine; amendment No. 2758 by Mr, Roth and Mr. Moynihan, as modified--I will send that modification to the desk--amendment No. 2768 by Mr. Levin; amendment No. 2772 by Mr. Levin, as modified--that modification will be sent to the desk--amendment No. 2528 by Mr. Leahy; amendment No. 2664 by Mr. Kohl; and amendment No. 2665 by Mr. Kohl. I send the modifications to the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we can proceed, then, to our adoption of some amendments on which we have agreement.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 9, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. to consider certain pending military nominations.