Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, because of the lowest commodity prices in a quarter century in the Midwest and probably every place else in the United States, I support the conference report we are considering this afternoon. While there are elements of the legislation that I might not support, or would rather not have in the bill, I think the greater good is served by passing this legislation as quickly as possible. The sooner we pass this legislation, the sooner we can assist the family farmer. That was our intention when we began this process the first week of August, and I am glad to see it will be accomplished in the near future. As everyone is aware, there is a crisis in rural America due to these low commodity prices. I made a promise 3 years ago to guarantee a smooth transition from big government command and control to a market- driven agricultural economy. We predicted 3 years ago, in the 1996 farm bill, that that smooth transition would require about $5.5 billion for the year 1999. We didn't anticipate the lowest prices in 25 years and, obviously, that transition turned out to be more difficult than we anticipated. To remedy the situation we have added economic assistance in this bill that we did not predict was necessary three years ago. A number of factors have contributed to the downturn in the agriculture economy that we have experienced over the last 18 months. I would like to tell you that the answer to our problem is as easy as changing the 1996 farm bill. But, in fact, the economics involved are complex and international. For example, we saw soybean prices take a nosedive a while back, not because of anything we did in this country, but because the Brazilian currency lost one-quarter of its value overnight. Brazil happens to be a major soybean producer and also an exporter. That action also shaved roughly a dollar a bushel off of U.S. soybean prices. Another example is that Asia has been one of our fastest growing and strongest export markets. But when the Asian economy crashed, they could no longer buy American pork and our grain. The financial crisis Asia experienced hurt all our farmers in America, even my friends and neighbors back at New Hartford, Iowa. Global trade manifested by exports has become a mainstay of our Nation's family farmers. Roughly one-fourth of farm receipts today come from overseas sales. Iowa is a significant supplier to the world, being the Nation's No. 2 exporter of agricultural commodities, after California. The solution is to increase our access to world markets by passing fast track and opening doors through the World Trade Organization and other trade agreements, not by limiting our ability to compete in the world market by choking our own production. There are 100 million new mouths to feed every year, almost a billion in the next decade. Farmers someplace in the world are going to feed those new mouths. I would rather it be Iowa or United States products than Brazilian and Argentine products. We can do it and compete. In the short-term though, the most effective means of helping our family farmers in need is providing economic assistance as quickly as possible. The fastest means to provide emergency relief to our farmers is through the AMTA mechanism. I would like to mention that some of my colleagues have criticized our plan to distribute income assistance through the AMTA payment mechanism. I have heard and witnessed statements that would lead some to believe that landowners who do not share in production risk or management are benefiting from this assistance. The 1996 farm bill states that payments are only available to those who ``assume all or part of the risk of producing a crop.'' Recently, 53 Senators signed a bipartisan letter asking Secretary Glickman whether there are payments being made to those who do not share risk in agriculture--risk in a specific farming operation. If that is occurring we have requested in the letter to Secretary Glickman that the proper disciplinary action for any official approving payments in this manner be administered. But if this is not happening, I apologize for my colleagues who have delayed the process by making baseless claims due to their own ignorance. So the action we take today guarantees the future stability of the family farmer and the agricultural economy. It is with this in mind that I support this cloture motion and hope this bill passes, because within 10 days after getting this bill signed by the President, this money can be distributed to the farmers of America. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I have filed an amendment dealing with child exploitation which I will not press at this time. However, during the conference on the FAA bill, I intend to pursue the matter further. It is my understanding that Senator McCain will be willing to entertain soon an amendment during conference. Is that correct?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I agree with the remarks of my fellow Senator from Iowa. We need to eliminate the slot rule which is detrimental to the air service for cities in Iowa and throughout the Midwest. But, the elimination of slots does need to be done in the proper way. Otherwise the major carriers will absorb all of the capacity of the airport, not [providing sufficient service for small and medium sized cities. We need to provide for service by new entrant carriers that can provide for real competition on the price of tickets, increased ability to provide for turboprops so our smaller cities can have proper service, and regional jets for improved service to mid sized cities. While I am pleased with the action by the House, I do believe that it is important that the conferees support the content of the original Gorton proposal.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I share many of my colleagues concerns about the need to do more to aid Colombia. But I also believe that our aid must be based on a clear and consistent plan, not on good intentions. We do Colombia no favors by throwing money at the problem. We do not help ourselves. Too often, throwing money at a problem is the same thing as throwing money away. For that reason, I, along with Senator Helms and Senator DeWine, am introducing legislation today calling on the U.S. Administration to present a plan. Colombia is the third largest recipient of U.S. security aid behind Israel and Egypt. It is also the largest supplier of cocaine to the United States. But, we seem to find ourselves in the midst of a muddle. Our policy appears to be adrift, and our focus blurred. This past Tuesday, the Caucus on International Narcotics Control held a hearing to ask the Administration for a specific plan and a detailed strategy outlining U.S. interests and priorities dealing with counter- narcotics efforts in Colombia. Before we in Congress get involved in a discussion about what and how much equipment we should be sending to Colombia, we need to discuss whether or not we should send any and why. Recent press reports indicate that the Administration is preparing a security assistance package to Colombia with funding from $500 million dollars to somewhere around $1.5 billion dollars. And yet, Congress hasn't been able to evaluate any strategy. That's because there is none. From the hearing, it seems the Administration is incapable of thinking about the situation with any clarity or articulating a strategy with any transparency. It seems confused as to what is actually happening in Colombia. At Tuesday's hearing, representatives from the Department of State and the Department of Defense assured me they were currently working on a detailed strategy to be unveiled at some future point. So far there have been difficulties in creating a detailed and coherent strategy and presenting it to Congress. Today we are introducing a bill that requires the Secretary of State to submit to Congress within 60 days a detailed report on current U.S. policy and strategy for counter- narcotics assistance for Colombia. This is an issue that will not just simply disappear. Before we begin appropriating additional funding for Colombia, we need strategies and goals, not just piecemeal assistance and operations. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the sense-of- the-Senate resolution regarding diabetes. I thank my colleagues from Maine for sponsoring this resolution. Senator Collins and I were among the original co-founders of the Senate Diabetes Caucus and have worked together to raise awareness of the disease and the need for a cure. Diabetes is a devastating illness that affects people of every age, race, and nationality. More than sixteen million Americans suffer from diabetes and 800,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. Diabetes is also a leading chronic illness affecting children, a special population with which it places an especially heavy burden. Although many people with diabetes are able to survive with multiple daily injections of insulin, it is not a cure for this dreaded disease. Despite the availability of insulin, diabetes continues to cause serious health complications, including kidney failure and blindness, and it is the cause of nearly 200,000 deaths per year. Diabetes costs our nation nearly $100 billion each year in direct and indirect costs. In fact, more than forty billion tax dollars are spent each year in treating people with diabetes through Medicare, Medicaid, veterans and federal employees health benefits. Past investments in diabetes research at the National Institutes for Health (NIH) are beginning to show real promise for a cure and the number of research opportunities in the field continue to expand. We now stand at a pivotal juncture in the fight to cure diabetes and its complications. A report released in February by the congressionally mandated Diabetes Research Working Group (DRWG) called upon NIH to substantially expand its support for diabetes research and has identified specific research recommendations as part of a new national plan to find a cure. On April 26, 1999, a letter signed by myself, Senator Collins, and 37 of our colleagues was sent to Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Harkin in requesting increased funding for diabetes research within NIH in accordance with the DRWG report. And, it is clear from the work of the Senate Appropriations Committee that diabetes has not been neglected. Therefore, in an effort to bolster the work of the committee, and I believe rightly so, this resolution is being introduced today to send a clear signal to all Americans that diabetes is a serious concern of the United States Senate. We have not yet found a cure for diabetes. But, I am confident that in time and with sufficient support, a cure will be found and we will be able to declare victory over this debilitating disease. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Before getting to the big bankruptcy bill, I want to touch on a related matter--the problem of the sunsetting of the agricultural provisions of the bankruptcy code, chapter 12. I believe it is the only section of the bankruptcy code that is sunset from time to time. It is not a permanent part of the bankruptcy code. It was passed about 13 years ago to meet the needs of agriculture in depression in the 1980s, and it has been renewed by Congress continually since then. It has been a very successful part of the bankruptcy code because, of the farmers who have sought the protection of chapter 12, an Iowa State University study indicates that 84 percent are still in business farming, family farmers still farming. We are at a situation where 1 year ago, about this period of time, chapter 12 actually sunset. It was extended for 6 months in the omnibus spending bill because the feeling was that we wanted to take it up at the very same time a revision of the entire bankruptcy code was taken up. The comprehensive bill is the bill that Senator Torricelli has spoken about and which I will discuss shortly. Within that bill, there is a permanency brought to chapter 12 in the bankruptcy code so it will no longer sunset. The March 31 deadline came, and this bill was not up. It was extended yet again for 6 months. I urged the majority leader to extend it for a year because I anticipated some of the problems we have recently faced regarding the bankruptcy code. It was thought by a lot of interests in this city that it was necessary to have chapter 12 not made permanent, separate from the entire bankruptcy law, because it was needed to help get the general bankruptcy revisions through. So it was extended for another 6 months. This week it is going to expire again. It is ludicrous that the House of Representatives, just yesterday, passed only a 3-month extension of chapter 12 so that somehow if we don't get this permanent bankruptcy bill passed, we are going to have chapter 12 expiring again on New Year's Eve. That is a Y2K problem for agriculture we better be alerted to because Congress is not going to be in session on New Year's Eve to renew chapter 12. I hope that when the Senate considers the House version, we ignore it, and we move with a permanent extension of chapter 12 bankruptcy which I introduced last week and which is currently on the calendar. As the Senators from West Virginia, New Jersey, and also the Senator from Montana were just speaking about the agricultural crisis, it is that way in agriculture any place in the United States. This is no time to play footsie with chapter 12 being extended for just a 3-month period of time. Those are games that don't need to be played. They don't do justice to agriculture in America, and they do not put the family farmer in the forefront of our policymaking or thinking in Washington. I want to go to this issue about which Senator Torricelli spoke--the Senate not invoking cloture on the bankruptcy bill last week. While this is unfortunate, I think it is important to say a few words in support of the bill outside of the adversarial context and the very political context of the cloture vote. I think it would really be a tragedy if both parties can't come together and deal with this bill, which has such broad support from Senators on both sides of the aisle. It was voted out of committee by a 14 to 4 vote, very bipartisan. Bankruptcy reform is really all about a return to personal responsibility in a bankruptcy system which actively discourages personal responsibility by wiping away debts on a no-questions-asked basis. Basic common sense tells you every time a debt is wiped away through bankruptcy, someone loses money. Of course, when somebody who extends credit has that obligation wiped away in bankruptcy, that creditor is forced to make a decision: Should this loss simply be swallowed as a cost of doing business? Or, do you raise prices for other customers to offset those losses? When bankruptcy losses are rare and infrequent, lenders may be able to swallow a loss. But when bankruptcies are very frequent and common, as they are today, lenders have to raise their prices to offset losses. For this reason, when Treasury Secretary Larry Summers testified at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, he said that bankruptcies tend to drive up interest rates. If you believe Secretary Summers, bankruptcies are everyone's problem. Regular, hard-working Americans have to pay higher prices for goods and services as a result of bankruptcies. That is a real problem for the American people, and one which the Senate has an obligation to tackle. Under our current bankruptcy laws, someone can get full debt cancellation in chapter 7 with no questions asked. If we pass our reform bill, if someone seeking bankruptcy can repay his or her debts, they will be channeled into chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code, which requires people to pay some portion of their debts as a precondition for limited debt cancellation. The bankruptcy bill, which the Senate will hopefully consider soon, will discourage bankruptcies and, therefore, lessen upward pressure on interest rates and prices. Right now, under present bankruptcy laws, one of the richest captains of industry could walk into bankruptcy court and walk away with his debts erased. Of course, the rest of America will pay higher prices for goods and services as a result. If we pass this bill, higher-income people will be unable to use bankruptcy as a financial planning tool. All Americans will be better off. The message of Senate bill 625 is simple: If you have the ability to pay debt, you will not get off scot-free. These are good times in our Nation, thanks to the fiscal discipline initiated by Congress, and the hard work of the American people--and more due to the hard work of the American people than what we have done in Congress. We have the first balanced budget in a generation, unemployment is low, we have a burgeoning stock market. Most Americans, except for the American farmers who are in a depression, are optimistic about the future. But in the midst of such prosperity, about one and a half million Americans declared bankruptcy in 1998. Based on filings for the first two quarters of 1999, it looks like there will be just under 1.4 million bankruptcy filings for this year. To put this in some historical context, since 1990, the rate of personal bankruptcy filings has increased almost 100 percent. Now, I don't think anyone knows all of the reasons--I don't pretend to know either--underlying the bankruptcy crisis. But I think I can talk about what is not at the root of the bankruptcy crisis. I have a chart here that has four smaller charts on it that I think demonstrates it is not the economy that is driving the crisis. Here we have the high rise in bankruptcies over the last 6 years, a very rapid near 100-percent increase in bankruptcy filings. We have, during that same period of time, a very dramatic drop in unemployment in the country. We have a very sharp rise in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. We have a rise in the average wage of American workers. This shows that it is not the economy that is causing so many bankruptcies. The economic numbers tell us that the bankruptcy crisis isn't a result of people who can't get jobs; and the jobs that people