[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 166 (Tuesday, December 20, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14073-S14164]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the conference report.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany S. 1932, an act to provide 
     for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the current 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am not sure of the exact order of 
procedure on the floor, whether the ranking member is yielding time on 
this bill at this point.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to be yielded 5 minutes to speak.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask the leader, the ranking member, that 
I be recognized after that.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Illinois. And then how much time would the Senator from 
Montana like?
  Mr. BAUCUS. About 25 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from 
Illinois, we go to the Senator from Montana for 25 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, those who followed the conversation on the 
floor of the Senate this morning are aware of the fact we are still in 
session, as the House has left at least for the time being. Of course, 
we are close to the holiday season, when most Members assumed they 
would be home with their families, where we want to be. But instead we 
are here. I think it is worth noting why we are here.
  At the risk of hurting some muscle in my body here, I want to lift 
what we are now considering in the Senate in the closing hours: 4,000 
pages--4,000 pages--that come to us at the close of the session; 989 
pages on the appropriations for the Department of Defense, about 1,628 
pages on the Defense authorization bill, and roughly 1,400 pages on the 
Deficit Reduction Act.
  I can tell you, having been around Congress for a few years, that 
within these pages are things which will come to embarrass us. Some of 
them we know. Some of them we will learn after we leave. Of course, 
people who are following this debate say: Well, Senator, haven't you 
sat down to read all this? The honest answer is, it is physically 
impossible because good craftsmen of legislation realize that changing 
punctuation in the law can change the meaning of the law, and so what 
appears to be just a cosmetic change on a page here turns out to have 
dramatic consequences. So we try our best. My staff has been working 
straight through since many of these bills have been produced to try to 
come up with an understanding of what is included in these bills.
  But there are several things we do know about these bills. We know, 
for one thing, that the Defense bills are the last bills in the 
session, which is a dramatic change from the past. Historically, the 
Defense bills are passed early in the session, for obvious reasons. The 
argument is, for goodness' sake, before you get embroiled in a 
political controversy, take care of the troops. So historically we 
would pass a Defense authorization bill and a Defense appropriations 
bill early in the session and be done with them. That did not happen 
this time.
  The Defense authorization bill was taken off the calendar by the 
Republican leadership in July so they could make room for special 
interest legislation from the gun lobby on the question of liability. 
So that bill was intentionally delayed by the Republican leadership, 
the bill for our troops. Now, here, in the closing hours of the 
session, the bill comes back in the form of an authorization bill of 
some 1,600 pages, at the close of the session.
  The Defense appropriations bill has historically been a bill we 
considered first. It is the bill in which we want to make sure we take 
care of the troops, take care of the Department of Defense, and meet 
our obligation. Why is it last? Why is this 1,000-page bill coming at 
us at the last moment? I will tell you why. Because Senators have come 
to understand this bill has to pass. So they put some of the most 
controversial provisions, some of the most outrageous provisions in the 
bill for our troops and for our national defense.
  There is a provision in here which is well known now and well 
reported, put in by the Senators from Alaska, for drilling in the 
Arctic National Wildlife

[[Page S14074]]

Refuge. That is put in the Department of Defense appropriations bill. 
Why? Why in the world would you put that provision, that controversial 
provision, in a bill which has to pass for our troops? Well, it is high 
noon. It is a showdown. It is a question about who will flinch first. 
If you load up the bill that has to pass with these outrageous and 
controversial provisions, the Senators who put them in there are 
defying the membership of the Senate to stand up and say no. And they 
want to be prepared to say: Oh, you are going to vote against the 
Department of Defense appropriations bill or hold it up. That is just 
an outrage.
  I will tell you what is an outrage. An outrage is using this bill, 
which is designed for our troops and our soldiers, as a political 
vehicle.
  There are things in here which are nothing short of amazing--not only 
this Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling, which has been debated 
for years around here, but an allocation of the resources from that 
drilling to the State of Alaska, and others, in ways that are very 
generous to that State, at the expense of other States and at the 
expense of the Treasury. There is a provision in this bill about the 
liability of pharmaceutical companies when they manufacture vaccines. 
That is in the Department of Defense appropriations bill.
  Of course, there are provisions in here for Katrina victims. I am 
glad they are in here. I thought they would be part of some emergency 
appropriation, but it just shows you that this bill, and all its 
complications, is an example of why we are still here this week. It is 
a failure of leadership. It is a failure to really address the issues 
that present themselves to the Senate in a forthright manner.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator's time has expired.
  Under the consent agreement, the Senator from Montana is recognized 
for 25 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I echo a lot of the same concerns just 
voiced by the Senator from Illinois. We have all been here a few years, 
and we see some things that are questionable. But the actions taken by 
the majority in this session of this Congress are beyond questionable. 
In many cases, I think they are outrageous, and I am very glad the 
Senator from Illinois brought the Senate's attention to them.
  Mr. President, I am here to speak on the pending legislation, and 
that is the budget reconciliation bill that is before us. I oppose this 
budget reconciliation bill, and I do so for a couple of very basic 
reasons.
  First of all, this bill would cause many of America's poorest 
citizens to go without needed medical treatment. Just think of that: 
some of the poorest citizens in our country to go without needed 
medical treatment. It would make it harder for many of America's 
neediest citizens to move off of welfare and on to work. It would make 
it harder, not easier, to get off of welfare and on to work. It would 
also deprive many single parents help in getting child support from 
their deadbeat spouses. It makes it harder to get child support from 
deadbeat spouses. That is what this bill does, and I will explain later 
why that is the case. And this bill would undercut American lumber 
workers in their dispute with Canadian lumber.
  There is a better way. The better way is something much more similar 
to what the Senate passed here, although I opposed it because I thought 
it was so draconian, and I opposed it because I felt it would lay the 
seeds for just what is happening here today, and that is a conference 
report that is much, much worse than the Senate-passed bill.
  I think the Senate should vote down this bill. We do not have to pass 
it this year. This is not an appropriations bill. This is not a tax 
bill. It does not have to be passed this year. It should be voted down 
so we can get to work next year and cut the budget in a more fair and 
more moderate way, rather than this draconian way contained in this 
bill.
  There is a right way and a wrong way, for example, to control health 
care spending. We all know health care costs are high, but let's just 
reflect a little bit and try to figure out what is the right way to cut 
health care costs to address that situation and do that rather than the 
wrong way.
  Well, I might say, we in this body included some of the right way in 
the Senate-passed reconciliation bill. What is that? We included 
provisions to put us on the road to paying for performance and quality 
in health care. That is the right way to control health care costs; 
that is, to reimburse providers--doctors and hospitals--a little bit 
more when they show their outcomes are a little better, they are doing 
a better job. That means health care costs will come down because the 
quality will increase and we will not be providing, in many cases, 
health care that is irrespective of quality. We have to start 
addressing quality in health care. The Senate-passed bill started to 
address that. The conference report hardly even touches that. I will 
explain that a little bit later, too.
  What does this bill do? Instead, this bill merely cuts holes in the 
safety net. It cuts holes in the safety net. It does not shore it up 
and try to figure out ways to address the problems; it cuts holes and 
makes things worse. How? Well, it raises Medicaid copayments for those 
least able to pay. It raises costs for people on Medicaid. It also 
allows States to cut Medicaid benefits below existing minimum benefits. 
That is the wrong way to control health care costs. The better way is 
to address paid performance and quality. The wrong way is to just 
willy-nilly cutting expenditures for the poorest of our Americans; that 
is, for the Medicaid Program.
  We have also seen how the wrong way works, not in theory but in 
practice. Increasing costs for poor people forces them not to seek 
health care when they need it. It has that effect. When the poor people 
in our country have to pay that much more for health care, what do they 
do? They don't get the health care. What happens? They live a little 
bit more with the illness they have. What is the consequence of that? 
They come back to the emergency room later when their condition gets 
worse. The system ends up spending more on health care rather than 
less. The burden of uncompensated care grows. You and I and all the 
rest of us who pay for health care end up paying still more for health 
care because of the increased uncompensated care because the poorer 
people will not be seeking the health care they need but put it off 
and, therefore, go to emergency rooms, and we end up paying more. That 
is the way the wrong way works. That is the way provided for in this 
bill.
  Furthermore, this bill is not a moderate package. Far from it. The 
Senate-passed bill was more moderate. Instead, the bill before us hews 
largely to the House-passed bill which is not moderate. It is extreme. 
It is draconian. The bill before us, which hews mostly to the House 
side, would impose nearly $2 billion in increased cost sharing on 
Medicaid beneficiaries or about 80 percent of the cost-sharing 
increases in the House bill. What else? The bill would also allow State 
Medicaid Programs to offer Medicaid beneficiaries an ``actuarially 
equivalent'' benefit package. What does that mean? I will tell you what 
it means. It means reduced benefits. It is a fancy euphemism for 
reduced benefits for Medicaid beneficiaries. States will also be able 
to impose new premiums for coverage and to drop individuals from 
Medicaid if they can't pay.
  Last week I offered a motion to instruct participants of this 
conference not to harm Medicaid beneficiaries by passing a budget 
reconciliation bill that resembles the House-passed bill. The Senate 
overwhelmingly supported that motion. The vote was 75 to 16. I was 
heartened. I felt good about that action. The Senate was speaking 
clearly and strongly not to let the conferees impose draconian cuts. 
Senators who supported that motion should stick to their guns. They 
should remain consistent in their support of Medicaid. They should vote 
against this reconciliation conference report in view of what the 
Congress has done juxtaposed to that 75-to-16 vote.
  I am disappointed with many of the provisions included in this budget 
reconciliation bill. I am also disappointed with provisions that were 
not included in this bill. The conference report does not include 
meaningful pay-for-performance and quality provisions. We live in a 
country that spends twice as much as any other country on health care 
per capita. Yet our country ranks

[[Page S14075]]

37th in the world on quality. Think of that. We spend twice as much per 
capita as any other country in the world and yet we rank 37th in the 
world on quality. Our country leaves almost 16 percent of our 
population with no health care coverage at all.
  We are not getting good value for our health care dollar. The value 
that each health care dollar buys varies widely from patient to 
patient. Consider recent research from Dartmouth that looked at large 
hospitals in California.
  That research found that per-person Medicare spending on health care 
in the last 2 years of life ranged from $20,000 to almost $90,000. The 
more expensive patients were not sicker. That is the point. They did 
not receive higher quality care. That is also the point. But they cost 
the Medicare Program over four times more.
  I was proud to work with the chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. 
Grassley, to write legislation bringing quality improvement and 
accountability to Medicare. We worked hard on that. We got a bill 
passed out of committee. Under our Medicare Value Purchasing Act, 
Medicare providers would be held accountable for the care they provide. 
And the best providers would be rewarded accordingly.
  Doesn't that make sense, that we reward quality? Shouldn't we do that 
in the health care system? We don't today in America. Most every other 
industry is rewarded for quality, but our health care service by and 
large is not. The Senate included our pay-for-performance legislation 
in the budget reconciliation bill that passed this Chamber last month. 
I did not support the larger bill, but I was pleased that our Medicare 
quality legislation was included in the package. But our quality bill 
has mostly been stripped in the conference report.
  The conference report expands existing quality reporting requirements 
for hospitals. It sets up minimal reporting requirements for some home 
health. The report includes a study on pay for performance in hospitals 
and some minimal payment changes to discourage a couple of hospital-
acquired infections. These provisions are only for hospitals and are 
mostly at the discretion of the Secretary.
  Moreover, these provisions are delayed until years after the 
independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission recommended that 
Medicare providers would be ready to be paid for quality. I am 
disappointed to see Congress setting the bar so low because we have so 
little time in which to address the increasing costs of health care and 
all the problems that creates. I oppose this conference report because 
it doesn't begin to address what could and should be done. I remain 
fully committed to seeing Medicare pay-for-performance become law.

