Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the President's State of the Union Address, the Senate immediately stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, January 31. I further ask consent that following the approval of the routine opening requests and reservation of the leaders' time, there be a period for the transaction of morning business until the hour of 2 p.m., with the time between 12 noon and 1 p.m. under the control of the Democratic leader, or his designee, and the time from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. under the control of Senator Lott, or his designee. I further ask consent that at 2 p.m. the Senate resume the bankruptcy reform bill under the previous order.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 246, submitted earlier by Senators Lott, Daschle, and others.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 245, which was submitted earlier by Senators Lott, Daschle, and others.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will take just a few minutes at the beginning of the second session of the 106th Congress to comment on several legislative initiatives I authored in the first session, and which I am pleased to say either passed or were substantially incorporated into other bills that were approved and signed into law by the President last year. One of the most important issues for my state of Utah is the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) Amendments of 1999, S. 1515, which I introduced last year. I am delighted that the Senate passed this important legislation in November. This bill will guarantee that our government provides fair compensation to the thousands of individuals adversely affected by the mining of uranium and from fallout during the testing of nuclear weapons in the early post-war years. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell; the distinguished Senate Minority Leader, Senator Tom Daschle; Senator Jeff Bingaman; and Senator Peter Domenici all joined me in introducing this legislation. In 1990, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210) was enacted in law. RECA, which I was proud to sponsor, required the federal government to compensate those who were harmed by the radioactive fallout from atomic testing. Administered through the Department of Justice, RECA has been responsible for compensating approximately 6,000 individuals for their injuries. Since the passage of the 1990 law, I have been continuously monitoring the implementation of the RECA program. Quite candidly, I have been disturbed over numerous reports from my Utah constituents about the difficulty they have encountered when they have attempted to file claims with the Department of Justice. I introduced S. 1515 in response to their concerns. This bill honors our nation's commitment to the thousands of individuals who were victims of radiation exposure while supporting our country's national defense. I believe we have an obligation to care for those who were injured, especially since, at the time, they were not adequately warned about the potential health hazards involved with their work. Another issue which many of my constituents contacted me about over the past year was the Medicare provisions contained in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act (BBA) and the impact of these provisions on health care providers and Medicare beneficiaries. I am extremely pleased that the House and Senate approved the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP Adjustment Act of 1999 and that President Clinton signed the measure into law. This important bill will help to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries can continue to receive high-quality, accessible health care. Overall, the bill increases payments for nursing homes, hospitals, home health agencies, managed care plans, and other Medicare providers. It will also increase payments for rehabilitative therapy services, and longer coverage of immunosuppressive drugs. Over $17 billion in legislative restorations are contained in this package for the next 10 years. Clearly we now know that there were unintended consequences as a result of the reimbursement provisions contained in the BBA. Many of the changes provided for in the BBA resulted in far more severe reductions in spending that we projected in 1997. As a result, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies and hospitals have been particularly hard hit from these changes in the Medicare law. In 1997, Medicare was in a serious financial condition and was projected to go bankrupt in the year 2001. The changes we made in 1997 saved Medicare from financial insolvency and have resulted in extending the program's solvency until 2015. Nevertheless, the reductions we enacted in 1997 created a serious situation for many health care providers who simply are not being adequately reimbursed for the level and quality of care they were providing. This situation is particularly evident in the nursing home industry. Many skilled nursing facilities, or SNFs, are now facing bankruptcy because the current prospective payment system, which was enacted as part of the BBA, does not adequately compensate for the costs of care to medically complex patients. As a result, I introduced the Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Nursing Home Care Act of 1999, S. 1500, which was designed to provide immediate financial relief to nursing homes who care for medically complex patients. The Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, was