do have are paying more than ever. So the bankruptcy crisis isn't about desperate people confronting layoffs and underemployment. With the economy doing well and with so many Americans with high-quality, good- paying jobs, we have to look deep into the eroding moral values of some people to find out what is driving the bankruptcy crisis. Some people flat out don't want to honor their obligations and are looking for an easy way out. In the opinion of this Senator, a significant part of the bankruptcy crisis is basically a moral crisis. Some people just don't have a sense of personal responsibility. It seems clear to me that our lax bankruptcy system must bear some of the blame for the bankruptcy crisis. Just as the old welfare system encouraged people not to get jobs and encouraged people not to even think about pulling their own weight, our lax bankruptcy system doesn't even ask people to consider paying what they owe, particularly when they have the ability to pay. Such a system, obviously, contributes to the fray of the moral fiber of our Nation. Why pay your bills when you can walk away with no questions asked? Why honor your obligations when you can take the easy way out through bankruptcy? If we don't tighten the bankruptcy system, the moral erosion will certainly continue. The polls are very clear that the American people want the bankruptcy system tightened up. In my home State of Iowa, 78 percent of Iowans surveyed favor bankruptcy reform, and the picture is the same nationally. According to the Public Broadcasting System program Techno- Politics, almost 70 percent of Americans support bankruptcy reform. The American people seem to sense that the bankruptcy crisis is fundamentally a moral crisis. I have a chart that also deals with that. This chart is done by the Democratic polling firm of Penn & Schoen. It talks about the perceptions people have about bankruptcy. You can see here that 84 percent of the people think that bankruptcy is more socially acceptable than it was a few years ago. This is the same polling firm President Clinton uses; so I think this number is very telling, given that it was produced by a liberal polling firm. In my State of Iowa, the editorial page of the Des Moines Register has summed up the problem that we have with the bankruptcy system by stating that bankruptcy ``was never intended as the one-stop, no-questions-asked solution to irresponsibility.'' I totally agree. I hope we can soon get to the bankruptcy bill, which has so much support in the Senate. As my colleague who worked so closely with me on this legislation, the Senator from New Jersey, has said, we are committed to bringing this bill to a vote this year and getting it done in a fashion that will show the bipartisanship that has operated throughout this year to bring us a 14-4 vote out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to duplicate that wide margin on the floor of the Senate, to send a clear signal to people who use bankruptcy as financial planning that if you have the ability to pay, you are never going to get out of paying what you have the capability of paying. That is good for our country, it is good for the economy and, most important, it is good for the pocketbooks of honest Americans. Bankruptcies cost the average American family to the tune of $400 a year. That's not fair to the American men and women working to pay taxes and make a better life to have to pay $400 more per year because somebody else isn't paying their debts. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I know the Senator from New Jersey has to leave. But before he does, in front of all of my colleagues, I want to thank him very much for an outstanding statement that focuses on the complexity of the bankruptcy problem. Most importantly, he focused attention on the bipartisanship of this legislation and on our commitment to getting it passed not only this Congress, but this year. It can be done. I encourage the Democratic and Republican leaders to have the necessary meetings and conversations it takes to bring this bill to the floor under a reasonable agreement so we can start work on it. In just a few hours, we can work our way through the disagreements that other Members might have and do it in a bipartisan way and get this bill on its way to the President of the United States. So in public, I am happy to thank the Senator from New Jersey for his cooperation. He has worked with me in a truly bipartisan way. For constituents who might be listening anyplace in the United States who are concerned about this body or Congress as a whole or Washington, DC, being too partisan, this bankruptcy bill is an example of where bi- partisanship has worked. If I had tried to do this in a partisan manner, this bill would not even be as far as it is.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent morning business be closed.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. If Senator Torricelli has time, I have time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. There is not. I ask that Senator Torricelli go ahead of me on the issue of bankruptcy so he and I can speak together.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the President of the United States vetoed the largest tax decrease bill to pass the Congress since 1981. By doing this, he wants to continue the tax overpayment that working Americans are paying into the Federal Treasury. The President is saying in his veto that we ought to continue to tax the taxpayers at the 21 percent of gross domestic product level, where taxes are now, the highest level in the history of our country, as opposed to the last 50 years when taxes fell in the range of 18 to 19 percent of gross domestic product. The people of the United States have been willing and, through consensus, settled on the level of 18 to 19 percent of gross domestic product, both from the standpoint of what they are willing to pay into the Federal Government and also from the standpoint of how that is, at a lower level of taxation, better for the economy. The President said in his veto message we would put in jeopardy several government programs if we did not continue to tax at this level. The President didn't say in so many words, but he has a plan for spending the $792 billion that the Congress would let the American taxpayers keep. By spending it, he would do it in a fashion that would end up with a $200 billion additional national debt than what we would have by giving the $792 billion to the taxpayers. He would, in a sense, jack up the level of expenditure of the Federal Government to well over the present level of expenditure and put in jeopardy balancing the budget if we had a downturn in the economy and the taxes did not come into the Federal Treasury at the rate of 21 percent of gross domestic product. Even though the bill passed in a bipartisan way when it first went through the Senate, on final passage it ended up being a Republican tax reduction that went to the President because there were not any people on the other side of the aisle who voted for it. We were saying that this tax overpayment ought to be left with working Americans because only the people spending the money or investing it do it in a way that creates wealth in America and creates jobs as a result of the creation of wealth. Anybody who thinks money is better left in the Federal Treasury--at the highest rate of taxation in the history of the country, at 21 percent of GDP--ought to realize that there are not jobs created as a result of that money going into the Federal till because the Federal Government is not a creator of wealth. Our involvement with the creation of wealth is to leave as many resources as we can to the ingenuity of American working men and women to invest and to spend because it turns over so many more times in the economy than when it is spent by us in Washington. So this tax decrease, the largest since 1981, was our effort to give a tax refund to working Americans by returning the tax overpayment. We do it in a responsible manner, by devoting 75 percent of the $3 trillion surplus that is going to come into the Federal Treasury over the next 10 years to Social Security, Medicare, paying down the national debt, and other domestic priorities. We would leave three- fourths of that extra dollar that people pay in taxes that do not need to be paid, with the Federal Government for paying down the national debt, strengthening Social Security, $505 billion that could be set aside for strengthening Medicare and other domestic programs, and we would leave 25 percent of that surplus with the taxpayers because we know that hard-working men and women in America can use that money better than it can be misspent here in Washington. It seems to me the President was intellectually dishonest last week when, in his veto message--that was on television; everybody heard it-- he said we were threatening Social Security, we were threatening Medicare, we were not paying down the national debt when we had this tax cut. I say that is intellectual dishonesty because the plan we sent to the President had in mind reserving