  I also supported a motion to instruct conferees related to TANF, the 
Nation's welfare program. Offered by Senator Carper, this motion 
instructed conferees not to reauthorize TANF through the budget 
reconciliation process. That was the motion offered by the Senator from 
Delaware. That passed by a large vote.
  What happened? First, let's remember that Congress enacted the TANF 
Program back in 1996. It was enacted to help welfare recipients get 
work skills and to help low-income families become economically self-
sufficient. I supported it in 1996. Many Democrats did not, but I 
thought it was a good way to get people off of welfare and a fair way 
to get people back to work. What has happened? Welfare reform has 
mostly succeeded. That 1996 bill was a good bill. States have adopted 
creative policies to support low-income families making the transition 
from welfare to work, and millions have moved to self-sufficiency. It 
is not great, but it is a lot better than what it was prior to 1996.
  The TANF law expired in 2002. Senator Grassley, chairman of the 
committee, and I worked diligently on the TANF reauthorization bill 
this year. It was a compromise that enjoyed near unanimous support in 
the committee. We could not get that bill up in the full Senate. There 
were a few willful Senators who opposed it, even though it had the near 
unanimous support of the Finance Committee. It was a moderate 
reauthorization of TANF.
  Let's also remember policy changes to TANF--and they are quite 
pervasive and significant--do not belong in the fast-track budget 
reconciliation process. It does not belong there. The Presiding Officer 
knows that, as does everybody in this body. That process was designed 
to reduce the deficit, not to reauthorize important safety net programs 
such as TANF or other major policy issues. That is particularly true 
given the nature of the TANF provisions in this bill. This conference 
report contains strict new work requirements in TANF. Not only is it a 
reauthorization, it has provisions that make the program not work, make 
it worse. It is not moderate. It makes it worse. It is in this 
conference report.
  This report undermines the State flexibility necessary to meet the 
standards of their most vulnerable citizens. This conference report 
provides only $1 billion in childcare funds, even though we need $12.4 
billion in childcare funding to keep up with inflation. How miserly is 
that? Only $1 billion in childcare, when we really need 12 billion. 
Let's compromise, maybe 6, $7 billion; that is a compromise. That is 
midway between what this bill provides and what inflation calls for. 
But no, there is only $1 billion in this bill.
  The report also foists a set of unfunded mandates on States, mandates 
that would harm low-income families. Let's not forget these families 
are playing by the rules right now. They are trying to do what is 
right. They are trying to work their way off of welfare and trying to 
get into sustainable employment. But this conference report eliminates 
the State flexibility that has made the TANF Program a resounding 
success.
  We should reauthorize TANF. We should improve the program to focus on 
reducing poverty as well as welfare caseloads. And we should ensure 
that more people can leave welfare for sustainable work.
  This conference report does just the opposite. More families will 
lose assistance. And our State partners will lose the flexibility that 
they need to support families in their time of need.
  Speaking of families, what about the child support enforcement 
provisions in this bill? This conference report includes a $5 billion 
cut in Federal funding for child support enforcement efforts. That's 
right, a $5 billion cut.
  States use these funds to track down absent parents, to establish 
legally enforceable child support orders, and to collect and distribute 
child support owed to families. These cuts will take billions of 
dollars out of the pockets of mothers and children who are owed child 
support. This cut is simply indefensible.
  This bill also fails to adequately address the health needs of 
Katrina victims. It has been nearly 4 months since Katrina hit, 
resulting in over a thousand deaths, the displacement of over a million 
people, and a reconstruction bill that may exceed a couple hundred 
billion dollars. The Katrina disaster was unprecedented. It required an 
unprecedented response by Congress. That's why I worked with Chairman 
Grassley in the days following the hurricane to write S. 1716, the 
Emergency Health Care Relief Act.
  That bill would have provided 5 months of temporary Medicaid coverage 
for Katrina evacuees in poverty.
  That bill would have shored up State Medicaid programs overwhelmed by 
Katrina evacuees. That bill would have reimbursed providers for 
uncompensated care provided to Katrina evacuees. And that bill would 
have helped States with the unprecedented burden on Gulf State welfare 
programs.
  But the Senate did not pass that bill. The Senate could not even take 
it up.
  We tried to take it up many times. We stood on the floor many times 
and asked unanimous consent to bring up the bill, but we were opposed 
by a band of two or three or four Senators, but we cannot understand 
why. I think, basically, they are doing it at the behest of the White 
House, the President. The President didn't want to help people down 
there with their health care needs, and the congressional leadership 
did his bidding.
  I appreciate Chairman Grassley's efforts to help Katrina victims. He 
fought to pass S. 1716 legislation against the wishes of the White 
House and his congressional leadership. I want him to know that I 
appreciate his efforts.
  When the Senate eventually passed this budget reconciliation measure, 
it included some Katrina relief. It was an

[[Page S14076]]

insufficient amount. And I could not support it. It was so paltry, it 
was an insult. As for this conference report before us today, it is 
still insufficient. Moreover, its Katrina funding comes in the form of 
a block grant.
  So States affected by Katrina, as well as States treating Katrina 
evacuees, are given $2 billion for their Katrina health-care needs, 
whether that is a sufficient amount or not. Both the House and Senate 
bills had provided for 100 percent federal financing over the short 
term for all States with Katrina-related Medicaid costs.
  Finally, I want to briefly mention an important trade issue. This 
bill repeals the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also known 
as the Byrd amendment. This repeal could not come at a worse time for 
the American lumber industry. The industry has recently suffered a 
series of setbacks in its long-running dispute with Canada on imports 
of Canadian softwood lumber.
  The Byrd amendment is one of the few tools the industry still has to 
encourage Canada to settle the lumber dispute once and for all. 
Repealing the Byrd amendment now pulls the rug right out from under the 
industry. I won't do that. And I urge my colleagues who are friends of 
the lumber industry to join me in supporting the industry by voting 
against this bill.
  We don't have to pass this bill this year, Mr. President. There is no 
need. None. So let's not pass it and do what is right in a subsequent 
reconciliation bill.
  Mr. President, there is a great deal to be disappointed about in this 
spending reconciliation legislation. It does not meet the health and 
welfare needs of Katrina victims. It makes health care for the poorest 
among us more expensive and lets well-heeled people off the hook.
  It puts forth an unreasonably austere welfare program in a vehicle 
where it doesn't belong. It fails to advance the Medicare quality 
agenda that many of us have worked so hard to make reality. And it 
undermines the U.S. lumber industry at the worst possible moment.
  In short, Mr. President, the Senate should reject this bill. The 
Senate can do better. I urge my colleagues to do better by the American 
people by voting ``no.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a lengthy list of all of the groups that oppose this bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       The following organizations have urged a ``no'' vote on the 
     spending reconciliation bill:
       AARP; Academy for Educational Development; AFL-CIO; AIDS 
     Alliance for Children, Youth & Families; AIDS Alliance for 
     Children, Youth, & Families; AIDS Institute; Alliance for 
     Children and Families; Alliance for Retired Americans; 
     Alliance of Louisiana Developmental Centers Families & 
     Friends; American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; 
     American Academy of Pediatrics; American Academy of Physical 
     Medicine and Rehabilitation; American Association of 
     Community Colleges; American Association of People with 
     Disabilities; American Association of State Colleges and 
     Universities; American Association on Mental Retardation; 
     American College of Nurse Practitioners; American Congress of 
     Community Supports and Employment Services; American Council 
     of the Blind; American Council on Education.
       American Diabetes Association; American Federation of 
     State, County and Municipal Employees; American Federation of 
     Teachers; American Foundation for the Blind; American Medical 
     Student Association; American Network of Community Options 
     and Resources; American Nurses Association; American Public 
     Health Association; American Therapeutic Recreation 
     Association; Americans for Democratic Action; APSE: The 
     Network on Employment; Asian American Justice Center; 
     Association for the Mentally Retarded at Agnews; Association 
     of Academic Physiatrists; Association of American 
     Universities; Association of Community College Trusts; 
     Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities; Association 
     of University Centers on Disabilities; Bazelon Center for 
     Mental Health Law; Beatrice State Development Center Family 
     and Friends Association.
       B'nai B'rith International; Brain Injury Association of 
     America; Catholic Charities USA; Campaign for Mental Health 
     Reform (coalition of 16 national organizations); Center for 
     Adolescent Health & the Law; Center for Advocacy for the 
     Rights and Interests of the Elderly; Center for Public Policy 
     Priorities; Center on Disability and Health; Child Welfare 
     League of America; Child Welfare League of America; 
     Children's Cause for Cancer Advocacy; Children's Defense 
     Fund; Clearbrook Parents and Guardians Association; Coalition 
     on Human Needs; Community Catalyst; Community HIV/AIDS 
     Mobilization Project/CHAMP; Concerned Citizens For The 
     Mentally Retarded; Consortium for Citizens with 
     Disabilities; Consumers Union; Council for Exceptional 
     Children.
       Council for Higher Education Accreditation; Council of 
     State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation; Council of 
     Women's and Infants' Specialty Hospitals; Democratic 
     Governors Association; Dever Association for the Retarded, 
     Inc.; Disability Service Providers of America; District of 
     Columbia Primary Care Association; Division for Early 
     Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children; Dixon 
     Association For Retarded Citizens; Easter Seals; Epilepsy 
     Foundation; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Families 
     USA; Fight Crime: Invest in Kids (2,500 Police Chiefs, 
     Sheriffs, and Prosecutors); Gay Men's Health Crisis; General 
     Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church; 
     Generations United; Gray Panthers California; Guttmacher 
     Institute; Health and Disability Advocates in Chicago.
       HIV Medicine Association; Housing Works, Inc.; Hudson 
     Health Plan; Human Rights Campaign; Hyacinth AIDS Foundation; 
     IDEA Infant Toddler Coordinators Association; Institute for 
     Reproductive Health Access; International Association of 
     Business, Industry and Rehabilitation; International Union, 
     United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers 
     of America--UAW; Jewish Association for Services for the 
     Aged; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Federation of 
     Metropolitan Chicago; Learning Disabilities Association of 
     America; Legal Action Center; Lutheran Services in America; 
     Massachusetts Coalition of Families and Advocates for the 
     Retarded; Medicare Rights Center; Mental Retardation 
     Association of Utah; Mount St. Joseph Association; National 
     Academy of Elder Law Attorneys.
       National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good 
     Shepherd; National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS 
     Directors; National Alliance on Mental Illness; National 
     Alliance to End Homelessness; National Asian American Pacific 
     Islander Mental Health Association; National Asian Pacific 
     American Women's Forum; National Association for Children's 
     Behavioral Health; National Association for the Advancement 
     of Orthotics and Prosthetics; National Association of 
     College and University Business Officers; National 
     Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities; 
     National Association of County Behavioral Health and 
     Developmental Disability Directors; National Association 
     of Health Advocacy Programs; National Association of 
     Independent Colleges and Universities; National 
     Association of Mental Health Planning and Advisory 
     Councils; National Association of Pediatric Nurse 
     Practitioners; National Association of People with AIDS; 
     National Association of School Psychologists; National 
     Association of Social Workers; National Association of 
     State Head Injury Administrators; National Association of 
     State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs.
       National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant 
     Colleges; National Association of Student Financial Aid 
     Administrators; National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home 
     Reform; National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
     Medicare; National Council for Community Behavioral 
     Healthcare; National Council of La Raza; National Council on 
     Aging; National Council on Independent Living; National 
     Disability Rights Network; National Down Syndrome Congress; 
     National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association; 
     National Health Council; National Health Law Program; 
     National Immigration Law Center; National Indian Health 
     Board; National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health; 
     National Mental Health Association; National Multiple 
     Sclerosis Society; National Nursing Centers Consortium; 
     National Organization of Social Security Claimants' 
     Representatives.
       National Partnership for Women & Families; National 
     Partnership for Women and Families; National Respite 
     Coalition; National Senior Citizens Law Center; National 
     Spinal Cord Injury Association; National Women's Health 
     Network; National Women's Law Center; NETWORK, a National 
     Catholic Social Justice Lobby; NISH; Oregon Center for Public 
     Policy; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Parent Hospital 
     Association, Sonoma Developmental Center; Parents & Friends 
     of Hammond Developmental Center Association; Physicians for 
     Social Responsibility; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 
     Washington Office; Presbyterian Church of Christ; ProCare3; 
     Project Inform; Protestants for the Common Good; Providence 
     Health System.
       Research Institute for Independent Living; RESULTS; San 
     Francisco AIDS Foundation; School Social Work Association of 
     America; Service Employees International Union; Society 
     for Adolescent Medicine; St. Mary's Residential Training 
     School; State Associations of Addiction Services; State 
     PIRGs Higher Education Project; The Arc of the United 
     States; The Episcopal Church; The Well Project; Tourette 
     Syndrome Association; Treatment Access Expansion Project; 
     Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance; UHCAN Ohio; United Cerebral 
     Palsy; United Church of Christ; United Food and Commercial 
     Workers International Union; United Methodist Church.
       United Spinal Association; United States Psychiatric 
     Rehabilitation Association;

