S6342 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 13, 2012 

S.J. RES. 50

At the request of Mr. HATCH, the 

names of the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. HOEVEN), the Senator from 

Texas (Mrs. HUTCHISON), the Senator 

from Tennessee (Mr. ALEXANDER), the 

Senator from Georgia (Mr. ISAKSON) 

and the Senator from South Carolina 

(Mr. GRAHAM) were added as cosponsors 

of S.J. Res. 50, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval 

under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Office of Family Assistance of the 

Administration for Children and Families of the Department of Health and 

Human Services relating to waiver and 

expenditure authority under section 

1115 of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

program. 

S. RES. 543

At the request of Mrs. BOXER, the 

name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 

ROBERTS) was added as a cosponsor of 

S. Res. 543, a resolution to express the 

sense of the Senate on international 

parental child abduction. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2782

At the request of Mr. MCCONNELL, his 

name was added as a cosponsor of 

amendment No. 2782 intended to be proposed to S. 3457, a bill to require the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a veterans jobs corps, and for other 

purposes. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2790

At the request of Mr. BLUMENTHAL, 

the name of the Senator from Montana 

(Mr. TESTER) was added as a cosponsor 

of amendment No. 2790 intended to be 

proposed to S. 3457, a bill to require the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a veterans jobs corps, and for other 

purposes. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2801

At the request of Ms. SNOWE, the 

names of the Senator from Washington 

(Mrs. MURRAY) and the Senator from 

Minnesota (Ms. KLOBUCHAR) were added 

as cosponsors of amendment No. 2801 

intended to be proposed to S. 3457, a 

bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a veterans 

jobs corps, and for other purposes. 

f 

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED 

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

By Mr. KERRY: 

S. 3539. A bill to encourage the adoption and use of certified electronic 

health record technology by safety net 

providers and clinics; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009, ARRA, provided Medicare 

and Medicaid incentive payments to 

providers that adopt and meaningfully 

use electronic health records, EHRs, in 

their practices. While this program has 

helped thousands of providers, practices, and hospitals nationwide, many 

safety net providers and clinics have 

not been able to benefit from the Medicaid EHR incentives. 

Safety net providers serve as a critical entry point into the health care 

system, and provide essential health 

care services for millions of low-income, uninsured and underinsured individuals. Given that Medicaid eligibility 

levels are so low in many States, it is 

difficult for many safety net providers 

to meet the 30 percent Medicaid threshold required to participate in the Medicaid EHR incentive program even 

though their patients are predominately low-income. Congress addressed 

this problem only for practitioners 

working in federally-qualified health 

centers and rural health centers by creating a 30 percent ‘‘needy’’ threshold in 

ARRA for those providers. Unfortunately, ARRA fails to provide a similar 

standard for other providers serving 

low-income individuals. 

The Medicaid Information Technology to Enhance Community Health, 

MITECH, Act of 2012 seeks to eliminate 

the barriers that prevent safety net 

providers from qualifying from Medicaid EHR incentives. Specifically, it 

would expand eligibility for meaningful 

use incentives to providers that practice predominantly in a qualified safety net clinic, QSNC. The act defines a 

QSNC as a clinic or network of clinics 

that is operated by a private non-profit 

or public entity and that has at least 30 

percent of its patient volume attributable to needy individuals. The act 

also directs the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services to develop a methodology to allow these clinics to be eligible for meaningful use payments as 

an entity, similar to the current process that exists for hospitals. 

I would like to thank the 13 national 

organizations who have been integral 

to the development of this legislation 

and who have endorsed it today, including the Association of State and 

Territorial Health Officials, the HIV 

Medicine Association, Mental Health 

America, the National Association of 

Public Hospitals, the National Family 

Planning and Reproductive Health Association, and the Trust for America’s 

Health. 

The MITECH Act will allow safety 

net clinics to better communicate with 

patients about necessary screenings, 

help ensure compliance with prescription drugs, and will strengthen the 

safety net which provides essential 

care to so many Americans. It is my 

hope that we can move forward with 

this bill in a bipartisan manner. I ask 

all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. 

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself 

and Mr. FRANKEN): 

S. 3545. A bill to amend title 11 of the 

United States Code to clarify the rule 

allowing discharge as a nonpriority 

claim of governmental claims arising 

from the disposition of farm assets 

under chapter 12 bankruptcies; to the 

Committee on Finance. 

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise 

today to introduce, along with Senator 

FRANKEN, the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Tax Clarification Act of 2012. 

This bill addresses the recent United 

States Supreme Court case Hall v. 

United States. In a 5–4 decision, the 

Supreme Court ruled the provision I inserted into the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse 

Prevention and Consumer Protection 

Act did not accomplish what we intended. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Tax Clarification Act of 2012 

corrects this and clarifies that bankrupt family farmers reorganizing their 

debts are able to treat capital gains 

taxes owed to a governmental unit, 

arising from the sale of farm assets 

during a bankruptcy, as general unsecured claims. This bill will remove the 

Internal Revenue Service’s veto power 

over a bankruptcy reorganization 

plan’s confirmation, giving the family 

farmer a chance to reorganize successfully. 

In 1986 Congress enacted Chapter 12 

of the Bankruptcy Code to provide a 

specialized bankruptcy process for family farmers. In 2005 Chapter 12 was 

made permanent. Between 1986 and 2005 

we learned what aspects worked and 

did not work for family farmers reorganizing in bankruptcy. One problematic 

area was where a family farmer needed 

to sell assets in order to generate cash 

for the reorganization. Specifically, a 

family farmer would have to sell portions of the farm to generate cash to 

fund a reorganization plan so that the 

creditors could receive payment. Unfortunately, in situations like this, the 

family farmer is selling land that has 

been owned for a very long time, with 

a very low cost basis. Thus, when the 

land is sold, the family farmer is hit 

with a substantial capital gains tax, 

which is owed to the Internal Revenue 

Service. 

Under the Bankruptcy Code, taxes 

owed to the Internal Revenue Service 

receive priority treatment. Holders of 

priority claims must receive payment 

in full, unless the claim holder agrees 

to be treated differently. This creates 

problems for the family farmer who 

needs the cash to pay creditors to reorganize. However, since the Internal 

Revenue Service has the ability to require full payment, they hold veto 

power over a plan’s confirmation, 

which means in many instances the 

plan will not be confirmed. This does 

not make sense if the goal is to give 

the family farmer a fresh start. Thus, 

in 2005 Congress said that in these limited situations, the taxes owed to the 

Internal Revenue Service could be 

treated as general, unsecured debt. 

This removed the government’s veto 

power over plan confirmation and 

paved the way for family farmers to reorganize successfully. 

However, in Hall v. United States, 

the Supreme Court ruled that despite 

Congress’s express goal of helping family farmers, the language inserted into 

the Bankruptcy Code in 2005 conflicted 

with the Tax Code. The Hall case was 

one of statutory interpretation. There 

is no question what Congress was trying to do; rather, did Congress use the 

mmaher on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE