Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are on legislation we started Thursday night. We had discussion this Friday, although we had no votes on any amendments to the bankruptcy reform bill. I hope we can move forward with this legislation and get it passed before we adjourn. This is the same piece of legislation that passed the Senate by a 97- 1 vote in 1998. It was conferenced with the House. The conference committee report passed the House of Representatives by a very wide margin. The bill came to the Senate in the last 3 or 4 days of the session with a threat of long debates and filibusters against the conference report. Consequently, a bill that passed 97-1, probably coming out of the conference more favorable to the point of view of those who still had some questions about it. Yet a lot of those Members did not want that bill to go to final passage. Therefore, the last Congress ended with the bankruptcy conference report not passing. We started over again in the new Congress. Since the first of the year, Senator Torricelli of New Jersey and I have been working on this legislation to bring our colleagues a bipartisan approach to bankruptcy reform that we hope will end the situation of some people who have the ability to repay some debt getting off scot-free. We think this legislation is a big step in that direction. In my earlier statements on the Senate floor on Thursday and Friday, I alluded to the role that overly aggressive bankruptcy lawyers play in the current crisis of our bankruptcy system. Although I cannot statistically support it, when I refer to the role of overly aggressive bankruptcy lawyers I really think, in my heart, we are talking about a very small minority of bankruptcy lawyers. Still, there are those who play a role in people going into bankruptcy who I do not think the bankruptcy laws were ever intended to help, or, in any case, harming people who have a debt owed to them which is not paid. One of the major problems with the bankruptcy system is the mind-set of some of the lawyers who specialize in bankruptcy. Many lawyers today view bankruptcy simply as an opportunity to make money for themselves with a minimal amount of effort. And this profit motive causes bankruptcy lawyers to promote bankruptcy even when a financially troubled client has the obvious ability to repay his or her debts. As one of the members of the National Bankruptcy Commission noted in the Commission's 1997 report, many who make their living off of the bankruptcy process have forgotten that declaring bankruptcy has a moral dimension. Bankruptcy lawyers shouldn't counsel someone to walk away from his or her debts without pointing out the moral consequences of making a promise to pay and then breaking that promise. As I have said before, it cannot be good for the moral foundation of our nation if people learn that it is okay just to walk away and not pay your bills because that's easier and more convenient, and obviously better for somebody's pocketbook. All across America some of the more unsavory bankruptcy lawyers have created high-volume law offices that herd people into bankruptcy as if they were cattle instead of individual human beings in need of advice and counseling. These offices are known as bankruptcy mills. These bankruptcy mills are nothing more than large scale processing centers for bankruptcy--there is little or no investigation done as to whether an individual actually needs bankruptcy protection or whether or not a person is able to at least partially repay their debts. For example, one bankruptcy attorney from Texas was sanctioned by a bankruptcy court for operating a bankruptcy mill. According to the court, this attorney had very little knowledge of bankruptcy law, but advertised extensively in the yellow pages and on television. Apparently, his advertising worked, because he filed about 100 new bankruptcy cases per month. Most of the work was done by legal assistants with very limited training. The court concluded that the attorney's services Amount to little more than a large scale petition preparer service for which he receives an unreasonably high fee. The practices of bankruptcy mills are so deceptive and sleazy that the Federal Trade Commission went so far as to issue a consumer alert warning consumers of misleading ads promising debt consolidation. I refer you to this Federal Trade Commission Consumer News Bulletin, right here on this chart. It refers to a question, Debt Got You Down? You are not alone. Consumer debt is at an all-time high. What's more, record numbers of consumers-- more than 1 million in 1996--are filing for bankruptcy. Whether your debt dilemma is the result of an illness, unemployment, or simply overspending, it can seem overwhelming. In your effort to get solvent, be on the alert for advertisements that offer seemingly quick fixes. While the ads pitch the promise of debt relief, they rarely say relief may be spelled b-a-n-k-r-u-p-t-c-y. And, although bankruptcy is one option to deal with financial problems, it's generally considered the option of last resort. The reason: Its long-term negative impact on your creditworthiness. A bankruptcy stays on your credit report for 10 years, and can hinder your ability to get credit, a job, insurance, or even a place to live. I think that there is a