[[Page S14077]]

     United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; USAction; Voice 
     of the Retarded; Voices for America's Children; Volunteers of 
     America; Welfare Law Center; YWCA USA.
       The following organizations have expressed concerns about 
     the bill:
       Alzheimer's Association; Ambulatory Pediatric Association; 
     America Dental Hygienists' Association; American Association 
     Medical Colleges; American Baptist Churches USA; American Bar 
     Association; American Cancer Society; American Dental 
     Education Association; American Dental Hygienists' 
     Association; American Friends of Service Committee; American 
     Orthopsychiatric Association; American Pediatric Society; 
     Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs; 
     B'nai B'rith International; Call to Renewal; Child Neurology 
     Society; Children's Health Fund; Church Women United; 
     Churches of the Brethren Witness/Washington Office; Council 
     of Women's and Infants' Specialty Hospitals.
       First Candle; International Hearing Society; LCCR; March of 
     Dimes; National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys; National 
     Assembly on School-Based Health Care; National Association 
     for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); National 
     Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC); National 
     Association of Police Organizations (NAPO); National Council 
     of Churches; National Council on Independent Living; National 
     League of Cities; National Puerto Rican Coalition; Union of 
     Reform Judaism.

  Mr. BAUCUS. This is a lengthy list. I don't have time to read them 
all.
  The groups that start with A, such as AARP, for example, are at the 
head of the list. This is seven pages. Let me guess how many groups per 
page. It is about 30 groups per page at least, in groups of seven. So 
30 times 7 is a couple hundred groups that are opposed to this bill--
for good reason. This is not something they willy-nilly just came up 
with; they have looked at this bill. They have concluded, as I have, 
that we should not pass this bill. We don't have to pass it now. We can 
do it next year. We should go home for Christmas.
  This is some Christmas present. This bill cuts Medicaid to people, 
pulls the rug out from under the lumber industry, and it hurts low-
income people trying to get to work and off of welfare. Some Christmas 
present. We should go home for Christmas and not pass this legislation 
and then come back next year and do the right thing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand Senator Chambliss is on his 
way over. I will yield when he gets here. I want to respond briefly to 
what the Senator from Montana said. I have respect for the Senator. He 
is one of the Members who is always constructive in trying to move the 
process forward in a way that is usually very bipartisan. But I do 
believe on the issue of the Medicaid accounts, he is inconsistent with 
where we ended up.
  The Medicaid issue is really at the essence of this effort to reduce 
debt through this deficit reduction bill. Why is that? Well, because we 
know as we look into the outyears, the biggest problem we have as a 
Federal Government from the standpoint of fiscal policy is that we have 
these huge obligations. Yesterday I said it was $44 trillion. I am told 
by the staff that the Comptroller's office said it is $51 trillion of 
unfunded liability that the American people--especially our children 
and our children's children--are going to have to pay in order to 
support the retired population that is now called the baby boom 
generation. Of that $51 trillion--a trillion dollars is an impossible 
number to conceive, and $51 trillion is absolutely inconceivable. But 
of that number, the vast majority of it, up to $30 trillion, is health 
care costs in two accounts, Medicare and Medicaid.
  Why is that? It is because the retiring generation is so huge that 
the demands it is going to put on the system are so dramatic that 
essentially it is going to bankrupt our children if we do not do 
something about addressing it. We know that by the year 2030, under the 
present flow of spending, the Federal Government, which today takes 
about 20 percent of the gross national product for everything we do--
national defense, education, laying out roads, environmental 
protection, health care, and veterans care--because of this retiring 
generation, 20 percent of the gross national product will have to be 
spent on 3 accounts: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. There is 
no way you can tax your way out of this unless you are willing to 
dramatically increase the taxes on our children and our children's 
children. You have to reform these programs.
  This bill put our toe in the water, hopefully up to our ankles, on 
one of those three major entitlement accounts, specifically Medicaid. 
The proposals on this bill on Medicaid were proposals that essentially 
came to us as a Congress from the Governors in a bipartisan commission. 
The Governors got together and said, How can we improve the Medicaid 
Program? How can we give more services to more children but do it more 
effectively, thus costing less money and having the rate of growth of 
Medicaid slow a little bit. They came forward with a number of 
proposals which we have essentially adopted in this bill.
  The practical effect of that is we will expand coverage to children. 
It is expected that about a million children who are not covered today 
under Medicaid will be picked up under this bill as a result of giving 
the Governors more flexibility.
  As the Senator from Montana said, the concept that we are savaging 
the Medicaid accounts during the Christmas season is not defensible on 
its face. We will spend $1.2 trillion over this next 5 years on 
Medicaid. We are talking about reducing Medicaid spending during that 
period by $5 billion.
  To give you a chart that reflects what type of reduction that is, the 
green line is Medicaid spending. The red line is Medicaid spending 
after this event, after this passes. There can be no difference because 
Medicaid spending goes up so dramatically during this period. When you 
reduce it by $5 billion, you literally are not dramatically reducing 
the Medicaid benefits--literally. The numbers still go up. You cannot 
even calculate it in terms of a digit. For example, Medicaid spending 
is going to go up 40 percent during the next 5 years. After this bill, 
Medicaid spending is going to go up 40 percent in the next 5 years. So 
this representation that we are doing some sort of terrible event to 
Medicaid is absurd on its face because the numbers don't defend it. 
What is in this bill that is important to Medicaid is the new policy 
which is going to give the Governors more flexibility, which is going 
to keep Medicaid from being abused and gamed by people, people who are 
worth a million dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars, basically 
taking their obligations to pay for their retirement and putting it on 
the American taxpayer generally. That will end. Call it spend down. 
Governors will be given flexibility to try to reorganize their Medicaid 
Programs so they can deliver more services to more people.
  I have to disagree strongly with the representation that somehow we 
have cut Medicaid. We have not cut it. The facts are that Medicaid is 
going to grow 40 percent over the 5-year period. I wanted to get a 
little more of a reduction in the rate of growth. I wanted to see us do 
$15 billion, but we compromised, as a result of a lot of different 
influences around here, at $5 billion on a $1.1 trillion base. It does 
not even show up as a statistical change over those 5 years.

  But what is important in this bill is the policy, the policy which in 
later years, and hopefully as we move through this period, will allow 
Governors to deliver this program more effectively to more people at 
less of a rate of growth. We have to address this. We can continue to 
bury our heads in the sand, and we have done that now for 8 years. We 
have not addressed the entitlement accounts for 8 years. This is the 
first time we tried to step on this area, which represents 60 percent 
of Federal spending, but if we continue to bury our heads in the sand 
and not pass this small step forward in the area of trying to put 
better policy in place for these health care programs, all we are doing 
is saying to our children we don't have the courage to step up and try 
to give you a chance to have a decent lifestyle. We are going to take 
advantage of you. We are going to tax you so when you want to send your 
kids to college, you will not be able to afford it or when you want to 
buy a house, you won't be able to afford it because your tax burden 
will be so high to support this generation, it will be so huge.
  It is not right for policymakers to take this position. We should 
step onto this turf called entitlement spending. That is what this bill 
does and that is why I think we should pass it.

[[Page S14078]]

  I do not think Senator Chambliss has arrived, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in many ways the chairman has made my 
case, because the hard reality here is this bill does virtually nothing 
to address the deficit and debt crisis we face as a Nation. This bill 
has $40 billion of cuts over 5 years. The first year the cut is $5 
billion in a budget of $2.5 trillion.
  According to the math I learned growing up in Bismarck, ND, that is 
reducing the spending by 1/500 of the budget. Of course this is only 
chapter 1 of reconciliation. Chapter 2 is going to cut taxes, either, 
according to the Senate version, $70 billion, or the House version, $95 
billion. In the House version in the first year they would cut the 
spending $5 billion and cut taxes $21 billion. Guess what. The deficit 
is not reduced. The deficit is increased. The deficit is increased, not 
reduced by this package of reconciliation.
  But it is not just the first year or the 5 years; the thing nobody is 
paying any attention to is the growth of the debt. Last year the 
deficit was $319 billion, but that is not how much the debt increased. 
The debt increased by $551 billion. Under this budget plan over the 
next 5 years, the debt of this country is going up $600 or $700 billion 
a year, each and every year. We are going from a total debt in this 
country of $7.9 trillion at the end of last year to a projection, by 
those who are the advocates of this plan, of $11.3 trillion 5 years 
from now.
  Is anybody paying attention? This is a budget that is going to 
increase the debt of the country, according to its own advocates, by 
$3.4 trillion. There will be $3.4 trillion of added debt. And they have 
a title of ``deficit reduction''? No. That is not going to pass any 
test. It is not deficit reduction we are talking about in this budget 
plan we are now in the final steps of considering.
  Mr. President, I notice Senator Chambliss is on the floor. He is 
supposed to be having this time. I will alert colleagues--is Senator 
Chambliss prepared to proceed?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Yes, I am.
  Mr. CONRAD. Why don't we go to Senator Chambliss. My understanding is 
the Senator will take 15 minutes; is that correct?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Probably not that long, but certainly no more than 
that.
  Mr. CONRAD. Whatever time the Senator consumes, we will go to Senator 
Kennedy for 15 minutes and then to Senator Schumer, so colleagues have 
an understanding of where we are headed. Then my understanding is we 
try to slot in Senator Stabenow, and then Senator Allard, we have been 
told, would like to speak at 11:30, and then Senator Stevens at noon.
  We have not gotten a formal agreement on that, but that is the 
informal agreement at this point. If Senator Gregg has a need to 
respond to something in between, he would certainly have that right.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, that is a good outline. I note that if 
Members want to speak, it would be nice if they would give us a call 
and tell us they want to speak, and we will make sure they have time to 
speak. We want to make sure everybody has the time they need to get 
their points across.
  Do I understand that the Senator is yielding time off the bill on his 
side to Senator Chambliss?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on his side I think will be the most 
appropriate.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield whatever time Senator Chambliss 
uses.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I will say nice things about the 
Senator from North Dakota, so it can come from either side.
  I rise in support of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Omnibus 
Reconciliation Act of 2005. Yet I must express some serious concern 
about the final results of the agriculture title which was negotiated 
by the House and Senate leadership. It was ultimately decided upon, 
frankly, by the leadership of the other body, but we would not be where 
we are today without the leadership of Senator Gregg as chairman of the 
Budget Committee.
  This has been a long and very arduous process that we have gone 
through. It has taken us literally almost 12 months to get to where we 
are today. I think, at the end of the day, we are hopefully going to 
pass a meaningful deficit reduction package that, while not perfect, 
does move us down the road to getting our fiscal house in order.
  I say to Senator Conrad, who is a member of the Agriculture 
Committee, that while he didn't agree with what we were doing relative 
to budget reductions in the agriculture title of the bill, during the 
committee markup, he was very cooperative and allowed the committee to 
expeditiously report our title to the budget committee. That is a sign 
of leadership where, even when we disagree, we can still do what is 
best and that is bring up issues such as this for debate. For that I 
commend Senator Conrad and thank him for his cooperation in that 
regard.
  The good news is that the reductions contained in the conference 
report will reduce the Federal Government's overall deficit and 
borrowing. Unfortunately, the reductions in the agriculture title are 
not balanced nor fair. I stated throughout the reconciliation process 
that my ultimate goal was for all components of the farm bill--
commodities, conservation, and nutrition--to be fairly treated. This 
package does not accomplish that goal.
  I am pleased the final package maintained the Senate position of no 
reduction in the Food Stamp Program. At the end of the day, we decided 
that was fair and equitable because the Food Stamp Program benefits not 
just those people who need food stamps, but it is also extremely 
beneficial to farmers.
  However, continued insistence of no extension of the commodity title 
of the farm bill by the leadership of the other body, the White House, 
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has resulted in a package that 
now contains obvious inequities.
  The Senate strived to preserve the agriculture baseline for all farm 
bill programs with temporary cuts over multiple years. In doing so, 
commodity programs, conservation, research, and rural development would 
have contributed in an equitable manner to deficit reduction. These 
options, along with the extension of the farm bill, would have 
protected the baseline, treated all components of the farm bill 
equally, and provided security for farmers in future years. However, 
the leadership of the other body insisted on concentrating deep 
temporary cuts in the 2006 crop-year only, rather than slight 
multiyear, across-the-board cuts to commodities which would allow us to 
have several options to extend the commodity program baseline as with 
conservation.
  I cannot agree to impose such a heavy financial burden that hits 
producers still reeling from a season of crop loss and double costs for 
irrigation, fertilizer, and diesel. Until the bitter end, the 
leadership of the other body rejected several Senate alternatives, 
forcing the conference committee to drop multiple-year commodity 
program reductions.
  The imbalance of this package is apparent on its face. While the 
baseline is preserved for some conservation programs through extension 
in the law, the House Agriculture Committee opposed similar treatment 
for the commodity title. This final package contains a short-term 
reprieve from cutting crop payments, which means commodities will not 
be protected like conservation during reauthorization. This will be a 
big problem for farmers as Congress begins to write the farm bill in 
2007. The constant critics of agricultural programs will blame farmers 
for escaping their share of deficit reductions, as commodity support 
programs are about to be considered for reauthorization.
  In addition, budgetary pressures on the next farm bill will be 
enhanced just as negotiations should be concluded in the World Trade 
Organization. We have already seen our trading partners and 
nongovernmental organizations target one commodity, cotton, which is 
widely grown in my home State of Georgia, with many other commodities 
within their target sights. With little shared sacrifice in budget 
reconciliation, I am concerned that critics at home and abroad will 
note that the United States has not moved forward on true reform and 
will call for deeper and more binding commitments in order to enforce 
the minimal amount of discipline.
  We cannot say with the same vigor as we did when the Senate passed S. 
1932