the principal cosponsor of this important legislation. And I would like to take this opportunity now to thank him for the extraordinary effort he made in helping to have major provisions of our bill incorporated into the final conference agreement on the BBA refinement bill. Moreover, I want to thank the other 44 Senators who cosponsored S. 1500 and who lent their support in helping to move this issue to conference. This is an important victory for Medicare beneficiaries who depend on nursing home care. As we have seen over the past several years, those beneficiaries with medically complex conditions were having difficulty in gaining access to nursing home facilities, or SNFs, because many SNFs simply did not want to accept these patients due to the low reimbursement levels paid by Medicare. The current prospective payment system is flawed. It does not accurately account for the costs of these patients with complex conditions. The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has acknowledged that the system needs to be corrected. Under the provisions of the BBA Restoration bill we are passing today, reimbursement rates are increased by 20% for 15 payment categories, or the Resource Utilization Groups--RUGs--beginning in April 2000. These increases are temporary until HCFA has fine-tuned the PPS and made adjustments to reflect a more accurate cost for these payment categories. Moreover, after the temporary increases have expired, all payment categories will be increased by 4% in fiscal year 2001 and 2002. These provisions will provide immediate increases of $1.4 billion to nursing home facilities to care for these high-cost patients. In addition, the bill also gives nursing homes the option to elect to be paid at the full federal rate for SNF PPS which will provide an additional $700 million to the nursing community. I would also add that I am pleased the conference report includes a provision to provide a two-year moratorium on the physical/speech therapy and occupational therapy caps that were enacted as part of the BBA. As we all well know, these arbitrary caps have resulted in considerable pain and difficulty for thousands of Medicare beneficiaries who have met and exceeded the therapy caps. I joined my colleague and good friend, Senator Grassley, as a cosponsor of this important legislation and I want to commend him for his leadership in getting this bill incorporated into the final BBA refinement conference report. There are many other important features of this bill that are included in the conference report agreement and, clearly, these provisions will do a great deal to help restore needed Medicare funding to providers. The bottomline is all of this is ensuring that Medicare beneficiaries have access to quality health care. We need to keep that promise and I believe we have done that through the passage of this legislation. Overall, $2.7 billion is restored to SNFs under this legislation. With respect to other providers, I would briefly add that the bill contains funding for home health agencies as well. The bill will ease the administrative requirements on home health agencies as well as delay the 15 percent reduction in reimbursement rate for one year. This reduction was to have taken effect on October 2000 but will now be delayed for one year until October 1, 2001. I have worked very closely with my home health agencies in my state who were extremely concerned over the impact of the 15% reduction next year. I am pleased to tell them that we have addressed their concerns by delaying this reduction for another year. I think this time will give us an opportunity to focus on this provision to determine what other adjustments, if any, may be required in the future. Overall, the bill adds $1.3 billion back into the home health care component of Medicare. So I believe we have taken some significant steps to ensure that home health care agencies will be able to operate without the threat of increased Medicare reductions on their bottomline. We have also taken steps to help hospitals and teaching hospitals with over $7 billion in Medicare restorations. These increases will help to smooth the transition to the PPS for outpatient services--an issue that was brought to my attention by practically every hospital administrator in my state. On the separate, but equally important issue of children's graduate medical education funding, I am especially pleased that the House passed legislation that will authorize, for the first time, a new program to provide children's hospitals with direct and indirect graduate medical education funding. Indepednet children's hospitals, including Primary Children's Hospital in Salt Lake City, receive very little Medicare graduate medical education funding (GME). This is because they treat very few Medicare patients, only children with end stage renal disease, and thus do not benefit from federal GME support through Medicare. I cosponsored legislation to provide greater GME funding for children's hospitals. The bill passed the Senate and House, and was signed into law by the President. Moreover, $40 million is contained in the omnibus FY 2000 appropriation's bill that will serve as an excellent foundation on which to provide assistance to children's hospitals. I am also pleased that provisions from S. 1626, the Medicare Patient Access to Technology Act, were included in the BBA refinement bill. These important provisions guarantee senior citizens access to the best medical technology and pharmaceuticals. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries do not always have access to the most innovative treatments because Medicare reimbursement rates are inadequate. And I just don't think that it's fair to older Americans. My provisions contained in the conference report change this by allowing more reasonable Medicare reimbursements for these therapies. Take John Rapp, my constituent from Salt Lake City. Mr. Rapp, who is 71 years old, was diagnosed with prostate cancer last May. He was presented with a series of treatment options and decided to have BRACHY therapy because it was minimally invasive, he could receive it as an outpatient and it had fewer complications than radical surgery. This new innovative therapy implants radioactive seeds in the prostate gland in order to kill cancer cells. The success rate of this therapy has been overwhelming. So, what's the problem? Without my legislation, services such as BRACHY therapy would not be available in the hospital outpatient setting to future Medicare patients due to the way the outpatient prospective payment system is being designed. Life saving services such as BRACHY therapy would be reimbursed at significantly lower-reimbursement rates, from approximately $10,000 to $1,500, and, therefore, it would not be cost-effective for hospitals to offer this service. Fortunately, the provisions included in the conference report change all of that--innovative treatments, such as BRACHY therapy, will now be available to future prostate cancer patients. We must get the newest technology, to seniors as quickly as possible. Government bureaucracy should not stand in the way of seniors receiving the best care available. We must put Medicare patients first, not government bureaucracy. That is why my legislation is necessary and I am so pleased that it was included in the Medicare package of the conference report. Mr. President, there are numerous other provisions in this BBA refinement package that I will not take the time to comment on now, but they are equally important and I want to commend the leadership in the Senate and House for working to put together this important measure that will clearly help millions of Medicare beneficiaries throughout the country.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. It is a real problem, and we have to do something about it. I appreciate his remarks.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Montana for his eloquent remarks on methamphetamine and the destruction it is wreaking not only on Western States such as Montana and Utah but throughout the country. We passed a methamphetamine bill out of the Senate. We have to get it through the House. I ask my dear friend from Montana to help us work with House Members to get that through. If we get that through, it will immediately start taking effect. What these kids don't realize, and their parents, is once they are hooked on meth, it is almost impossible to get them off. I had a situation where a very strong friend of mine had a son, a good kid, but he was picked up and put in jail once for meth. He promised to be OK. He had quite a bit of time to get OK, came outside, he had perfect intentions, wanted to be everything he possibly could be. Then, all of a sudden, he started making meth in his apartment, got picked up again. The father called me and said: I know he has to go to jail. I hope you can get the help for him. I called the top people and they said they will try and get him into a Federal rehabilitation center, but it would take at least 3 years just to get him to be able to handle it, not ever get rid of the desire, but just to handle it. So you parents out there, if you don't realize how important what Senator Baucus has been talking about is, then you better start thinking. If your kids get hooked on meth, it is going to be a long, hard road to get them off. Their lives may be gone. We have to pass that bill. I appreciate the distinguished Senator's remarks for the most part. I thank him for being here. I hope we will all work together to get that bill through Congress so we can solve this terrible scourge.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. It is my understanding that would be the time for the Senator to talk about his two amendments, and he has the rest of the time until 12:30 today. Then we will set aside his amendments after he calls them up so we can call up amendments.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont. He is a dear friend and the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. We work well together. His comments are very deeply felt by me. When both he and Senator Kennedy offered to come to Iowa and New Hampshire to speak against me, I think I made a big mistake by not asking them to do it. I think I would have done much better. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone call up his two amendments today and that we reserve 1 hour between 9:30 and 10:30 next Tuesday morning for the debate on both of those amendments, including up until 12:30 today.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we want to be able to finish next Tuesday. We want to resolve this.

Mr. HATCH. I have to object.

Mr. HATCH. I am not objecting.

Mr. HATCH. I ask the distinguished Senator a favor, that he do his debate today on his amendments, because we are going to move to table, and then we will have at least 10 minutes equally divided for each amendment on Tuesday. We have to get rid of these amendments.