all of the Social Security payroll tax money to Social Security, paying down the national debt, with $505 billion for strengthening Medicare and other domestic priorities within our Government, and still leaving $800 billion to the taxpayers. It is only fair to give the taxpayers this money because it is their money that created the surplus in the first place. It is not the hard work of bureaucrats in Washington, it is not the hard work of Members of Congress that created this surplus, it is the ingenuity of the American people. For that ingenuity, they are being overtaxed at this particular time to the tune of 21 percent of gross domestic product compared to the 50-year history of somewhere between 18 percent and 19 percent. It is only fair to give them their money back. Even Democrats agree that the surplus should be returned to the taxpayers. One Member of the other side of the aisle said this: I strongly believe we should return part of that money [meaning the surplus] to hard-working Americans. To suggest we cannot afford to cut income taxes when we are running a $3 trillion surplus is ludicrous. That is from a Member of the Senate from the other side of the aisle. That same Member said: To say that tax cuts stand in the way of needed domestic spending, Medicare and debt relief, is also folly. It is too bad the President of the United States does not listen to Members of his own party. The President wants you to believe he vetoed just a $792 billion tax bill--and that is a 10-year figure. But when you look at the bits and pieces of it, I think it will demonstrate the President did not veto just a $792 billion tax bill, but he vetoed lower taxes for middle- and lower-income Americans, he made health insurance less affordable, and he took away incentives to save more. Let me go through what the President vetoed to be very specific, so people know exactly what we planned in this Congress when we passed this tax bill. We planned to encourage savings, to encourage entrepreneurship, and to give hard-working families the money they need to support themselves. We reduced tax rates for middle- and lower-income Americans. The President vetoed that. Our tax bill made health insurance more affordable by providing 100- percent tax deductibility for all premiums for the self-employed and, starting for the first time in the history of our tax laws, gave employees who work for corporations, who do not have a corporate health plan, the same tax deductibility for their own individual plans that employees of major corporations have had since World War II. The President vetoed both of those items. Our bill made it easier for children to care for elderly parents by giving some tax incentives for family caregiving and also making tax deductibility possible for long-term care insurers. The President vetoed that. One thing we hear about more than any other injustice in the Tax Code is the marriage tax penalty. That correction was in the bill. The President vetoed the provisions to do away with the marriage tax penalty. We hear from farmers and small businessmen how wrong it is to break up a business to pay a death tax. This bill did away with the estate tax, so there was no tax on death, so you could pass on the family farm and the family business. The President vetoed that. We had increased incentives for retirement savings because everybody knows Social Security has never been intended to be a sole retirement plan and is not adequate today. So we have to have more encouragement for families to save for retirement. The President vetoed that. We hear from families, particularly from women who work outside the home, that child care ought to be more affordable. The President vetoed that. We had full tax deductibility of interest on student loans in this bill. The President vetoed that. We expanded the Individual Retirement Account opportunities. The President vetoed that. In short, President Clinton vetoed tax relief measures that would benefit men and women nationwide. The President has vetoed it, and I do not think there will be a compromise with the President on this because the $800 billion is such an infinitesimal amount of money--only 3.5 percent of all the revenue coming into the Federal Treasury over the next 10 years--that how do you compromise between zero and 3.5 percent when the 3.5 percent is so puny that we in the Congress ought to be embarrassed we could not find ways of saving money and giving even a larger tax cut? This means this issue will be taken to the country, and we will let the Democratic candidate, presumably Vice President Gore, campaign next year on a platform of spending this money, as President Clinton proposes to spend it, and we will let the Republican candidate for President run on a platform of, hopefully, backing at least this much of a tax cut and more of a tax cut. We will take this issue to the country. Let the people decide, and in letting the people decide, let's have a clear mandate for spending the $792 billion or letting the taxpayers keep it. The President, in his veto message and all during the month of August, has been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, as far as this tax cut issue is concerned. He has suggested that $800 billion is a mountain of money--and it is a lot of money--but as I said, it is 3.5 percent of all the money that is going to come into the Federal Treasury over the next 10 years that we could let the taxpayers keep in their pockets or spend it or invest it to create jobs and wealth in America to expand our economy. But, in fact, the mountain is the $23 trillion that is coming into the Federal Treasury over the next 10 years, and the $792 billion tax cut is the molehill. On this chart, we have the mountain over here, the $22.8 trillion that the working men and women of America are going to pay into the Federal Treasury over the next 10 years. Mr. President Clinton, that is the mountain, but right here is the $792 billion tax cut that you vetoed last week, and that is truly the molehill. Mr. President, you can't make a mountain out of a molehill. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time remains for morning business?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to recognize and enter into the Record a recent speech presented to the Des Moines Rotary Club by Hans Becherer, Chairman and CEO of Deere and Company. His remarks are insightful and provide a long term outlook from one of the leaders in our agricultural community. The speech is entitled, ``All Farming is Global''. Today I'd like to discuss some of the major trends that will help shape agriculture as it moves into the new century and millennium. This is of particular importance to Iowa since almost one-fourth of the state's population works in the agricultural complex . . . and 90% of the land area is devoted to farms. Farming remains critical to John Deere, as well. Although we've diversified a good deal in recent years, both in product breadth and geographic reach, farm machinery remains our flagship business . . . and the domestic farmer our number one customer. Needless to say, the farm sector is struggling right now due to depressed grain and livestock prices. As a result, North American retail demand for farm equipment is expected to be off 25% or so this year with lesser reductions in Europe. Accordingly, we're making aggressive cutbacks in our production in order to adjust inventories and bring more balance to the market. One farmer, on an Internet message board devoted to Deere, recently summed it up this way: ``The quality of the green tractor is there,'' he said. ``The quality of the green money to pay for it isn't.'' Thus far, that seems to be a fair assessment of the situation. Of course, the farm economy was in good shape heading into this downturn, from the standpoint of debt levels and land values, and will likely prove quite resilient. There's nothing to suggest this will be a rerun of the 1980s. Moreover--the next year or two aside--the future of farming looks extremely promising for the long run. That's what I'd like to focus on this afternoon--less the problems of the present, than the promise of the future. Of the key forces dictating change in agriculture today, the most important ones concern increasingly open markets and freer trade; the explosive growth in technology, which is transforming the entire economy these days; plus, the continuing importance of environmental issues. Let's take a closer look at these issues now. * * * * * As a first point, farming is becoming far more market- oriented. Most of us, I suspect, believe in free trade and open agricultural markets. We feel farmers in Iowa have a lot to gain from such a situation. We have, after all, some of the world's best farmland literally in our backyards, plus an excellent distribution system for getting crops to market, and access to highly productive farm machinery. Just what does an open market, increasingly free of controls and restrictions, mean to the farm sector? Mostly, it will accelerate trends already under way-- putting a premium on large, efficiently run operations that are able to make the most of today's technology and fast- moving markets. Less-regulated farming will have a positive impact in terms of overall economic efficiency--and it's likely a plus for the nation's agricultural complex as a whole. It certainly gives U.S. farming a leg-up in a global market, something that works to Iowa's benefit. As for the decline in smaller farms, this very definitely marks the passing of an era, which many find a source of regret. But it's a process that has been in motion for some time: Even in the robust economic environment of the last few years, Deere was selling less than half as many tractors and combines to the domestic market as in the early 1970s. The number of U.S. farms has contracted by one-third (from 3 to 2 million) over this time, with a similar pattern seen in Iowa. I should point out that some small operators will do quite well in tomorrow's less-regulated market. These are the ones who devote themselves to a type of management-intensive, or niche, agriculture, such as growing organic crops. Still, it will take quite an entrepreneurial breed to overcome the economies of scale that are becoming more and more a part of farming. Along the same lines, a more open agricultural climate means farming will become more internationally focused and geared to exports. Indeed, the farmer of the future will have to be a man of the world. And that's definitely a plus for Iowa. Agriculture has always been regarded as the most basic of local enterprises. And rightly so: What could be more a part of our communities than our own soil? Farming, moreover, has constituted the soul of rural life in our country for over 200 years, and been widely associated with the virtues of honesty and hard work that built America. But in truth, ladies and gentlemen, all farming is global. Every ear of corn, or pod of soybean produced in Iowa makes an impact on the world market . . . and affects farmers in faraway places such as Australia and Argentina. Similarly, every drop of rain that falls on Brazil's creddados . . . has an effect on Iowa's farms and fields. Legislation approved in Berlin and Brussels . . . is felt by farmers in Burlington and Belle Plaine. Soybean prices went into a nosedive awhile back . . . not because of a leap in supply or a lag in demand, but because the Brazilian currency lost one-quarter of its value over- night. Brazil, of course, is a major soybean producer and exporter. That action alone shaved roughly a dollar a bushel off bean prices. Global trade, manifested by exports, has become a mainstay for our nation's farmers. Roughly one-fourth of farm receipts today come from overseas sales. And Iowa is right in the thick of things, being the nation's number-two exporter of agricultural commodities ($4B year) after California. Farm exports will drop this year due to the economic travails of the developing world and are down almost 20%--or $10 billion--from their peak. But this is almost surely a short-lived phenomenon . . . and completely at odds with the long-range picture. The world's fundamentals--namely, strong population growth, improved diets and more open trade policies--all point to U.S. farming, and Iowa agriculture, being an export-driven, growth-intensive business with solid prospects well into the future. * * * * * Farming will get more competitive, too, as farmers scramble to add value to their crops and gain an edge in productivity, yields and costs. Technology--my second point--will help them get there. Technology, of course, has been the story in agriculture since the days of Cyrus McCormick's reaper . . . John Deere's plow . . . and the Waterloo Boy tractor. Forerunners of modern-day combines and cotton-pickers weren't far behind. The cultural effect of ever-more productive machinery goes well beyond the farm. It's what transformed our society into an industrial power since it takes so much less physical labor to feed our population today. The average farmer gets as much done by 9 a.m. now as in a full day in the post-war 1940s. Over this time, crop production has nearly tripled from virtually the same amount of farmland. Especially noteworthy, farm-labor's role in the agricultural process has dropped by more than two-thirds during this time. What accounts for such improvements? Technology, mostly . . . in the form of better seeds and fertilizer, as well as-- indeed--more sophisticated farm machinery. As important as technology has been to farming's past . . . it's fair to say we haven't seen anything yet. Genetically modified seeds . . . plus precision, or satellite-guided, farming and other, almost unimaginable, advances in information technology . . . put farming on a truly exciting, high-tech plain for the new century. Going forward, in fact, a farmer's biggest problem will not be having access to technology, but figuring out how to apply it to his best advantage. ``What we're trying to do here,'' one farmer recently said at a precision-farming conference, ``is create knowledge out of chaos.'' Meeting this need--helping farmers bridge the gap between information and intelligence--may constitute a promising business opportunity in its own right. Deere recently formed a new business unit--John Deere Special Technology Group--to help supply solutions to these challenges. One of the unit's most exciting new ventures is the VantagePoint network, a kind of silo in cyberspace. More to the point, VantagePoint is an Internet-based data-warehouse subscription service that allows farmers to collect, store, and reference a full array of data about their farming operation--such as yield and seed population. Subscribers can also see aggregated data from neighboring areas. VantagePoint functions as a server to contain this information . . . and, as an interface, to organize and present the data in creative and useful ways. As for the Internet itself, we believe it adds an important new dimension to the selling process, which should work to the benefit of our John Deere dealers . . . by helping them provide even more responsive service and counsel. A number of dealers have their own websites. Many more are listing used equipment on a company-sponsored site called MachineFinder-dot-com, launched late last year. Roughly 6,000 pieces of equipment, mostly tractors and combines, are presently available over MachineFinder . . . and about 15,000 users have registered for the site. What ever the future of MachineFinder and other emerging Internet-related services, one can safely assume that technology will play as big a role in the success of tomorrow's farmers as the weather or government policies. * * * * * As technology makes farmers more productive, it's also helping them be good stewards of the soil, the air and the water. That's the third area I'd like to touch on today. Outside of large hog lots--which is certainly a newsworthy issue in Iowa--the environmental side of farming doesn't grab many headlines. But it's quite a factor in the farming process . . . and seems likely to stay that way. Regulation, for one thing, will see to it that farmers remain serious about limiting emissions . . . preserving the soil . . . and controlling the run-off of chemicals and waste. Some of the proposals you hear about would even limit the hours farmers spend in their fields, based on dust restrictions. Noise abatement is an emerging concern. And water quality seems likely to be the next big area of regulatory focus. All this, of course, adds cost and complexity to the farming process. But many of the very things that make farmers environmentally sensitive . . . are actually fiscally sensible. That is, they help farmers become more productive and profitable. New engines are cleaner-burning and more efficient. Precision farming helps farmers cut down on input costs. New sprayers apply herbicides with laser-like precision, cutting down on waste and over-spray. All that's good for the environment, of course. But it's also beneficial for the farmer's bottom line. Iowa's farmers are truly among the unsung heroes in today's environmental movement. For without modern fertilizers, herbicides and machinery . . . without high-yield production practices . . . and without the tremendous yield gains we've seen over the years . . . an additional one-million square miles of our nation (all the land east of the Mississippi River, in size) would need to be plowed under and made into cropland, merely to equal present levels of grain production. That's no less than three miles the amount of land currently devoted to farming. It's fair to say, moreover, that these new fields would come at the direct expense of forested areas and other land now serving as wildlife habitat or as part of our natural watershed. Clearly, farmers have done quite a job of safeguarding our natural resources, while meeting the world's growing need for food. Nevertheless, tomorrow's increasingly formidable environmental pressures will require an even more intensive commitment on their part. * * * * * Regardless of the challenges ahead for agriculture, I assure you that Deere remains firmly committed to providing solutions to our