[[Page S14079]]

that the United States is already reducing the overall level of trade-
distorting domestic support. Those who have successfully challenged our 
farm programs will be given added incentive to attack other 
commodities, and this may, and likely will, have an even more serious 
and severe impact on family farms across the country.
  The conference agreement includes reductions for fiscal years 2006 
through 2010 for commodities, conservation, energy, research, and rural 
development programs. Specifically, it includes no extension of 
commodity programs and no across-the-board cuts for commodity programs. 
It reduces direct advance payments to 40 percent for the 2006 crop-year 
and to 22 percent for the 2007 crop-year. The Cotton Step 2 Program is 
terminated effective August 1, 2006.

  The Milk Income Loss Contract Program is extended for 2 years at a 
cost of $998 million but is not subject to the 2.5-percent reduction 
offered and proposed by the Senate.
  The Environmental Quality Incentives Program is extended in law to 
2010, but the funding is reduced $1.27 billion in fiscal years 2007 
through 2009. It is increased to $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2010.
  The Conservation Security Program is extended in law to 2011, but 
baseline funding is kept at $1.954 billion for fiscal years 2006 
through 2010 and at $5.65 billion for fiscal years 2006 through 2015.
  Additionally, funding for the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program 
is rescinded.
  The Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements 
Program is limited to $3 million in fiscal year 2007. Unspent obligated 
funds from prior years from the Value-Added Agricultural Product Market 
Development Grant Program and the Enhanced Access to Broadband 
Telecommunications Services in Rural Areas Program are rescinded.
  Funding for the Rural Business Investment Program and the Rural 
Strategic Investment Program and the Rural Firefighters and Emergency 
Personnel Grant Program are also rescinded.
  Authorized funding for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food 
Systems is eliminated for fiscal years 2007 through 2009.
  Had the commodity title shared more equitably in the deficit 
reductions, these programs that are being rescinded, would not have 
experienced such deep cuts.
  My deepest disappointment is with the lost opportunity of this 
negotiation. We had the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to 
balancing the equities among all interests involved in the farm bill 
and establishing the trust that will be needed to reauthorize the farm 
bill in 2007. However, this process, once again, confirms my steadfast 
admiration for America's farmers and ranchers who are willing to share 
in reducing the deficit burden on their children and their 
grandchildren.
  I want to reiterate my intent in reauthorizing the next farm bill to 
provide a balance to all of America's agricultural interests and end 
with a product that protects all of agriculture in rural America.
  I close with one quick comment on the WTO negotiations which 
concluded in Hong Kong over the weekend but are not totally concluded 
at this point in time.
  I commend Ambassador Rob Portman, our U.S. Trade Representative, and 
his staff, particularly his Chief of Staff, Rob Lehman, who have worked 
so hard since Ambassador Portman was appointed to this position to try 
to ensure that while American agriculture participated in the 
discussions relative to trade-distorting issues at the WTO, he never, 
ever made a commitment that would sacrifice the interests of American 
agriculture.
  It is unfortunate that once Ambassador Portman put a meaningful 
proposal on the table to end the discussions with the European Union, 
the European Union made a conscience decision that they did not want to 
see any change in their substantive program from an agricultural 
perspective. Therefore, the European Union basically brought down the 
talks leading up to Hong Kong, and I do not think we could say in any 
way that anything meaningful came out of the discussions that were 
concluded in Hong Kong over the weekend.
  It is my hope that the European Union will go back to the table and 
engage in meaningful discussions that hopefully will lead to some 
agreements that will be of benefit both to farmers in the European 
Union and obviously, from a parochial standpoint, farmers in the United 
States. I firmly believe that the future of American agriculture lies 
in our ability to export what we know to be the finest agricultural 
products grown anywhere in the world.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time does the Senator from Massachusetts seek?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I expect maybe about 12 minutes. If I 
could get 15 I will try and yield some back.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I 
hope both our colleagues, and Americans, will have a chance to listen 
carefully to his assessment of the whole budget process that we have 
been faced with in the Senate. It has very important implications for 
the American people. It will impact the financial condition of our 
Nation and of Americans and its relationship to the world economy. Most 
of all, I hope our colleagues and friends have listened to him 
carefully, talking about what the issue is before us in the Senate 
today before we vote.
  As I have said previously, the budget is a question of priorities. 
The Republican proposal is going to give $95 billion in tax giveaways, 
the vast majority of which will benefit the wealthiest individuals, 
with just crumbs for individuals who earn below the $100,000. And who 
is paying for it? The neediest people in our country.
  The conference report leaves the tax cuts for the rich under the 
Christmas tree but leaves middle-class families out in the cold. This 
is what we are talking about: families who make over $1 million will 
get $32,000 and families with incomes under $100,000 will get $29.
  Now we have to ask, where will we get those resources? How are we 
going to come up with that money? Those who have been the most 
vulnerable in our society are the ones who will be penalized, 
particularly the elderly and needy who rely on the Medicaid Program and 
also the young people who rely on the student financial aid program.
  The portion of the Senate bill reported by the Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions Committee passed on a very strong bipartisan basis, 
unanimous on the education features of it. The bill included $12 
billion in new student aid and benefits, $8 billion of this was put to 
need-based aid, which would be available to young people, to 
effectively raise the Pell grant, which is so important for more than 5 
million families in this country, from $4,050 to $4,500. The bill also 
provided some additional assistance for those who were focusing on the 
study of math, science, and high-need foreign languages, basically a 
recognition and a response to the need to keep America competitive with 
China and India, and globally, in terms of engineering and other math 
and science graduates. So we decided to provide some stimulus and 
additional help to encourage people to study math and science. But we 
did it in addition to providing an increase for all needy students.
  Most of the hearings that we have had in our committee, under the 
chairmanship of Senator Enzi, have focused on college access and 
affordability--and I pay tribute to him both for his leadership in 
getting this proposal through the Senate, and also for battling for any 
help for students in the conference.
  We passed, in the budget resolution last January, a very significant 
increase for education that would have helped all needy students. The 
Senate Republicans and Democrats went on record to say in our Nation's 
budget we want to allocate additional resources to education. We 
increased it by $5.4 billion, and that was struck down by the 
Republican leadership over in the House of Representatives and 
completely lost in the conference report to

[[Page S14080]]

that bill. So this has been a long battle to try and provide some 
additional help.
  What has come back from the conference in this reconciliation bill is 
no different. It is completely unsatisfactory. The conference 
completely struck our $450 increase for Pell students, putting the 
maximum Pell grant right back down to $4,050, where it has been for 
four years. The conference included some increase for individuals who 
are going to study math and science. As I mentioned, math and science 
is important, but we cannot focus on it at the expense of all other 
students. Most thoughtful educators believe that one has to begin with 
math and science in the very early grades. We are going to do something 
about math and science, and we have a bipartisan group that want to 
improve math and science education, but the approach in this 
legislation is not the answer to the challenge faced by our Nation.
  This year, over 5 million students rely on the Pell grant to afford 
the cost of college. In the Senate bill, we gave additional aid to 
every one of those students. The bill that returned from the partisan 
meetings with the House takes that aid away from millions of students. 
In order to qualify for the additional aid in this report, students 
have to attend full time. Over 40 percent of the students who attend 
public 4-year colleges in a degree-granting program attend part time, 
so they will see none of the assistance that is provided in this bill. 
Those are hard-working students who have to work 25, 30 hours a week or 
more, one or two jobs, in order to put themselves through school. They 
will see no help from this bill.
  To get any of this additional assistance, the students must maintain 
a B average. Is this the message we want to send to the students, that 
their aid disappears if they slip to a B-minus? How does this help the 
students? To get any additional grant aid in their junior or senior 
year, they must major in math, science, or engineering.
  I strongly support and encourage more students to study math and 
science but not at the expense of other students. What does this say to 
the young people who want to be teachers? You are out of luck. What 
does it say to the millions of people we need to be nurses? You are out 
of luck. You do not benefit one cent with this particular program.
  The Senate bill took a balanced approach, and made sure that all the 
children who needed our help got an increase in aid. That is not what 
came out of conference.
  I think that is sending a message to young people: Don't bother 
spending your time being a teacher anymore, don't try to study to 
become a nurse because that extra aid and assistance will not be there.
  Federal need-based aid was established to help all low-income 
students afford the higher education of their choice. That was the 
need. That was the reason for it. We said as a country that we have 
young people of talent and ability who can gain entrance into the best 
schools and colleges, but they cannot quite put it all together because 
their families can't afford it along with rest of their basic needs. We 
said, OK. They are able to gain entry into the schools and colleges of 
their choice, and we will help them afford it. Through a combination of 
the grants and aid programs, work-study programs, and their summer 
income, they will be able to continue through their degree. Not only 
did these individuals gain, but the Nation gained. The whole country 
reaped the benefit, because we said that every student matters and 
every student deserves our help. That is not what this conference 
report says.
  During this holiday season, we should be focused on the true meaning 
of Christmas and the special thoughts that Americans of many faiths 
have at this time of year for their families, their friends and 
neighbors, and peoples everywhere. We're reminded that each of us as an 
obligation to care for one another and to help those in need--to lend a 
hand to the least of those in our midst. As the Bible teaches us, we 
should ``Love thy neighbor as thyself.''
  But this budget reconciliation bill does the opposite. It robs from 
the poor to make room for tax giveaways to the rich. Wealthy Americans, 
banks and drug companies are big winners under this deal. Those who 
need hope and help are the big losers. It's a bill Scrooge would love.
  Sadly, as we complete this measure at Christmastime, it will indeed 
be the neediest members of our society who have to tighten their belts. 
Republicans have decided to leave tax giveaways for the wealthy under 
the Christmas tree, while leaving middle-class families out in the 
cold. Those with incomes over $1 million will receive an average of 
$32,000 in tax cuts. But those with incomes under $100,000 will receive 
an average of only $29. Bah humbug.
  Children and families struggling to pay for health care will be among 
those who are hurt the most, and 46 million Americans lack health 
insurance, but this bill will increase costs and cut health benefits 
for millions of low-income families. It slashes Medicaid funding by 
$6.9 billion over the next five years, and $28.4 billion over 10 years.
  Under this administration, the number of uninsured has already risen 
to historic levels. But this Republican bill will send the level even 
higher, by raising costs and cutting benefits for low-income families 
who rely on Medicaid for needed health care.
  The conference report is actually Worse than the Republican House 
bill in many respects. It would take away the guaranteed benefits for 
the 25 million children who receive health care through Medicaid by 
creating an ambiguous new state option called ``flexible benefits.'' It 
hurts seniors by increasing the prescription drug co-payments beyond 
those in the House bill, allowing states to charge up to 20 percent of 
the cost of each drug, beyond the means of many low-income Medicaid 
families. It indexes cost-sharing to medical inflation, a much higher 
rate of increase than family wages. It allows states to increase cost-
sharing up to four times the amount allowed under current law.
  The majority of the savings from these provisions don't come from the 
actual co-payments and premiums paid by Medicaid enrollees. They result 
from families using fewer medical services, because the increased costs 
will put the health services they need beyond their reach.
  Unlike the Senate bill, which made the majority of its cuts by 
reducing overpayments to drug companies and HMOs, the conference report 
cuts Medicaid by limiting the access of low-income families to needed 
health care. Instead of getting rid of the outrageous slush fund for 
Medicare HMOs, it cuts health care for poor children.
  The Republican Congress is telling hard-working Americans everywhere 
that they don't care about the hardships they face. Their policies 
encourage failure, not hope for a better life.
  This bill means that mothers trying to hold down a job and put food 
on their table will go without the child care assistance and child 
support they need and deserve.
  Behind closed doors, Republicans also have added a welfare 
reauthorization in this bill despite their repeated efforts to block 
debate on the reauthorization in the Senate. Democrats supported moving 
forward, but Republican reluctance to spend money on our most 
vulnerable citizens kept the leadership from bringing the bill to the 
floor.
  So House Republican leaders decided to avoid the standard legislative 
process by unfairly slipping their welfare bill into this massive 
budget reconciliation bill.
  The bill includes new work requirements without adequate child care 
funding. By eliminating the current caseload reduction credit, the bill 
requires over half the States to increase the number of welfare 
recipients in federal work activities by two-thirds in 2007, unless 
they have a substantial drop in their welfare caseload over the next 
year. Despite this increase in required work, the bill fails to allow 
child care funds to keep pace with inflation. The bill under-funds 
child care by $11 billion in terms of what is needed to maintain 
current purchasing power and to meet the increased work requirements. 
  In Massachusetts alone, 13,500 children are already on waiting lists 
to receive these essential services. Under this bill, the situation can 
only get worse.
  The bill will make life harder for poor children who rely on child 
support to survive. It greatly weakens enforcement efforts to make 
dead-beat dads

[[Page S14081]]

live up to their responsibilities and provide for their children. Under 
the Republican plan, nearly $2.9 billion will be lost in child support 
payments over the next five years and $8.4 billion in over the next ten 
years.
  In Massachusetts, $58 million in child support payments will be lost 
over the next five years, and $170 million over the next ten years.
  These are the Nation's poorest children. They are vulnerable and in 
need. But the Republican plan would abandon them. Merry Christmas. 
  Families having to choose between putting food on the table and 
keeping warm this winter are also big losers under this bill.
  In Massachusetts, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 
LIHEAP, serves 134,000 needy families. These families it will receive a 
maximum benefit of $765 for the current heating season. This is enough 
for only one tank of oil. It takes at least two to four tanks to make 
it through the winter.
  Unfortunately, under this bill, low income families struggling to 
make it through the winter won't see any additional funds until fiscal 
year 2007. The bill cruelly ignores the obvious fact that the heating 
crisis is here now.
  They claim that they have provided for LIHEAP in other bills. But 
when you add up the numbers, they've only provided $2.4 billion in 
regular funds and $1.6 billion in emergency funds. The emergency funds 
are given out at the discretion of the President, so it's possible that 
states will see little to none of the $1.6 billion this year. 
Obviously, the Republican majority had no intention of fully funding 
LIHEAP at its authorized level of $5.1 billion.
  Republicans mouth the same old rhetoric about wanting to help our 
neediest citizens. But when it comes to putting their money where their 
mouth is they fall short--very short--and it's the nation's poor who 
suffer.
  Students struggling to get a college degree are the big losers as 
well. We know that education is the key to keeping America strong, 
secure, and competitive. Now, more than ever, we must embrace and 
invest in education to advance America in the years ahead. 
  To do so requires a commitment to educational opportunity for all--
especially for talented youth who have so much potential, but need help 
affording a college degree.
  The cost of tuition and fees at public colleges has skyrocketed in 
recent years and Pell grants have fallen far behind. Under current law, 
this will be the fourth year in a row that the maximum Pell grant has 
not been increased.
  For countless families, the gap is so great that college is out of 
reach. Over 400,000 talented, qualified students each year can't go to 
a 4-year college because they can't afford it, 170,000 don't attend 
college at all. That's unacceptable.
  But in the face of this crisis, the Republican budget deal abandons 
the Senate provisions that increased the maximum Pell grant by $450.
  It includes the biggest cuts in student loan programs ever, in order 
to pay for $13 billion in tax giveaways for the richest Americans.
  The Senate bill included $8 billion to increase grant aid for all 
Pell grant recipients. In contrast, the small amount of funding for 
student aid included in this Conference report--$13 billion for tax 
cuts and only $3.75 billion for students--will only be available for a 
very small number of students eligible for Pell Grants.
  This bill abandons the government's long-time commitment to ensuring 
that the neediest students get the most help. It imposes so many 
hurdles to new aid that it is sure to leave behind those who need our 
help the most to stay in school.
  Under this proposal, a single mother who can attend college only 
part-time because she has to work 40 hours a week to put food on the 
table will not be eligible for a penny in new grant aid.
  Under this proposal, a student who did not have the opportunity to 
take rigorous courses in high school because this administration 
underfunded the No Child Left Behind Act would not be eligible for a 
penny in new grant aid.
  Under this proposal, a student who decides that the best road to a 
good job is to pursue a credential, such as a dental hygiene 
certificate, would not be eligible for a penny in new grant aid.
  In today's global economy, we need stronger incentives for students 
to study math and science, and the Senate bill did that.
  We also need to address the broader crisis of hundreds of thousands 
of qualified students who never go to college, because the costs are 
too high and student aid is too low. All qualified students should get 
the help they need to achieve the American dream. 
  Take the case of Carli, from Hampton, NH. She's a junior at a public 
college in the State, and she already has $25,000 of debt. She relies 
on her Pell grant, but even with that, she has to work 20 hours a week 
during the school year and 40 hours a week in the summer.
  She writes, ``This is not a question of not working hard enough. It 
has been an uphill battle to put myself through school. I am happy to 
do it, but I just want to know that when I'm through, there is a place 
for me in the American Dream too.''
  Becky, from Holyoke, MA is a junior in college and is already in 
$24,000 of debt. She's alarmed at how high her debt will be when she 
graduates.
  She writes, ``We students are the future of the USA. By putting us at 
risk and in a financial crisis, Bush and his cronies are putting the 
future of the USA at risk.''
  In addition to abandoning so many students who so desperately need 
our help, this bill also rejects our Senate-passed proposals to 
increase competition in the federal loan programs. As a result, private 
lenders will still have their unfair advantage over the more cost-
efficient federal loan program. The end result will be increased costs 
to taxpayers.
  The actions taken today hand the keys of the student loan program 
over to profit-hungry banks and lenders. Congress missed the 
opportunity to say students, not banks, should be given a break.
  American students deserve better. America deserves better. 
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
this letter signed by over 146 organizations that are against the 
reconciliation report.
  Also, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter 
from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that finds that this is 
basically an immoral, unfair, and unjust budget.
  I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter 
from a the educational groups who oppose this report.
  There are even more groups than these who have joined in to oppose 
this bill. I have not seen groups as united as these in their 
opposition to the way this report fails to prioritize the needs of the 
American family. And they speak loudly and clearly.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          United States Conference


                                          of Catholic Bishops,

                                Washington, DC, December 13, 2005.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: Last February in my capacity as President of 
     the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I wrote 
     asking you to give priority attention to the needs of poor 
     and vulnerable people as you developed a budget for our 
     nation. Congress is now nearing completion of the budget with 
     reconciliation bills that reflect not only economic policy 
     preferences but basic moral choices as well. As Congress 
     prepares to resolve the differences between the House and 
     Senate versions of the spending reconciliation package, I 
     wish to express deep concerns and disappointment on the 
     impact of certain proposed cuts on our most vulnerable 
     brothers and sisters. At the same time, the Bishops' 
     Conference is grateful that both bills take steps toward 
     helping those who have suffered due to Hurricane Katrina.
       In my previous letter, I urged you on behalf of the 
     Bishops' Conference to develop a budget plan that would 
     guarantee adequate funding to assist those who are struggling 
     to move beyond welfare, to educate their children, to gain 
     access to health care or to overcome hunger and homelessness. 
     Unfortunately, the budget proposal developed by the House of 
     Representatives includes provisions that fall well short of 
     that standard. We urge you to choose the Senate's approach, 
     and not include these provisions in the final bill.
       We urge you to oppose harmful cuts to the Food Stamp 
     program included in the House bill that will result in taking 
     food away from children and others who are being helped now. 
     According to the Congressional Budget Office the House 
     proposal would result in over 250,000 children and adults 
     losing access to Food Stamps. Just under one-third of those 
     would be legal permanent residents

[[Page S14082]]

     who will lose eligibility if the five year waiting period is 
     extended by two years. The Bishops' Conference strongly 
     supported President Bush's successful effort to expand access 
     to Food Stamps for legal immigrants in the last farm bill. We 
     strongly oppose retreating by making legal immigrants wait an 
     additional two years for eligibility.
       The Bishops' Conference strongly recognizes and affirms the 
     sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. 
     Access to adequate health care is a basic human right and an 
     essential measure of respect for human life and dignity. No 
     one should be denied access to needed health care because of 
     the inability to pay. Allowing states to increase the burden 
     of copayments, deductibles and premiums on Medicaid 
     beneficiaries-including some children and pregnant women--and 
     to erode federal standards of core benefits will have that 
     effect. We urge you to reject including these proposals from 
     the House bill in the final package. Attempts to save money 
     by making it harder for low-income and vulnerable people to 
     get the health care they need is simply unacceptable.
       The House bill also includes provisions to reauthorize the 
     Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare 
     program. The Conference has not supported earlier iterations 
     of the House TANF proposal because of concerns about how it 
     could impact low-income families and children, given that it 
     increases work requirements, including for mothers of 
     children under 6 years old; fails to provide sufficient child 
     care funding; and fails to restore TANF benefit eligibility 
     to recently-arrived legal immigrants. TANF reauthorization 
     should be considered on its own terms to allow full review of 
     these and other important policy decisions, instead of 
     including it in a budget-cutting exercise.
       The House bill, by cutting federal funding for state child 
     support services, will make it harder for states to collect 
     child support for low and moderate-income families and result 
     in $21 billion less in child support being collected for 
     children and families than under current law, according to 
     the Congressional Budget Office. This proposal is not good 
     for children or families, and we urge you to reject it. Child 
     support payments are crucial to the economic viability of 
     some families, keeping them out of poverty and off public 
     programs. They can also encourage parental responsibility and 
     help to maintain the connection between children and their 
     non-custodial parent.
       In addition to these areas where we ask you to follow the 
     Senate bill, we are concerned with the approach both bills 
     take in important areas of agriculture policy. First, the 
     bishops have stated that protecting God's creation must be a 
     central goal of agricultural policies, and we support 
     programs that promote soil conservation, improve water 
     quality, protect wildlife, and maintain biodiversity. We 
     oppose proposals in both bills to reduce spending on key 
     agriculture conservation programs.
       Second, we are also deeply disappointed that neither bill 
     begins the process of limiting U.S. farm supports and 
     targeting them to those who need them the most--small and 
     moderate-sized farms facing periodic price shocks or 
     unpredictable natural disasters. Such a policy is needed so 
     poor farmers around the world can sell their products and 
     support their families, and to help family farms remain 
     competitive in a volatile market.
       Finally, the Bishops' Conference is pleased that both the 
     House and Senate bills call for 100% federal financing for 
     health care for victims of Katrina. The House provision goes 
     farther than the Senate bill, providing for full federal 
     Medicaid funding not only for Katrina victims and evacuees, 
     wherever they now live, but for all residents of Louisiana, 
     Mississippi and the most affected counties in Alabama. We 
     urge you to support the more generous House language.
       The federal budget is more than a matter of accounting: it 
     reflects our values and priorities as a nation. The budget 
     choices you make in the coming days will directly affect the 
     lives of real people, especially ``the least of these'' in 
     our midst. This is a time for a genuinely bipartisan 
     commitment to focus on the common good of all, and on the 
     special needs of the poor and vulnerable in particular. On 
     behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I 
     urge you to make that commitment by working for a budget that 
     does not neglect the needs of the most vulnerable among us.
           Sincerely,
                                    Most Rev. William S. Skylstad,
     Bishop of Spokane, President.
                                  ____