widespread recognition that bankruptcy lawyers are preying on unsophisticated consumers who need counseling and help with setting up a budget, but who do not need to declare bankruptcy. It is not surprising, Mr. President, that bankruptcy lawyers are leading the charge against bankruptcy reform. Now, we have heard complaints from some on the Senate floor about protecting child support and alimony during bankruptcy proceedings. I want to point out that some bankruptcy lawyers actually advertise that they can help deadbeat dads get out of paying their child support and other marital obligations. One bankruptcy lawyer has even written a book entitled ``Discharging Marital Obligations in Bankruptcy.'' Some things about that book are displayed on this chart. I think that it is outrageous that bankruptcy lawyers are helping deadbeats to cheat divorced spouses out of alimony and to cheat children out of child support. This is a recipe for promoting poverty and human misery. Those who are concerned about protecting child support should join with me in condemning this sort of amoral conduct. Bankruptcy was never designed for the purpose of helping deadbeat spouses escape their financial obligations. Not only are the current practices of bankruptcy lawyers a disservice to their clients, they also cheat society as a whole. Mr. President, I ask consent to have printed in the Congressional Record an article from the Los Angeles Times dated August 12, 1998.

Mr. GRASSLEY. In this article, bankruptcy lawyers are advised to send out letters to anyone who has visited them recently asking about bankruptcy. This form letter encourages people to declare bankruptcy because, if Congress passes bankruptcy reform, ``Bankruptcy will be much more difficult, more expensive, and probably embarrassing.'' I hope this bill makes bankruptcy more embarrassing and more difficult. Opinion polls clearly show that the American people want those who voluntarily incur debts to pay those debts as agreed. Bankruptcy should be difficult, and the moral stigma that used to be associated with bankruptcy should be resurrected. I have reviewed the conduct of bankruptcy mills and bankruptcy lawyers to illustrate the need for Congress to hold bankruptcy lawyers accountable for unethical and dishonest conduct. In the bill before us, we have tried to do this by codifying rule 11 penalties for lawyers who needlessly steer people into the bankruptcy system. It's my hope that these penalties will cause lawyers to think twice before they willy- nilly cart off their clients to bankruptcy court without asking a few questions first. I would have preferred tougher penalties, as we had in last year's Senate Bill, But I understand that many on the other side of the aisle strongly object to tougher penalties. So, in an effort to work with the other side, this year's penalties aren't as tough as they were last year. As I've said many times, the bankruptcy crisis is partly a moral crisis. And bankruptcy lawyers who push bankruptcy play the role of carnival barkers who promise an easy way out to anyone who will listen. As it stands now, this bankruptcy reform bill, S. 625, merely requires attorneys to investigate the financial resources of their clients before putting them into bankruptcy. That is not too much to ask and, it seems to me, something basic when advising people according to the tenets of the legal profession. Our bankruptcy system needs to be reformed in a balanced way. We need to address abuses by debtors who do not need bankruptcy. We need to address abuses by creditors who use coercive and deceptive practices to cheat honest debtors. And we need to address abuses by bankruptcy lawyers who exploit bankruptcy laws for financial gain. As I said before, I prefer tougher penalties against bankruptcy lawyers, but this bill is a step in the direction of addressing the problems of fast-talking bankruptcy lawyers. Does the Senator from Minnesota seek the floor?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. I yield the floor. Amendments Nos. 2537 and 2538

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senators Warner, Chafee, and Reed have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 316, H.R. 2724.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 350, H.R. 3061.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 376, S. 923.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 any statements relating to this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1730 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there does not appear to be an effort on the part of Members to consider this bill which is up for discussion. It will take a few days to get through all the amendments. Given the lateness of the year as far as the total legislative session is concerned and considering all the other work that needs to be done to wind up this legislative session, there may not be an appreciation of all the amendments we have to deal with on this bill. I encourage Members who have amendments to come here on the floor to offer their amendments. This bill is very complex. Some of the amendments are also going to be very complex. So please come here and offer your amendments. Amendment No. 1730 (Purpose: To amend title 11, United States Code, to provide for health care and employee benefits, and for other purposes)