Mr. HATCH. I ask the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, has the distinguished Senator laid down his two amendments?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Craig amendment be laid aside so the two amendments of the distinguished Senator from Minnesota can be put forward.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately resume consideration of the bankruptcy bill under the previous order. There are several amendments in order. Therefore, I encourage all Members to work with the bill managers on a time to debate their amendments. Votes ordered with respect to the bankruptcy bill will occur on Tuesday, February 1. Consequently, no votes will occur during today's session, and the next time the Senate will be conducting rollcall votes will be on Tuesday of next week. In addition, the Senate will recess today between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. in order for the weekly party caucuses to meet. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I notice the distinguished minority whip is here. If he has any comments, I certainly defer to him.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator. I thank my colleagues. Mr. President, I am pleased that we have finally reached an agreement to complete floor consideration of the bankruptcy reform legislation. It was my intention that we finish consideration and pass this bill tonight, but we cannot get it done so we will do it next Tuesday. To that end, I hope any Member who intends to offer an amendment under the agreement comes down and begins debating it as soon as possible. First, I commend everyone who has worked hard to make this agreement a reality. It took a lot of effort and cooperation to come together and get to where we are today. My staff, the majority and minority leadership and floor staffs, Senator Leahy's and Senator Reid's staffs, Senator Grassley's staff, and Senator Gramm's staff all worked literally the whole day yesterday to craft the agreement we are operating under. We have a lot of work still ahead of us. We not only have the 13 amendments we must consider today, but we have a number of major issues to resolve in conference. This bill is far from becoming law at this point, but I am optimistic that we can work together as we have done in the past to have a fair and balanced reform bill that the President can sign. Mr. President, I have stood here on the Senate floor many times and professed the need for reforming our bankruptcy system. I stand before you again today and say that the Senate has enjoyed a lengthy deliberative process. Along with my Senate colleagues, I have debated the legislation and many of its amendments at great length over the past several years. The Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, chaired by my good friend Senator Grassley, has held numerous hearings on the issue of bankruptcy reform, gaining insights from literally dozens of witnesses. I am optimistic that we will restore fairness and integrity to our bankruptcy system. I am encouraged by what has transpired in the House of Representatives with respect to bankruptcy reform: the House bill is more stringent in terms of reform than the bill we are considering here in the Senate, and it nonetheless passed by an overwhelming, veto-proof margin of 313 to 108. Not long ago in our Nation's past, there was an expectation that people should repay what they have borrowed. Hand in hand with this expectation was a stigma that attached to those who filed bankruptcy. The bankruptcy system, as it was originally envisioned, was truly a last resort. It was intended to give those who needed it--those in serious financial difficulty, with no way out of their hard times--a fresh start. As our bankruptcy system has evolved over the years, this original mission has become lost. Our current system, I am sorry to say, allows some people who are able to repay their debts to avoid doing so. It does this by treating income as irrelevant, and by allowing people to exploit various loopholes. When I talk with the hardworking folks both from my state of Utah, and more recently all across this great Nation, I simply cannot defend the current system. I cannot find an adequate explanation for why our current laws let people who have the capacity to repay their debts use bankruptcy as a financial planning tool. I cannot justify the more than $400 hidden tax our current bankruptcy system imposes on every American family every year. It is no mystery that when someone borrows money or buys something on credit, and then files a bankruptcy of convenience, someone does not get paid back. This is true whether the creditor is a large lending company in which a retiree's pension funds may be invested, or a small family business. Under the current system, when bankruptcies of convenience are filed, everyone loses except for the unscrupulous person who games the system. Studies have been conducted that show that between 6 and 15 percent of filers are using bankruptcy as a financial planning tool, running up debts and erasing them without any noticeable impact on their lifestyle. When we look at the daunting number of bankruptcy filings we have seen in recent years, these abuses are a major problem. In 1998 alone, 1.4 million Americans filed for bankruptcy. As I have pointed out before, more Americans filed bankruptcy than graduated from college, were on active military duty, or worked in the post office. During these days of great economic prosperity, these record filings are outrageous. We must put an end to the system that allows people to live high on the hog. The bill also puts the brakes on an abuse known as ``loading up,'' when debtors take out large cash advances on their credit cards and buy luxury goods on the eve of their filing for bankruptcy. The bill is also designed to enhance consumer protections by imposing penalties on creditors who overreach. Penalties are imposed on creditors who refuse to negotiate in good faith with debtors prior to declaring bankruptcy, who willfully fail to properly credit payments made by the debtor in a chapter 13 plan, and who threaten to file motions in order to coerce a reaffirmation without justification. The bill also contains provisions designed to eliminate abusive reaffirmation practices. The bill protects debtors by imposing requirements on lawyers who represent debtors in bankruptcy. These provisions are intended to target the practices of so-called bankruptcy mills, which aggressively promote bankruptcy to people with financial problems when bankruptcy may not be in their best interests. I am particularly proud of