                                American Council on Education,

                                Washington, DC, December 19, 2005.
       Dear Senator: The higher education associations listed 
     below, representing the nation's two- and four-year public 
     and private colleges and research universities and the 
     students who attend them, strongly oppose the conference 
     report to S. 1932, the FY 2006 budget reconciliation 
     legislation. The decisions made regarding federal student 
     loans in the conference committee pay for deficit reduction 
     by sending the bill directly to America's college students 
     and their parents.
       Fully $12.7 billion--or nearly one-third--of the $41 
     billion in cuts contained in the reconciliation bill are 
     derived from the student loan programs. This is the biggest 
     cut in the history of the federal student loan program.
       In addition, the legislation creates a new source of 
     competition for scarce Pell Grant and campus-based aid grant 
     funds, while simultaneously destabilizing the delivery of the 
     federal student loan funds. This happens as a result of the 
     bill's transfer of the ``Section 458'' administrative funds 
     from the mandatory to the discretionary portion of the 
     budget, a $600 million annual expenditure.
       On the plus side, the bill uses a small portion of the 
     student loan cuts to create two new grants for students 
     majoring in math, science, and foreign languages; reduce loan 
     origination fees; provide a modest increase in borrowing 
     limits; and make improvements in the need analysis system. 
     Ultimately, however, these provisions are too small, and in 
     the case of one of the grant programs, far too complex and 
     restrictive to offset the damaging consequences of the cuts 
     to student loans. We are also extremely disappointed that the 
     Senate's ``ProGAP'' program, which stood a real chance to 
     expand college access by increasing need-based grant aid 
     funding, was dropped in the conference agreement.
       At a time when the nation's future economic prospects are 
     tied more closely than ever before to a college-educated and 
     highly-skilled workforce, it is shortsighted to ask college 
     students and their families to bear so much of the burden of 
     deficit reduction. Student aid programs, including student 
     loans, are an investment in America's future workforce, and 
     now is the time when our nation should be investing more in 
     the higher education of its citizens.
       We urge you to vote against the budget reconciliation 
     conference report.
           Sincerely,
                                                       David Ward,
                                                        President.
       On behalf of: American Association of Community Colleges, 
     American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 
     American Council on Education, Association of American 
     Universities, Association of Community College Trustees, 
     Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, Council for 
     Higher Education Accreditation, National Association of 
     College and University Business Officers, National 
     Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, 
     National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant 
     Colleges, National Association of Student Financial Aid 
     Administrators, The State PIRGs Higher Education Project.
                                  ____

                                                December 19, 2005.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The undersigned organizations are writing to 
     voice our concern about provisions in the conference report 
     on the reconciliation bill. On behalf of the 53 million 
     Americans who rely on Medicaid for their health and long-term 
     care supports and services, we urge the Senate to reject the 
     conference report. In particular, we strongly oppose the 
     provisions of the conference report that would result in 
     higher cost-sharing and fewer benefits for low-income 
     Medicaid beneficiaries.
       Congress now has the opportunity to take a stand for 
     America's most vulnerable populations and reject the 
     conference report because it harms low-income beneficiaries. 
     The needs of millions of low-income children, seniors, people 
     with disabilities and working families hang in the balance. 
     We are depending on you to vote ``no'' on the conference 
     report in order to keep health care accessible, affordable 
     and comprehensive for Medicaid beneficiaries.
           Sincerely,
         AFL-CIO, AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth & Families, 
           Alliance for Children and Families, Alliance for 
           Retired Americans, Alliance of Louisiana Developmental 
           Centers Families & Friends, American Academy of Child 
           and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of 
           Pediatrics, American Academy of Physical Medicine and 
           Rehabilitation, American Association of People with 
           Disabilities, American Association on Mental 
           Retardation, American College of Nurse Practitioners, 
           American Congress of Community Supports and Employment 
           Services, American Federation of State, County and 
           Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers, 
           American Medical Student Association, American Network 
           of Community Options and Resources, American Nurses 
           Association, American Public Health Association, 
           American Therapeutic Recreation Association, Americans 
           for Democratic Action.
         Asian American Justice Center, Association for the 
           Mentally Retarded at Agnews, Association of Academic 
           Physiatrists, Association of University Centers on 
           Disabilities, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, 
     Beatrice State Development Center Family and Friends 
     Association, B'nai B'rith International, Brain Injury 
     Association, Center for Adolescent Health & the Law, 
     Center for Advocacy for the Rights and Interests of the 
     Elderly, Center for Public Policy Priorities, Center on 
     Disability and Health, Child Welfare League of America, 
     Children's Cause for Cancer Advocacy, Children's Defense 
     Fund, Clearbrook Parents and Guardians Association, 
     Coalition on Human Needs, Community Catalyst, Community 
     HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project/CHAMP, Concerned Citizens 
     For The Mentally Retarded.
         Consumers Union, Council for Exceptional Children, 
           Council of Women's and Infants' Specialty Hospitals, 
           Dever Association for the Retarded, Inc.,

[[Page S14083]]

            Disability Service Providers of America, District of 
           Columbia Primary Care Association, Division for Early 
           Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children, 
           Dixon Association For Retarded Citizens, Easter Seals, 
           Epilepsy Foundation, Families USA, Gay Men's Health 
           Crisis, General Board of Church and Society of the 
           United Methodist Church, Generations United, Gray 
           Panthers California, Guttmacher Institute, Health and 
           Disability Advocates in Chicago, HIV Medicine 
           Association, Housing Works, Inc., Hudson Health Plan.
         Human Rights Campaign, Hyacinth AIDS Foundation, IDEA 
           Infant Toddler Coordinators Association, Institute for 
           Reproductive Health Access, Jewish Association for 
           Services for the Aged, Jewish Council for Public 
           Affairs, Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, 
           Learning Disabilities Association of America, Legal 
           Action Center, Lutheran Services in 
     America, Massachusetts Coalition of Families and Advocates 
     for the Retarded, Medicare Rights Center, Mental 
     Retardation Association of Utah, Mount St. Joseph 
     Association, National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of 
     the Good Shepherd, National Alliance of State and 
     Territorial AIDS Directors, National Alliance to End 
     Homelessness, National Asian American Pacific Islander 
     Mental Health Association, National Asian Pacific American 
     Women's Forum, National Association for Children's 
     Behavioral Health.
         National Association for the Advancement of Orthotics and 
           Prosthetics, National Association of Councils on 
           Developmental Disabilities, National Association of 
           County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability 
           Directors, National Association of Health Advocacy 
           Programs, National Association of Mental Health 
           Planning and Advisory Councils, National Association of 
           Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, National Association of 
           People with AIDS, National Association of School 
           Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, 
           National Association of State Head Injury 
           Administrators, National Citizens' Coalition for 
           Nursing Home Reform, National Committee to Preserve 
           Social Security and Medicare, National Council for 
           Community Behavioral Healthcare, National Council of La 
           Raza, National Council on Aging, National Council on 
           Independent Living, National Disability Rights Network, 
           National Down Syndrome Congress, National Family 
           Planning and Reproductive Health Association, National 
           Health Council.
         National Health Law Program, National Immigration Law 
           Center, National Indian Health Board, National Latina 
           Institute for Reproductive Health, National Mental 
           Health Association, National Multiple Sclerosis 
           Society, National Nursing Centers Consortium, National 
           Partnership for Women & Families, National Respite 
           Coalition, National Senior Citizens Law Center, 
           National Women's Health Network, National Women's Law 
           Center Network, a National Catholic Social Justice 
           Lobby, Oregon Center for Public Policy, Parent Hospital 
           Association, Sonoma Developmental Center, Parents & 
           Friends of Hammond Developmental Center 
     Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 
     Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office, ProCare3, 
     Project Inform.
         Protestants for the Common Good, Providence Health 
           System, RESULTS, San Francisco AIDS Foundation, School 
           Social Work Association of America, Service Employees 
           International Union, Society for Adolescent Medicine, 
           St. Mary's Residential Training School, State 
           Associations of Addiction Services, The Arc of the 
           United States, The Well Project, Tourette Syndrome 
           Association, Treatment Access Expansion Project, U.S. 
           Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association, UHCAN Ohio, 
           United Cerebral Palsy, United Food and Commercial 
           Workers International Union, USAction, Voice of the 
           Retarded, Voices for America's Children, YWCA USA, 
           Welfare Law Center.
                                  ____



                                                         AARP,

                                                December 19, 2005.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Frist: AARP strongly opposes the 
     budget reconciliation conference agreement scheduled to come 
     before the Senate for a vote today. Rather than reflecting 
     the rational provisions of the Senate reconciliation bill, 
     the final conference agreement is irresponsible policy.
       The final conference agreement does not ask for shared 
     sacrifice to achieve budgetary savings. Rather it protects 
     the pharmaceutical industry, the managed care industry, and 
     other providers at the expense of low-income Medicaid 
     beneficiaries and Medicare beneficiaries who will foot the 
     bill.
       AARP members and your other constituents will question why 
     members of the Senate would vote for a bill that would:
       Make it harder for Americans needing long-term care to 
     qualify for Medicaid;
       Force some Americans to forfeit their homes in order to pay 
     for long-term care services;
       Require all Medicare Part B beneficiaries to pay higher 
     premiums;
       Reopen the MMA, not to make improvements in the new drug 
     benefit, but to require those with more income to pay higher 
     Part B premiums sooner; and
       Force low-income Medicaid recipients to pay more for their 
     care--and if they cannot afford to do so--to potentially be 
     denied care entirely.
       The conference agreement systematically undermines the 
     critical protections built into both the Medicaid and 
     Medicare programs. If the conference agreement becomes law, 
     then over the course of the next few weeks and months we will 
     make sure that our members across the country fully 
     understand the impact of this conference agreement on them 
     and on their families.
       We urge the Senate to oppose the reconciliation conference 
     package and urge Congress to instead return to the fair and 
     responsible policies of the original Senate package.
           Sincerely,
                                               William D. Novelli.