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have a situation now in which several nursing home chains, maybe even some independent nursing homes, are going into bankruptcy. When this happens, we do not have public policy in place to guarantee the economic and accounting decisions that the bankruptcy involves take into consideration the needs of the residents of these nursing homes. If a hospital goes bankrupt, the basic question then is, What happens to the patients? The moving of elderly patients, particularly those who have been in a single nursing home for a long period of time, is a very traumatic experience. Many times, the trauma that results from that removal leads to almost immediate death. I suppose a more accurate statement would be that under any circumstance, patients' welfare varies from case to case. If a bankruptcy trustee is thinking about patients, he may act to protect them. If he is not thinking about the patients, they could end up on the street. This has happened before, and it could happen again. The amendment I am offering today with Senator Torricelli and Senator Leahy would modify our bankruptcy laws to deal with the failures of health care businesses. Our intent is simply to protect patients in a system that is not designed to protect them. The fate of patients caught in business failures does not always make headlines. But when it does, the stories can be quite moving. The Los Angeles times on September 28, just 2 years ago, described the terrible consequences of a sudden nursing home closing: It could not be determined Saturday how many more elderly and chronically ill patients may be affected by the health care company's financial problems. Those at the Reseda Care Center in the San Fernando Valley, including a 106-year-old woman, were rolled into the street late Friday in wheelchairs and on hospital beds, bundled in blankets, as relatives scurried to gather up clothes and other personal belongings. As horrifying as this example is, it could easily be repeated. What happened at the Reseda Care Center, less than 2 years ago, could happen again and again across the country. The Nation's bankruptcy laws are geared towards creditors and debtors. One purpose of the bankruptcy system is to ensure that creditors receive what debtors owe them. To this end, bankruptcy trustees concentrate narrowly on the bottom line. They try to maximize the amount of money returned to creditors. In a system so focused on finances, the human toll is often merely an ancillary concern. Unfortunately, the poor financial conditions that led to the Reseda Care Center's collapse are increasing. Large portions of the health care industry are financially ailing. Almost one-third of our hospitals could face foreclosure. At least two of the Nation's largest nursing home chains are in deep financial trouble and may file for bankruptcy. We have had some chains already do that. Two large nursing home chains that declared bankruptcy, before they declared bankruptcy, had already cut 10,000 jobs. An increasing number of home health agencies are shutting their doors. All in all, health care business failures were up 15.5 percent between 1996 and 1997. Thousands of patients tie their fate to health care providers. They have no alternative. Yet Federal law shows absolutely no consideration for patients' well-being during the process of bankruptcy. While the State of California has tried to prevent any more surprise nursing home evictions, each Federal bankruptcy judge decides whether any State law applies in an individual case. No Federal law protects patients in bankruptcy cases. With simple changes to the bankruptcy code, our amendment will fill this very dangerous gap in patient protection. Specifically, one section covers the disposal of patient records. It provides clear and specific guidance to trustees who may not be aware of State or Federal requirements for maintaining these records, or confidentiality issues associated with patient records. Another section of our amendment makes the cost of closing a health care business, such as transferring patients to another health care facility, a top priority debt. This ensures these expenses will actually be paid. In the ideal situation, though, we want to even keep these patients from being moved if that is possible, and I think it is possible. In fact, we have had the assurances of some of these chains that have gone into bankruptcy already that they are providing for the continuing care of their patients. But perhaps the heart of this amendment, as I point to the third and main part of it, is the requirement that the bankruptcy judge appoint an ombudsman to act as an advocate for patients of health care businesses in bankruptcy. This ensures judges are fully aware of all the facts when they guide health care providers through bankruptcy. Prior to a chapter 11 filing, or immediately thereafter, the debtor may employ a consultant to help in its reorganization effort. The first step is usually cutting costs. Sometimes this step may result in a lower quality of patient care. An ombudsman, under our amendment, would provide an institutional voice for the patients to help ensure an acceptable level of patient care. Our amendment also requires a trustee to make the best effort to transfer