the advancements this bill makes in helping people to avoid bankruptcy and avoid repeating financial problems. The bill provides for education for debtors with respect to their alternatives to bankruptcy, along with financial management education and credit counseling. This bill also protects our children. Anyone who knows my record in the Senate knows I have been a strong advocate for children for many years. It is not surprising that this is a particularly important aspect of the bill. From the time this bill was being drafted and through the process of committee markup and floor consideration, I made it a top priority to ensure that the bill included provisions to prevent deadbeat parents from using bankruptcy to get out of paying child support and alimony. Under my provisions, the obligation to pay child support and alimony is moved to a first-priority status, as opposed to its current place at seventh in line, behind attorney's fees and other special interests. If you really want to know the truth, my measures make improvements over current law in this area that are too numerous to mention here at this time, but they work to facilitate the collection of child support and alimony and effectively prevent deadbeats from getting their obligations discharged. I am also proud that one of my provisions on S. 625, which is supported by AARP and many other important organizations, ensures that retirement savings will be treated equally in bankruptcy so that schoolteachers and church workers will no longer be at a disadvantage relative to people with retirement savings that happen to fall into other categories. I also made sure that education was protected in this bill. Under my education savings amendment, already accepted as part of S. 625, which I developed with the help of Senators Gregg, Dodd, and others, contributions made for educational expenses to education IRAs and qualified State tuition savings programs will be protected in bankruptcy. I believe protecting these savings accounts is important because college savings accounts encourage families to save for college and increase access to higher education. My amendment ensures that the ability to use dedicated funds to pay the educational costs of children and grandchildren will not be jeopardized by the bankruptcy of a parent or a grandparent. At the same time, I have included conditions on the protection of these accounts to prevent fraud and abuse. In effect, this bill tightens up the bankruptcy laws to ferret out abuses on all sides, from the unscrupulous debtor to the overreaching creditor to the dishonest lawyer. At the same time, it works to stop the cycle of indebtedness through education. It makes sure that children, our retirement savings, and access to education are all protected. It is wrong for this country to have a system that makes honest, hard-working, bill-paying citizens foot the bill for those who have the ability to pay but who choose not to. A recent study shows that 76 percent of all Americans believe individuals should not be allowed to erase all of their debts in bankruptcy if they are able to repay a portion of what they owe. I am pleased to say that that is precisely what S. 625 would accomplish. This study is heartening to me because it indicates that this country hasn't lost sight of the principle that individuals should take responsibility for their own actions. We are enjoying a wonderful period of economic prosperity. To the people who, despite their high levels of income, choose a bankruptcy of convenience, I say the game is over. No longer will the hard-working people of my State of Utah and in the rest of the country foot the bill for the people who are abusers of the system. The American people deserve better. With passage of the bankruptcy reform bill, the bankruptcy system will again return to the last resort for those who truly need it. In closing, I urge my colleagues to urge colleagues to come down here sooner rather than later to debate amendments, or let us know if they don't intend to offer them. It is my and the leader's intention, and I believe the intention of Senators Leahy and Daschle, that we debate these amendments in a timely manner today and vote on final passage next Tuesday. I hope we can get through all these amendments today, and next Tuesday we will have a full day of voting. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, following Senator Craig's amendment No. 2651, as modified, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murray be recognized for 10 minutes to speak, and I ask that Senator Sessions be given 10 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. Whenever the ranking member wants to speak, we will, at a convenient time, interrupt and allow him to do so. Finally, we will go to Senator Wellstone's amendment after Senator Sessions speaks.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend, the Senator from Idaho. This amendment is needed to clarify that if an individual has pledged his property for money and is not obligated to redeem it, and indeed does not redeem the property within the time he or she agreed to redeem it, then the bankruptcy laws are not abused to attempt to get that property back. What this amendment does is basically recognize and respect the right of individuals and businesses to be able to pledge property for money for an agreed period of time. Essentially, those businesses engaged in this type of transaction, namely pawnbrokers, provide cash loans to people in exchange for a pledge of personal property. The pawnbroker charges interest on the loan, but the customer is under no obligation to redeem the pledged property. When the individual does not redeem the pawned item within the contractual period, the property becomes part of the pawnbroker's inventory for sale. It does not continue to be the property of the individual. Some debtors have attempted to subject their pawn transactions to the operation of the bankruptcy code's automatic stay, after the time under the contract for redeeming the property has expired. Most courts that have considered the matter have held that if the debtor or the trustee does not redeem the property within a typical period of 60 days from the date of filing for bankruptcy, then full title to the property vests with the pawnbroker. This is the sensible result, because the debtor has no obligation to redeem the property. This is a sensible clarification amendment, without which, certain individuals could abuse the system to the detriment of other consumers who use and need the pawnbroker's services. Let's close this loophole and support this amendment.