  Mr. KENNEDY. If you are concerned about children, the children's 
groups are strongly opposed to this. If you are concerned about 
education, virtually the whole education community is strongly opposed 
to it.
  If you care about those in poverty and the problems our needy 
families face, all those groups that combat poverty are strongly 
opposed to it.
  I hope my colleagues will look at what is in this report, listen to 
the grave concerns of all of these organizations, and join me in 
strongly opposing this legislation. I hope my colleagues will stand up 
for the American family and vote against this conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are going have a series of speakers.
  I wish to respond quickly to the point of the Senator from 
Massachusetts on a couple of areas.
  First, the purpose of the deficit reduction bill is to slow the rate 
of growth of entitlement programs. It is a net bill. In this bill, 
there are very major initiatives, especially in the area of education, 
which are new and fully paid for. There is $40 billion in debt 
reduction, but the actual reductions in the bill exceed that by a 
considerable amount.
  The new programmatic activity which is fully paid for in the student 
area is $9 billion of additional funds for student activity.
  The Senator from Massachusetts says we should have the best and the 
brightest have an opportunity to participate and go to good colleges. 
We agree with that. In fact, we are doing something about it. We are 
following the proposals of John Adams, a Massachusetts individual of 
note who helped our country get started and who considered public 
education and education generally to be the essence of how the American 
dream is going to be fulfilled. He was totally committed to a 
meritocracy.
  We are essentially saying in this bill, by creating this new program 
called SMART, if you are a low-income student and you are focusing on 
math and science, we are going to give you a lot of help. If you can 
perform well in those two areas, you are going to get an opportunity to 
really succeed in this country. But we are going to give you the 
support you need to succeed. We are going to give you $4,000 a year on 
top of your Pell grant, on top of scholarships, on top of your 
borrowing capabilities. You are potentially getting $4,000 a year in 
college if you study math and science and have a low income.
  We forgive $4 billion in student loans. We are going to reduce 
student loan taxes and fees by $4 billion, and we are going to provide 
$1.9 billion of loan forgiveness for people who go into special areas 
that we consider important, specifically teaching, primarily in these 
special education areas. This bill structures a $17,500 loan 
forgiveness program for people who go into special education teaching. 
We recognize special education teachers are, first, needed, and second, 
they are put under tremendous stress. If we can encourage people to go 
into that field, we want to.
  This bill has some very good policy in the area of education. Sure, 
it isn't as strong as what left the Senate, which was actually worked 
out within the HELP Committee. That happened with the House. The House 
was zero, we were at eight, and we ended up essentially at four. This 
so-called compromise in that $4 billion is a lot of good initiatives in 
the area of the SMART Program.
  I yield to the Senator if he has a question. For the purposes of a 
question, I will yield time off his time, of course.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I reclaim a minute of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

[[Page S14084]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator would outline the $9 
billion of additional aid and assistance to students, if he would 
outline those figures, they are in complete conflict with the 
information we have about what is and what is not in this bill. I hope 
he's not referring to the higher loan limits that students have been 
given which will result in increased profits for the banks. Is he 
taking into account the higher origination fees that students in the 
Direct Loan program may have to pay under this proposal? What about the 
fact that only 10 percent of the total need-based population is going 
to benefit at all from the math and science program? If he wants to 
provide it sometime, or list it, we would be enormously grateful. 
That's not what our calculations say.
  Mr. GREGG. Should I charge this to the Senator's time? Essentially, I 
am clarifying the Senator's point. I will do this on my time.
  Essentially, the origination fees are being eliminated under this 
bill.
  I point out that the initiatives which are in this bill are 
initiatives which had bipartisan support, the SMART Program 
specifically. But the new grant and aid for low-income college students 
is about $3.7 billion in this bill. Lower fees charged to students will 
cause students to gain about $4 billion in this bill. The program which 
extends the loan forgiveness program, as I just mentioned, to a number 
of different categories will generate about $1.9 billion in this bill. 
That adds up to about $9 billion of initiative in this bill.
  We think this bill has some pretty positive initiatives.
  As to the loan rates, I didn't insist on staying at this loan rate. I 
think that came from the other side of the aisle. Did it not? I believe 
it did. I think the Senator from Massachusetts is the person who 
basically has locked us into this fixed rate when it should be a 
variable rate. The variable rate would save our students a lot more 
money. Unfortunately, my idea of going to the variable rate was 
rejected in committee by, I believe, the Senator from Massachusetts, 
who wanted to stay at the fixed rate. That costs how many billions? 
Over $5 billion, according to my staff. Now, that is a back-of-the-
envelope guess, but that is probably in the ballpark.

  As to rates, I note to the Senator from Massachusetts, I disagree 
with the policy in the bill, yes. I wish we had gone to my policy and 
saved another $5 billion. That would be up to $14 billion to save 
students.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will include it in the Record at the appropriate time. 
I thank the Senator for trying to make a good case of a bad record. I 
will include the responses to each of those areas in my remarks.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator want to outline who he thinks is speaking 
next?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have Senator Schumer next, who will 
consume 10 minutes. Then we have Senator Allard, who probably will be 
here at that point. We will go to Senator Allard for half an hour. Then 
we would like to go to Senator Stabenow for 10 minutes. At 
approximately noon, Senator Stevens for half an hour, followed by 
Senator Murkowski from 12:30 to 12:50. We hope to slot Senator Harkin 
from 12:50 to approximately 1:30.
  Mr. GREGG. And Senator Coburn.
  Mr. CONRAD. And Senator Coburn after that.
  We are trying to put colleagues on notice. That is basically the 
speaking order.
  At this point we yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York, 
Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from New York.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2082

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota 
for extending the courtesy to me.
  I rise today to talk about the U.S. PATRIOT Act. There has been a lot 
of talk on the subject. With all the smoke and mirrors, let's go to the 
simple facts.
  First, every single Democratic Senator wants to extend the present 
PATRIOT Act for 3 months. Every single Democratic Senator, in fact, has 
cosponsored or supports--everyone but one, and Senator Feingold 
supports--the legislation introduced by the Presiding Officer, the 
Senator from New Hampshire, that extends the PATRIOT Act by 3 months. 
We also have a number of Republican Senators, led by Senator Sununu of 
New Hampshire, who also want to extend the act for 3 months. In fact, 
no Member of the Senate wants the PATRIOT Act to expire. That is why 
100 Senators supported a measure to reauthorize the act this summer. It 
spanned the gap from the most conservative Republican to the most 
liberal Democrat, which shows the consensus on this very important 
issue is very achievable.
  The simple fact is if we extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months, it 
won't end. So the act's fate is in the President's hands. We say to the 
President: Extend it, don't end it. It is as simple as that. Let me 
repeat: Extend it, don't end it. That is our position on the PATRIOT 
Act.
  Lately, based on the comments of some of my friends across the aisle, 
I feel we are characters in the book ``1984.'' It is vintage Orwellian 
doublespeak to say when 49 Senators from both parties, a near majority, 
are eager to extend the PATRIOT Act, that they are causing it to 
expire. In fact, if either the President or the majority leader of the 
Senate today were to say they are for extending the act for 3 months, 
my guess is it would get an overwhelming majority of both parties in 
the Senate.
  These Senators have agreed to extend the PATRIOT Act in its current 
form so we can take 3 months to get it in better form. On the one hand, 
I want to give a lot of credit to my colleagues from Pennsylvania and 
Vermont. Their compromise and the bill before the Senate is an 
improvement over present law. It is a significant improvement over the 
House bill. It comes a lot closer to the Senate bill than many of my 
colleagues even on my side of the aisle, at least in my opinion, are 
giving it credit for.
  I have two principal problems related to the conference report. First 
and foremost, I have real concerns we did not correct the formula in 
terms of distributing aid, which hurts my State of New York. We have to 
give law enforcement not just judicial tools and prosecutorial tools 
but financial tools, as well. Every day when I ride over the Brooklyn 
Bridge, whether by car or on my bicycle, I see police cars at either 
end. New York has an undue burden in terms of security. New York and 
other places that are at greater risk should get a greater share of the 
funding. The House bill readjusted the formula, much to the relief of 
New Yorkers, but the Senate bill did not.
  If we took 3 months, we could keep the present PATRIOT Act on the 
books and make a real attempt to adjust the formula on the basis of 
need.
  Second, the revelations from last week about warrantless wiretapping 
have also given me pause. If this Government will discard a law that 
has worked well for over 30 years without a whit of discussion or 
notice, for sure we better be certain we have safeguards on that 
Government. I am extremely troubled the administration, which claims to 
value strict construction of the laws and Constitution, has used the 
September 11, 2001, congressional resolution authorizing the use of 
military force to justify secret wiretapping of Americans.
  I have not read the whole record, but I daresay the word 
``wiretapping'' never came up in that debate. Certainly I, who voted 
for that resolution, never thought it applied to wiretapping. I don't 
think anyone else did as well. To say when we authorized the President 
to use force, that allows him to wiretap American citizens without a 
warrant is stretching it, to say the least.
  The balance between security and liberty is a delicate one. I agree 
with the President. Most Americans put security first. It has to be. 
But liberty and privacy, in particular, are very important to 
Americans, as well. It is very high on the list. Therefore, this Senate 
and the Government should make every effort to have both security and 
liberty.
  We came very close. The Senate bill, as I said, had a 100-to-0 vote, 
from the most liberal Democrat to the most conservative Republican. The 
compromise Senator Specter shepherded through was a good attempt. But 
in these crucial areas we can do better. If we simply extend the 
PATRIOT Act--not end

[[Page S14085]]

it, extend it--we can try to make it better.
  I tend to be fairly hawkish on these types of things. However, there 
is one thing for sure: When you are dealing with the delicate balance 
between liberty and security, there ought to be discussion. There ought 
to be debate. The President, whether he be a Democrat or a Republican, 
should not simply appropriate it to himself to change the law with the 
flick of a pen. That is what our Nation stands for.
  In light of these problems and concerns, let me say again, when it 
comes to the PATRIOT Act, my position and that of every Member of the 
Democratic Party in the Senate and a good number of our Republican 
colleagues is extend it, don't end it.
  Why are we talking about ending it if we have so many people who want 
to extend it? The majority leader has opposed extending the present 
PATRIOT Act. The President has threatened to veto an extension of the 
PATRIOT Act.
  So here we are, on the brink, with 16 important provisions about to 
sunset. If that happens, make no mistake about it, it will be because 
the distinguished Republican leader has allowed it to happen. It will 
be because the President has allowed it to happen. The choice is not 
the present compromise or no PATRIOT Act. There are three choices: The 
present compromise, which does not have enough support in the Senate to 
pass as of now, with bipartisan opposition, letting it lapse, or 
extending it for 3 months.
  If even in the President's and the majority leader's eyes, they 
cannot get the first, isn't extending it better than ending it? The 
choice is in their hands. So if it does happen, if the PATRIOT Act is 
allowed to sunset, despite unanimous support for its extension in one 
form or another, I would ask the President to explain why we are 
without the PATRIOT Act, why he would not allow a bipartisan measure to 
extend it. It is almost surreal.
  Can it be that the majority leader of the Senate, the President of 
the United States, who at every turn has talked about the importance of 
security, who has talked about the importance of the sunsetting PATRIOT 
Act provisions, will force its expiration?
  Certainly, they have the option of extending it for 3 months so that 
disagreements, which I say can be resolved, will be. And if they then 
persist in opposition to the 3-month extension and complain, it will be 
similar to the child who killed his parents and then complained that he 
was an orphan.
  So let us all be reasonable for a day, as we approach our citizens' 
most sacred time of year, and do the mature thing, the logical thing, 
the right thing.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2082, the 3-
month extension of the PATRIOT Act, that the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, is it the Senator's 
position that if the unanimous consent request was amended to be a 1-
year extension, the Senator would support that unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Well, it is something I would consider. I think 1 month 
would be--right now we have support--
  Mr. GREGG. One year.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I understand. Right now we have support for 3 months. It 
is something that could probably be negotiated. My point is, we should 
extend it.
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, if there is an orphan on 
the floor today, or in this city today, I would suggest it is the 
Senator from New York. As I made the point yesterday, if he wished to 
get to a vote on the PATRIOT Act it could have occurred. But the 
Senator from New York would not allow cloture to be invoked. And now 
the Senator from New York and the leadership of the Democratic Party 
are coming to the floor claiming that because they would not allow the 
PATRIOT Act to be voted on, they are prejudiced and that they should 
not be accused of killing the PATRIOT Act.
  Well, obviously they killed the PATRIOT Act when they did not allow 
it to be voted on. That is a situation such as you referred to, where 
the individual killed his parents and then threw himself on the mercy 
of the court claiming he was an orphan. So if the Senator does not wish 
to extend the act for a year, then I would say his statements are 
Pyrrhic.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. GREGG. First, I am going to object, and then I will yield. But I 
will not yield on my time. I will yield on the time of the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. There is an objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Under the previous order, the Senator's time has expired, and the 
Senator from Colorado----
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 
minute to respond to my colleague from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. As long as the time comes off the bill on the Democratic 
side.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield the minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The point is, we do have large numbers of people who want to extend 
the PATRIOT Act, not end it, whether it is 3 months or something more 
than 3 months. That is the point that I think is salient. I would hope 
my colleague would support 3 months, as his colleague from New 
Hampshire--he and his colleague from New Hampshire generally see things 
the same way--has asked for. But the idea stated by the President and 
the majority leader, that they would not be for any extension--1 year, 
3 months or anything in between--is what is stymieing us here.
  The bottom line is very simple. The choice is a simple one. Right now 
we cannot get the PATRIOT Act through the way the Senator from New 
Hampshire would like it. There are not enough votes by the rules of the 
Senate. Do you take your marbles and go home and let it expire or do 
you try to work out an extension, as opposed to saying: I am upset. I 
am going to end it. We are urging an extension. Right now, the Senator 
from New Hampshire, who has led the charge on this--not my colleague 
who is managing this bill, but the Presiding Officer, Senator Sununu--
has suggested 3 months. I, for one, am not locked into a specific time. 
But I am locked in and very eager to see us extend the act, not kill 
it, simply because the compromise does not have the votes to prevail.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this point, I will yield to the Senator 
from Colorado.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds on 
this subject.
  Mr. GREGG. Well, I guess we can certainly give you 30 seconds. But I 
may take a minute and a half back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it has been suggested that the PATRIOT Act 
has been killed. The PATRIOT Act has not been killed. The PATRIOT Act 
is alive and well until December 31. So the fact is, we have time to 
get this right. And if we cannot get it right before December 31, then 
we have the potential to extend it, whether it is 3 months or 6 months 
or 9 months or some other time.
  The point is, no one has killed the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is 
still on the books. It is alive and well until December 31. So this 
issue has not yet been decided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, prior to yielding to the Senator from 
Colorado, I am going to take a minute and a half, which would be the 
minute Senator Schumer had and the half minute