patients to another facility in the face of a health care business closing. This is designed to prevent a trustee from putting patients out on the street. Our amendment provides a tremendous benefit for patients with a minimal impact on creditors and debtors. As policymakers, we must eliminate the possibility of midnight evictions at bankrupt nursing homes and hospitals. We must ease the fear of abandonment in individuals who are at a very vulnerable stage in their lives. This is the amendment. We have had about 6 months pass since the first talk of bankruptcies by some major chains in the United States took place. I happen to also be chairman of the Senate Aging Committee. In that capacity, I consulted with HCFA when these first threats of bankruptcy came forth and we did not have the bankruptcy protection for the patients that our amendment proposes. I asked HCFA about plans for this, or what plans each of the States had for States that would have nursing homes in bankruptcy. We found a total vacuum of either Federal concern or Federal policy and, also in most States, that to be the situation. Last spring, I asked the Health Care Financing Administration to start instituting a process that the States will go through as they license nursing homes. They should be concerned with the quality of care in nursing homes and have an interim plan for those nursing homes that go into bankruptcy, pending adoption of our legislation. HCFA has carried out that responsibility very well. We now have word that each of the States have such a plan in place. We want to make sure this is a permanent part of the consideration of bankruptcy courts and, hence, the necessity of our legislation which goes beyond what the Federal Government, through HCFA, and the States through their licensing and quality control departments, has a responsibility to do. They now have in place a plan to deal with nursing home bankruptcies.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I know Senator Torricelli is expected to come to the floor to make a statement. While we are awaiting his arrival, I will address the Senate on a small but very important part of this legislation. That is the one that deals with chapter 12, making it permanent, as part of the bankruptcy reform legislation, so we do not have to, every 4 or 5 years or, as has been the case in the last 12 months, since it has sunsetted, had to reauthorize it two or three times on a short-term basis. We are all in agreement it should be made permanent. People who have opposed making it permanent as a separate bill have thought it was necessary to do it at the same time as we offer the overall bankruptcy reform legislation. Hopefully, with this bill, S. 625, being adopted, we will never in the future have to deal with a separate reauthorization of a sunset chapter 12 because why should we have to sunset chapter 12, a provision that is made specifically for farming, when we don't do it for chapter 13, that is made specifically for individuals or small businesses, or chapter 11 that works very well for major corporations in America. I want to visit with my colleagues about some very important provisions in the bill before us that are vital to family farmers in the Midwest generally, in Iowa in particular, as well as the country as a whole. Agriculture, wherever it is, is something unique and different from a lot of businesses in their situations, where sometimes they have a decline not only in income that might make bankruptcy be considered but also a decline in value of real estate that, previous to chapter 12, made it very difficult to keep up with the needs of a chapter 11 bankruptcy procedure. As we all know from the recent debate we had within the last month on the emergency Ag appropriations bill, many of America's farmers are facing financial ruin. We have some of the lowest commodity prices in 30 years. Pork producers have lost billions of dollars in equity, not just in income but billions of dollars of equity, with the lowest prices of pork in 60 years that we had just 12 months ago. Pork producers have not only lost, but the price of corn is currently well under the cost of production. The cash market for soybeans has reached a 23-year low. This is all in addition to poor weather conditions in parts of the United States, particularly the drought of the East Coast, the drought of Texas, the fires in Florida, and flooding in various parts of the Midwest. These circumstances have sent many farming operations in a tailspin. Clearly, we need to make sure family farmers continue to have bankruptcy protection available to them and a protection that satisfies the uniqueness of farming, as we have had other sections of the code try to be written to meet the uniqueness of other business arrangements within our society and our economy. Particularly, chapter 12 is going to be needed in good times as well as bad times--maybe not used in good times, but it needs to be there to meet the different arrangements of the different segments of the country and also the different drought and flooding conditions that happen from time to time, as well as the unpredictability of the economy, particularly the international economy, when the Southeast Asian financial crisis brought a downturn in our exports and squeezed the farmers' income at