customers' needs and customers in our case go far beyond the farm. Over the last several years, John Deere has worked hard to achieve a good deal of diversification in our operations. We've done so not by plunging into altogether-new businesses, but by applying the lessons learned from generations of dealing with farmers to a broader range of customers. Our view is that the characteristics of our Waterloo-made tractors, or Des Moines cotton pickers--such as durability and reliability--work just as well for construction equipment, such as Dubuque-made backhoes. The same goes for our new skid-steer loaders, Gator utility vehicles, golf and turf equipment or the full range of lawn- care machinery now being offered in green and yellow. Similarly, our Des Moines-based credit operation owes its success not to the fact that the money it lends goes farther than anyone else's . . . but because of the integrity and service that has long been associated with the John Deere name. (John Deere Credit, incidentally, is quite a successful enterprise in its own right, normally adding 20% or so to the company's overall net income.) Moreover, it is these non-ag operations that have been the focus of major investment programs of late . . . and which we're counting on to help us achieve more consistency in our profits whenever the farm economy weakens. * * * * * None of which, in any way, dampens our enthusiasm for farming. Because despite some of the challenges I've mentioned--and the current downturn is very real and painful--the future for agriculture looks good. Darned good, in fact. Regardless of Indonesia's financial problems . . . the world still has 10,000 new mouths to feed every hour, and, again, will need three times today's grain output within 50 years. No matter what's ahead for Brazil's real or Russia's ruble . . . a good deal of money will be spent on the increased consumption of meat--which is a primary driver of demand for grain. Beyond the Third World's growing pains . . . the global farm population, now over 40%, will shrink as industrial growth creates new opportunities and higher living standards. This will make Iowa's contribution to the world food supply all the more important. True, these things may take shape more slowly than we expected, but the fundamental trends are headed in the right direction. All point . . . to a promising future . . . for a globally attuned . . . technologically astute . . . environmentally aware . . . agricultural sector--such as exists in Iowa and surrounding states.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to warn the Senate of intensifying harassment against government whistleblowers. This trend threatens Congress' right to know, and preserves secrecy that shields bureaucratic misconduct. From the IRS to the State Department, retaliation is increasing against government employees who blow the whistle on wrongdoing by high government officials. How did we get here? In the view of this Senator, one of the major problems has been the judicial activism of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over challenges by government employees to illegal retaliatory acts, and which has grossly misinterpreted existing federal laws. To illustrate my concerns, I am enclosing for the Record a New York Times editorial; and a Federal Times article by the Government Accountability Project about the most extreme Federal Circuit precedent, involving Air Force whistleblower John White. This precedent could functionally cancel both the whistleblower law and the Code of Ethics. I have no intention of passively acquiescing to the judicial equivalent of contempt of Congress. The material follows: [From the New York Times, May 1, 1999] Helping Whistle-Blowers Survive Jennifer Long, the Internal Revenue Service agent who nearly lost her job two weeks ago after publicly blowing the whistle on abuses at the agency, was rescued at the last minute by the intervention of an influential United States Senator. But the fact that her employers had no inhibitions about harassing her is clear evidence that the laws protecting whistle-blowers need to be strengthened. As they stand, these laws merely invite the kind of retaliation that Mrs. Long endured. A career tax auditor, Mrs. Long was the star witness at Senate Finance Committee hearings convened in 1997 by William Roth of Delaware to investigate complaints against the IRS. She was the only IRS witness who did not sit behind a curtain and use a voice-distortion device to hide her identity. She accused the agency of preying on weaker taxpayers and ignoring cheating by those with the resources to fight back. She has since said that she was subjected to petty harassments from the moment she arrived back at her district office in Houston. Then, on April 15 of this year, she was given what amounted to a termination notice, at which point Mr. Roth intervened with the IRS commissioner and saved her job--at least for now. Had he not intervened, Mrs. Long's only hope of vindication would have been the remedies provided by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and the Whistle-Blower Protection Act of 1989. These two statutes prescribe a tortuous and uncertain appeals process that in theory guarantees a whistle-blower free speech without fear of retaliation, but in practice is an exercise in frustration. Despite recent improvements, only a handful of Federal employees, out of some 1,500 who appealed in the last four years, have prevailed in rulings issued by the Government's administrative tribunal, the Merit System Protection Board. Overwhelmingly, the rest of the cases were screened out on technical grounds or were settled informally with token relief. A few prominent whistle-blowers have won redemption outside the system. Frederic Whitehurst, the chemist who was dismissed after disclosing sloppiness and possible dishonesty in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's crime laboratory, won a sizable cash settlement because he had a first-class attorney who mounted an artful public relations campaign. Ernest Fitzgerald, the Pentagon employee who disclosed massive cost overruns, survived because he was almost inhumanly persistent and because his cause, like Mrs. Long's, attracted allies in high places. But the prominence of an issue does not guarantee survival for the employee who discloses it. Notra Trulock, the senior intelligence official at the Energy Department who tried to alert his superiors to Chinese espionage at a Government weapons laboratory, has since been demoted. Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, has been seeking ways to strengthen the 1989 law with the help of the Government Accountability Project, a Washington advocacy group that assists whistle-blowers. One obvious improvement would be to give whistle-blowers the option to press their claims in the Federal courts, where their cases could be decided by a jury. To guard against clogging the system with frivolous litigation, the cases would first be reviewed by a nongovernment administrative panel. But the point is to give whistle-blowers an avenue of appeal outside the closed loop in which they are now trapped. A reform bill along these lines passed the House in 1994 but died in the Senate. With Mrs. Long's case fresh in mind, the time has come for both Houses to re-examine the issue.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I recognize and congratulate the following young men who recently achieved the rare and honored distinction of being presented the Eagle Scout Award. The wide range of knowledge that they have gained in earning this award reflects dedication and accomplishment in many different fields of human endeavor that will benefit the Council Bluffs, Iowa community in which they live. These new Eagle Scouts include Joshua Reinders, son of Greg and Jackie Reinders; Paul McGrath, son of Ray and Marsha McGrath; Steven DeLong, son of Don and Melissa Delong; Gregory Versch, son of Mark and Rebecca Versch; and Roland Whitt, son of Tillman and Susan Whitt. All of these young men and their families are to be commended for their community involvement and service.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor this amendment to increase the appropriation for veterans medical care by $600 million over the amount reported by the committee. This additional $600 million will bring the appropriations for veterans health care in both the House and the Senate to a total of $1.7 billion over the amount requested by the President. This increase should help stabilize veterans health care services in Iowa. Iowa is in Network 14, which includes most of Nebraska, part of Illinois, and parts of Kansas, Missouri and Minnesota. Network 14 is one of those which has steadilly lost funding under the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation System, the funding system which, several years ago, changed the way VA monies are distributed around the country. In addition, as my colleagues know, the VA health care system, following developments in the rest of the nation's health care system, has been emphasizing care in outpatient settings where appropriate. In keeping with this policy, the network including Iowa has developed outpatient clinics in several communities around the State, as well as health screening activities around the State. In many respects, this shift to an outpatient focus is good policy. Certainly care should be given at the most medically appropriate level. Veterans can receive that care closer to home than might otherwise be the case if sufficient community clinics can be created. It is also probably the case that more veterans can be served by such an approach to health care services. This has certainly been the case in Iowa. Between 1996 and 1998 the total number of veterans served in Iowa has increased from 43,856 to 47,225, an increase of 3,369. Veterans treated on an inpatient basis declined from 7,615 to 5,204 over that period, but veterans treated on an outpatient basis increased from 36,241 to 42,021. Unfortunately, the combination of the shift of funding away from States like mine to the south and southwest, and tight Federal budgets for veterans health care has resulted in a squeeze on the budget for Network 14. Although the network has been able to continue to serve the category 7 veterans, I regularly hear complaints about very long waits for service, and, occasionally, about episodes of poor quality service which seem linked to too few staff. I hope that this increase of $1.7 billion beyond what the President requested will help ease the budget squeeze of Iowa and Network 14, and will help prevent any further deterioration in access to services for Iowa's veterans. I am aware, of course, that the VA will be providing a 4.8 percent increase for VA employees, and this will come from the appropriation for VA programs. And health care costs continue to inflate. Nevertheless, this increased appropriation should help us in Iowa.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, before the Senator from Alabama leaves, he needs to be thanked for the outstanding work he has done to help put this compromise piece of legislation together that came out of committee by a bipartisan vote of 14-4, and also during the remarks he just presented for laying out the history of this legislation last year in which the bill passed 97-1. He very accurately stated what the situation is. He also now raises the question, which is a legitimate question: What has gotten rotten in Denmark, so that all of a sudden a bill that passed 97-1 about a year ago is being filibustered in the effort to bring it up, if some people aren't playing some sort of game? I thank the Senator from Alabama for his work on this bill. I also thank him for reminding the Senate of what that situation was a year ago and raising the question of what has changed. Not much has changed. It is just that some people want to use tactics behind the scenes to keep a bill from coming out in the open when they wouldn't express those same views in a vote on the floor of the Senate. Also, there was a previous speaker on the other side, a friend of mine, who recently spoke against the cloture motion to bring debate on this bill to a halt on the motion to proceed and then immediately get to the bill; he expressed a view that there ought to be opportunity to offer nongermane amendments on the issue of agriculture. Normally, I am sympathetic to those opportunities to bring to the floor of the Senate the complaints and concerns of an economic crisis such as we are facing in agriculture. But I think there are opportunities available to do that other than messing up an opportunity to bring needed reform to the bankruptcy code. Besides, during my remarks today, I am going to point out to the Senator from Minnesota how there are opportunities in this very bankruptcy bill to help the family farmer. They relate directly to the permanent reauthorization of chapter 12 bankruptcy. If that is not authorized in this bill--in fact, if this isn't done by the 1st of October--there is no chapter 12. Then, instead of using a chapter of the bankruptcy code that is written to the special needs of agriculture, the farmers are going to have to file for bankruptcy under chapter 11. That was written for corporate America. That doesn't fit the needs of agriculture. They are going to find, unlike chapter 12's existence for reorganization of farmers where 88 percent of them are still able to farm and maintain the family farming operation, that there will be a very high percentage of farmers forced to file under chapter 11, the chapter friendly to corporate structure, and they are not going to be farming anymore at all. They won't be farming as family farmers, if they farm. Mr. President, we are coming soon to a cloture vote on the bankruptcy bill. If cloture is not invoked, it will be very unfortunate. I've worked very closely with the minority and with Senator Torricelli, who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the courts, to fashion a bill which contains many changes and modifications requested by Democrats. For instance, the means-test is looser than I would personally prefer. But I have made this change to respond to concerns raised by the other side of the aisle. I think we're in this situation because we have Members from the minority party who want to offer an unlimited number of amendments on subjects totally unrelated to bankruptcy. This, of course, is a delay and stalling tactic by imposing these nongermane amendments upon a very important bill, a bill that will pass this body by an overwhelming margin, if we get it up for a vote, but a bill that can be stalled by people who maybe don't want this bill to pass and don't want to face it head on, because this bill passed by a 97-1 vote in the last Congress. From my conversations with the Republican leadership, I think it's fair to say that we are willing to accommodate a few unrelated amendments from the minority. But, it appears that some Members of the Minority want to turn the bankrupticy bill into a Christmas tree for everything you can think of. Obviously, that's not acceptable. So here we are. At some point, I hope that this situation is resolved. We Republicans stand ready to be reasonable. I want to take this opportunity to talk about what is being delayed. The bankruptcy bill contains some very important provisions that are vital for family farmers, especially Midwestern family farmers, and particularly with this economic crisis even in my State of Iowa. As we all know from recent debate on the emergency agriculture appropriations bill, which is in conference this very night to iron out the differences between the House and Senate, 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--not just in income but in equity. The price of corn is currently well under the cost of production. And the cash market for soybeans has reached a 23- year low. This is all in addition to the poor weather conditions in parts of the Midwest and the drought in the 10 States of the Eastern United States. Just last week, I sent a letter with a number of farm State Senators from both parties, including the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, signing it, to all Senators, discussing the needs for reauthorization of chapter 12, which is done in this all-encompassing bankruptcy reform legislation. As you can imagine, these difficult financial circumstances have sent many farming operations into a tailspin. Clearly, we need to make sure that the family farmers continue to have bankruptcy protection available during this difficult period. But bankruptcy protection won't be available if this bill is blocked by turning it into a Christmas tree. I don't pretend to talk about bankruptcy being needed by the family farmers as a substitute for anything that can be done here in the Congress or what can be done through the marketplace to bring profitability because that is what is absolutely necessary. But under any circumstances, in good times or bad times, some farmers are going to need to have the protection of chapter 12, just as corporations in America have the protection of chapter 11. And farmers are entitled to a chapter that fits the needs of agriculture, the same way corporate America is entitled to a chapter that fits the needs of corporate America. Title X 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. As things stand now, chapter 12 will cease to exist by September 30 unless we get this bill through the Senate, through conference, and on the President's desk. It would be a supreme act of irresponsibility if we let chapter 12 die and we leave our farmers without a last ditch protection against foreclosure and forced auctions. Make no mistake about it. By delaying this bill, Senators who vote against cloture will leave family farmers across America exposed to forced auctions and foreclosures. That is what I urge the Senator from Minnesota to be cognizant of as he votes against cloture, as he indicated he would do. 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 in dealing with the banks and the Federal Government as a lender of last resort. 