this particular time. Title X of S. 625 of this bill makes chapter 12 permanent and makes several changes to chapter 12 to make it more accessible for farmers and to give farmers new tools to assist in reorganizing their financial affairs. Back in the mid-1980s when Iowa was in the midst of another devastating farm crisis, I wrote chapter 12 to make sure 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 in Iowa and across the country are still farming and contributing to America's economy. With a new crisis in farm country now, just 15 years from the last one, we need to make sure chapter 12 is a permanent part of Federal law, and this bankruptcy bill does exactly that. As was the case with the dark days of the mid-1980s, some are predicting that family farms should consolidate and we should turn to corporate farming to supply our food and agricultural products. As with the 1980s, some people seem to think family farms are inefficient relics that should be allowed to go out of business. This would mean the end of an important part of our Nation's economy and a certain heritage that is connected with it. 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 that crisis was very bad as well. It was not only an income crisis, as is the situation now, but there was a tremendous drop in equity at that particular time. I believe chapter 12 is a major reason for the survival of many financially troubled family farms. We have an Iowa State University study prepared by the outstanding Professor Neil Harl. He found that 84 percent of the Iowa farmers who used chapter 12 were able to continue farming. Those are real jobs for all sorts of Iowans in agriculture and in industries that depend upon 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 is fair to say chapter 12 worked in the mid 1980s and it should be made permanent so family farmers in trouble today can get breathing room and a fresh start if that is what they need to make it. But the most obvious reason for having it is that chapter 11, written for corporate America, does not fit the needs of agriculture or the economics of agriculture. The Bankruptcy Reform Act before us doesn't just make chapter 12 permanent. Instead, the bill makes improvements to chapter 12 so it will be more accessible and helpful for those in the agricultural community. First, the definition of the family farmer is widened so that more farmers can qualify for chapter 12 bankruptcy protection. Second, and perhaps most important, my bankruptcy bill reduces the priority of capital gains tax liabilities for farm assets sold as part of a 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 family farm operation. These reforms will make chapter 12 even more effective in protecting America's family farms during this difficult period. So it is really imperative that we keep chapter 12 alive. Before we had chapter 12, banks held a veto over reorganization plans. They would not negotiate with people in agriculture, 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 S. 625 to make sure America's family farms have a fighting chance to reorganize their financial affairs. Before I yield the floor, I see my good friend and coworker on this legislation, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli, has come to the floor to make some remarks. As I said last night and I want to say today, because he wasn't able to be here last night, I really appreciate that from day 1 of our even visiting about the possibility of putting together a bipartisan bill, as we had done in the previous Congress, because he was new to the committee and to this effort, not participating at the committee level in the efforts I had with Senator Durbin of Illinois during the previous Congress on a bill that just about made it through--not knowing those things could work out, we sat down and visited about that possibility. That initial visit brought us to putting together the legislation that is before us, legislation as introduced with the idea that he and I may not have agreed to everything down to the last jot and tittle with that legislation, but that we would be able, through the ensuing months, to work out differences and come to an agreement and get a bill out of committee. He has kept his word, and he has worked with us. I don't know whether people who don't participate in the legislative process know how much easier that is, such a better environment in which to write legislation and to make public policy. I don't see that often enough. I see it in this legislation through the cooperation of Senator Torricelli. Obviously, that sort of cooperation is two ways: He gives; I give. People who look to him for leadership--he has to carry some water for colleagues of his who want him to work things out. I have to do the same thing. But whether it is as a water carrier for our colleagues or whether it is for the individual philosophy of Senator Torricelli or myself, we have been able to bring this together. I thank him for that cooperation. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before the Senator from Vermont leaves the floor, I want to thank him for his comments. He has expressed very well some statements about parts of the bill on which he has questions. I want to assure him, most of those--in fact, the way the Senate works, probably all of those--will have to be addressed in some way through the various amendments which are likely to be adopted. We do have a very close working relationship, even at this point, on some of those things with people on the Senator's side of the aisle. We will try to do that. If I could also make the Senator from Vermont aware of a study he referenced, the study done by the American Bankruptcy Institute on the utility of chapter 7 debtors to repay their debts--the Senator may not know this, but we have had the General Accounting Office look at this study; in fact, all the studies on this question. The General Accounting Office has concluded that this specific study by the American Bankruptcy Institute was flawed. In fact, it understated the repayment ability in a very significant way. I do not expect the Senator to accept that right now, just because I have said it. I hope he will be able to take a look at that and see if there are any remaining questions that he might have which we could address, and if we can't do that and the Senator might be considering some amendments that are a direct result of the American Bankruptcy Institute study, that we would have an opportunity to talk about it before he might move in that direction. Overall, his statement is very accurate, stating some disagreements, some questions he has. Hopefully, we will be able to address those questions.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is one more example of the bipartisan cooperation we have had on this bill. I hope my colleagues will look at this amendment and that it will not become controversial and we can adopt it. When the overall bankruptcy legislation becomes law, we will have appropriate protection, beyond the protection we give to creditors and debtors in this legislation, for the needs of patients as well. We should not have these traumatic experiences that happened in Reseda Nursing Home in San Fernando Valley and the over 100,000 patients who were in jeopardy in the example of the Senator from New Jersey. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have sent a letter to the majority leader requesting that I be consulted on certain nominations. I am asking to be consulted on the nominations of Anthony Harrington to be United States Ambassador to Brazil, Calendar No. 364, and for Charles Manatt to be United States Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, Calendar No. 361. Further, I ask to be consulted on all the promotion lists for career State Department foreign service officers. I take this step reluctantly but believe it is necessary. The administration is required by law to submit to Congress on 1 November every year the so-called Majors' List, the list of major drug producing and trafficking countries that the President intends to certify on 1 March of the following year. The administration has never met this deadline, despite the fact that Congress extended it several years ago from 1 October to 1 November in order to give the administration more time in which to meet the requirement. Last year the list was over a month late. Despite repeated messages that this deliberate flouting of the law was not acceptable, the administration has again failed to submit the list or to offer any explanations. The list has yet to leave the State Department and must still wait for the laborious interagency review process. There is every likelihood that the list will be significantly late again this year. With this as background, I have asked to be consulted on any unanimous-consent requests involving consideration of the nominations I have indicated until such time as the administration complies with the law. I will consider additional requests depending on the delay that is involved in the administration complying. I regret this course but I regret more the administration's failure to comply with the law.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 468) to improve the effectiveness and performance of Federal financial assistance programs, simplify Federal financial assistance application and reporting requirements, and improve the delivery of services to the public.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3122, and that the Senate then proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3122.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. For the information of all Senators, at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, the Senate will immediately resume debate on the bankruptcy reform legislation. As under the agreement, first-degree amendments to the bill must be relevant and filed by 5 p.m. tomorrow. Senators who have amendments are encouraged to work with the bill managers on a time to come to the floor to offer and debate those amendments. The leader has announced that votes could occur tomorrow on amendments or any appropriations bills that become available. The leader also announces that votes will occur on Monday at 5:30 p.m. and on Tuesday morning at 10:30. The votes on Tuesday will be on the minimum wage issue and the business cost amendment. As a reminder, the Senate passed the continuing resolution to continue Government funding until November 10. It is hoped that all Senators will give their full cooperation as the final days of the first session of the 106th Congress come to a close.