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 the American economy. With a new crisis in the farm country, we need to make chapter 12 a permanent part of Federal law. This bankruptcy bill provides for permanency for farmers. Chapter 12 worked in the mid-1980s and it should be made permanent so family farmers in trouble today or any time in the future can get breathing room and a fresh start. This statement that chapter 12 works for farmers is backed up by an Iowa State University study of farmers who used chapter 12 during the 1980s. Mr. President, 88 percent of those farmers were successfully farming at the time of the study. The Bankruptcy Reform Act doesn't just make chapter 12 permanent; the bill makes improvements to chapter 12 so it will become more accessible and helpful for farmers. First, the definition of a family farmer is widened so more farmers can qualify for chapter 12 bankruptcy protections. Second, and perhaps more importantly, my bankruptcy bill reduces the priority of capital gains tax liabilities for farm assets sold as a 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 farming operation. Together, all of these suggested reforms will make chapter 12 more effective in protecting America's family farms during this difficult period. These reforms will never happen if the bill is continually blocked by Senators offering unrelated and nongermane amendments. It is imperative 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. The fact is that fire-type sales under these circumstances actually drive down prices at those auctions so both the creditor and the debtor end up with less. Now, because of chapter 12, the banks are willing to come to terms. We must pass this bankruptcy reform bill to make sure America's family farms have a fighting chance to reorganize their financial affairs. Unless things change, this bill may be set aside because of stalling tactics by some Members on the other side of the aisle. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed by five Members, including Senator Johnson of South Dakota, Senator Brownback of Kansas, Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, and Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent that a quorum call I suggest be equally charged to both sides.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem be permitted to meet on September 21, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``Hybrid Pension Plans'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 21, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I'm submitting several amendments at this time in order to comply with the unanimous-consent agreement requiring the filing of amendments. The amendments I'm filing now are indications of what I intend to offer when the Senate is cleared to consider the bankruptcy bill later this year. As such, each amendment is a work in progress. I would therefore caution my colleagues not to view these amendments as cast in stone. In particular, Senator Torricelli and I are negotiating with the chairman of the Banking Committee on the details of the credit card disclosure amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding. Even though I am not going to speak on the issue of taxes, I just heard the remarks by the Senator from Arkansas. Obviously, voting for that bill was difficult. I agree with the statements and plead with the President to sign the bill and give the people back some of the money or let them keep the money rather than running it through Washington. We are overtaxing the people at the highest level of taxation in the history of our country.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I chair the Committee on Aging. We have been holding some hearings about the nursing home industry over the last several months. I would like to make a comment. First of all, I would like to speak about credibility. It is similar to an old maple tree. It takes years to develop, but a big storm can wipe it out just like that. I have a story that makes the point. The nursing home industry challenged the credibility of nursing home inspectors. The nursing home industry, after this challenge, lost. When I refer to the nursing home industry, I mean the American Health Care Association. This group represents the for-profit nursing homes. It has thousands of members across the country. Nursing home inspectors operate in every State. They inspect every nursing home that accepts Federal money. The inspectors gauge whether nursing homes follow the Federal laws that were passed to protect nursing home residents. They evaluate everything from the most severe problems to the most minor problems. The most severe problems include malnutrition, dehydration, bedsores, inadequate medical treatment-- matters that can be life-threatening. The most minor problems might include things such as comfortable lighting and access to stationery. At my request, the General Accounting Office has issued a series of reports documenting severe problems in too many nursing homes, thus pointing up the shortcomings of the inspection. On March 18, when I released one of these reports, the American Health Care Association issued a critical news release. The association said: Inspectors have closed down facilities, without consulting residents and their families, for technical violations posing no jeopardy to residents. The association also said: Unfortunately, the current Federal inspection system has all the trademarks of a bureaucratic government program out of control. These, of course, were very serious charges made by the association of nursing homes, and I took those charges very seriously. The Federal inspection system is responsible for the welfare of 1.6 million nursing home residents. If that system fails, these frail individuals will bear the brunt. That is something that should concern every one of us in the Senate. Following up, I asked the American Health Care Association for proof of its claims issued in that news release critical of what the General Accounting Office had to say at my behest to study the issue. On May 6, I received an information packet from the American Health Care Association describing 10 examples that the association saw as proof of overzealous regulations. I turned this information over to the General Accounting Office and asked for its analysis. The GAO did not find evidence of overzealous regulation. In fact, the General Accounting Office found just the opposite. There was adequate information for an objective assessment for 8 of the 10 industry examples. In each of those 8 cases, the General Accounting Office found that regulators acted appropriately. I am not going to go through all eight examples, but I will use three. I think they show that there is a big difference in what the industry presented and what the General Accounting Office found; in other words, the industry's accusations that the inspection system was a bureaucratic thing out of control and that it was based upon just technicalities was wrong. Example No. 1: The industry complained that a Michigan nursing home was severely punished for providing complimentary coffee to family members, staff, and residents. The General Accounting Office said that the nursing home inspectors saw two vulnerable residents pulling at the spigot of the hot coffee urn. The inspectors believed that the residents were in immediate danger of suffering serious burns from the coffee. Of course, with this, the General Accounting Office agreed. Example No. 2: The industry complained that a California nursing home was cited for bed sores on a resident's foot that predated his admission, and in fact the bed sores were healing. The General Accounting Office said the inspector found conditions that actually had worsened the bed sores. The resident was wearing leather shoes when in a wheelchair. His feet were not elevated when in bed. His bedsore dressings were changed without proper techniques to prevent infection. There again, the example given by the nursing home association was wrong. Example No. 3: The industry claimed that an Alabama nursing home was cited for a bald kitchen worker who failed to wear a hair net. The GAO reported that the industry did not identify the nursing home involved nor provide any documentation; therefore, the General Accounting Office could not assess what had happened. I could go on in more detail from the General Accounting Office report. I have that report here, and I would like to point out to my colleagues that they should look at it, read it. Hopefully, everyone is interested and they will do so. It tells a valuable cautionary tale. Members of Congress, as I felt a responsibility to do, should always seek out both sides of every story. Industry associations work hard to seek our agreement with their side and, of course, in our system of government, and whether individual, or an association of individuals, that is their right. But it is our obligation as representatives of the people to weigh every issue with all the facts at hand. It is equally our obligation to consider the credibility of every source. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of time for Senator Thomas.