[[Page S14086]]

which we so graciously gave the Senator from North Dakota.
  I would simply point out that the Democratic leader said:

       We killed the Patriot Act.

  So that is where the body lies. It does not lie on this side of the 
aisle. It does not lie at the White House. The body lies right there 
because of the fact that we were not allowed to go to a vote on final 
passage. That is the way the institution works. The Senator from New 
York said: Well, we are taking our marbles and leaving. We are not 
taking our marbles and leaving. We had 50-plus votes willing to 
continue the PATRIOT Act under the new law, as it has been drafted, as 
it has gone through the committee process. Fifty-plus votes, that is a 
majority.
  What happened, however, was the other side of the aisle did not get 
it exactly the way they wanted it, so they are going to kill it. That 
is where the body lies.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. GREGG. I think we have continued this long enough. We actually do 
not have the PATRIOT Act inside the Deficit Reduction Act yet, but it 
is possible we could end up there before we finish.
  Senator Allard has been very gracious in allowing us to take from his 
time. I yield to Senator Allard as much time as he may use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for as 
much time as he may consume.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for 
yielding and also express my appreciation for his leadership.
  Through these budget issues, there has been delay and obstruction all 
along the route. We are seeing delay and obstruction at the end of the 
session. We have just seen some of the debate going on as it applies to 
the PATRIOT Act. I do not want to debate the PATRIOT Act. But what I 
would like to do is talk about the budget because this is very 
important. It is a very critical piece of legislation.
  This is the first time in 8 years Congress has attempted to control 
the rate of growth in entitlement spending. I have had an opportunity 
to deal with budget issues, both here and as a Member of the House. I 
was elected to the House of Representatives in 1990. Shortly 
thereafter, I was able to get on the Budget Committee.
  I was fortunate enough to get on the Budget Committee when I came 
over to the Senate. I have seen a disturbing trend in our spending 
habits in the Congress. If we look at the 1990 fiscal year, when I 
first began to really look at the budget seriously as a policymaker, we 
had 48 percent in entitlement and mandatory spending. Another 23 
percent was defense discretionary, and then we had some 29 percent or 
so that fell into interest, as well as nondefense discretionary. As the 
years have gone by, in 2000 we find our entitlements and mandatory 
spending are up to 55 percent from 48 percent in 1990. We see that 
defense discretionary is actually down to 19 percent from 23 percent. 
We see that our nondefense discretionary net interest rates are staying 
close to the same.
  The real problem is in the future. As we look at 2010, we see that 
our entitlements are projected to go up to 58 percent--with another 17 
percent on defense discretionary and nondefense discretionary and net 
interest is staying pretty close to the same range. This spells out 
problems for future generations. I want my children, who are now in 
their thirties, as well as my grandkids, to have an opportunity for 
economic growth. If we continue to push these obligations back and 
continue to allow entitlement spending to grow, it is going to take 
away from their discretionary spending. They are not going to have the 
opportunities my generation had. My wife and I have had wonderful 
opportunities. We were able to start a small business by ourselves. We 
were able to see our local community grow and the State grow, and we 
grew with them. If we continue to spend in the Federal budget as we are 
now, that opportunity is going to go away.
  The budget reconciliation passed by the Congress earlier this year 
had a requirement of $34.7 billion in savings over 5 years. That is not 
much of a reduction in the rate of increase. Remember, these are all 
still increases that are happening. We only have reductions in the rate 
of increase.
  Finally, we have a bill before us that is looking to save close to 
$40 billion. We have improved it. But you have to remember that this is 
actually just a reduction in the rate of increase. We are not cutting 
or eliminating any programs; we are just reducing the rate of 
increases. Only in Washington, DC, is a reduction in the rate of growth 
called a cut. In reality, year after year, you see spending increase. I 
have seen that happen in my experience in the House and now in the 
Senate. We have Members complaining about the cuts that are happening 
in the budget. Yet you look at all these budgets year after year, and 
they gradually increase. They are just not increasing as much as some 
Members want. It is like a kid saying, I want to have my allowance 
increased from $1 a week to $1.50 a week, and you say, No, I will 
increase it from $1 to $1.25. They would say that is a 25-percent cut. 
In reality, it is a 25-percent increase in the amount of money they are 
going to receive to spend. So the Senate needs to bring common sense to 
the budget process.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for an inquiry?
  Mr. ALLARD. Yes, on the Senator's time.
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes, sir. For management of the floor purposes--and I 
apologize to the Senator for interrupting him--it would be helpful for 
us to know, because of the time constraints, does the Senator intend to 
take about 30 minutes?
  Mr. ALLARD. I have probably about 15 more minutes or so.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is very helpful.
  I indicate to the Chair and all colleagues, the intention would be to 
go to Senator Stabenow next. There is not a formal agreement in place, 
but that is the informal understanding, that after Senator Allard, 
Senator Stabenow would be next.
  I thank the Senator very much. Again, I apologize for interrupting.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator. I certainly don't mind working with 
him in lining up speakers as they come down. It is important to give 
Members adequate notice.
  So, again, only in Washington is a reduction in the rate of growth 
actually called a cut. The conference report we have before us suggests 
that we reduce spending by some $40 billion. This is a reduction in the 
rate of increase over a 5-year period. For too long the Government has 
been on automatic pilot for mandatory programs. We have done a few 
things in an attempt to reduce spending in some of the entitlement 
programs--a very small amount. These entitlement programs are going to 
continue to grow, at least at the rate of inflation. We have begun to 
address the rate of spending and brought it down so that the rate of 
increase will be less.
  If we look at the total budget, the entitlements take up a large 
percentage of the budget. Discretionary spending--it gets a lot of 
attention in the media, I might add--that part of the budget only runs 
close to 30 percent. Sixty percent or so--better than 60 percent is 
going into entitlement spending. Mainly, that is Medicare and Medicaid. 
I was astounded by the figure that Chairman Gregg put out in his 
comments when he was opening the debate this morning on the Senate 
floor. He noted that we have $51 trillion in unfunded liability. Much 
of that is Medicaid and Medicare. This doesn't paint a good picture for 
my grandkids when they are going to grow up and look at starting a 
business.
  One of the big costs I had as an employer was the amount of taxes I 
had to pay toward Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. As these 
costs get higher and higher--and they are going to if we don't control 
spending--it is going to be more difficult for small businesspeople 
like myself to get started in business. It will be more difficult for 
them to prosper and grow and to create an opportunity for their kids 
and generation after generation. So we need to make some decisions.
  I don't think these are tough decisions, by the way. These decisions 
should be relatively easy. We have a large budget that we passed, and a 
$40 billion reduction over 5 years is a very small amount of reduction 
in the rate of increase. Mandatory spending is growing at an 
unsustainable rate.

[[Page S14087]]

  Entitlements are the fastest growing part of the Federal Government. 
Unless Congress takes steps to address mandatory spending, future 
generations will be left with an unsustainable program. The Comptroller 
General estimated unfunded liability somewhere around $51 trillion, as 
I mentioned.
  The Deficit Reduction Act provides a downpayment toward hurricane and 
recovery costs.
  The act also takes steps to reform outdated, inefficient, and overly 
costly entitlement programs.
  Medicaid is reformed to expand flexibility of State Medicaid benefit 
packages, expanded home and community-based services, and expanded 
services for disabled children.
  Education for low-income students is strengthened through new grant 
aid for low-income students and extending certain loan forgiveness.
  The point is that we have to set priorities, and I think one of the 
top priorities of this Congress should be an attempt to reduce the 
ever-escalating costs in spending, particularly on the mandatory 
entitlement spending side. We need to work on all areas, by the way. In 
discretionary spending, there are things we can do to bring in more 
efficiency. But the areas where we are seeing the greatest growth, and 
the areas that are going to cause the greatest liability for 
generations, is the growth in entitlement spending.
  The other side is constantly complaining about not doing enough to 
hold down spending. Here is an opportunity to hold down spending. I 
hope they will join the Republican side in getting the Deficit 
Reduction Act passed, the bill we have before us right now.
  The argument that comes from the other side is basically that they 
want to increase taxes, they want to increase Federal spending, and 
they believe that we will all be better off. But that doesn't work. We 
have seen the President's economic plan work very well in the last few 
years. We have seen the economy rebound. You can look at all the 
economic figures you want, but you have to come to the conclusion, 
whether you look at employment or growth of the economy, interest 
rates, or disposable income, it has all been a good picture. The 
President's economic growth package has worked, which says that we cut 
back on taxes.
  The reason that works is because we allow small businesses, similar 
to what I had, or individuals to keep more money in their pocket. More 
money in their pocket means they can buy cars, they will buy homes, 
they will buy whatever disposable items they have. This keeps our 
economy turning. If you take that away from them, then it slows 
economic growth.
  Time and time again, we have seen in our country's history, whether 
it started with President John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, or now 
President Bush, that when we have a high tax burden, and we reduce that 
tax burden, it is going to cause economic growth. In return that means 
more money coming in to State and local governments, and it means more 
money coming in to the Federal Government.
  State and local governments around the country are now experiencing 
an unexpected return in revenues, and that means they can begin to 
address the needs of their communities and State.
  We are seeing that there is an increase in the amount of revenue 
coming in to the Federal Government. Revenue is increasing because we 
cut taxes to keep the economy going. In spite of the fact we have had 
high energy costs, the economy is strong. When it has had to deal with 
high energy costs and the cost of the war, it is still showing growth 
figures, which is remarkable. It speaks strongly of an economic package 
that has been passed out of this Senate, out of the Congress, and 
pushed by President Bush.
  We need to continue that effort. We should not backtrack. This bill 
keeps us on track. It says we have to look at holding down spending. 
The Federal Government doesn't create jobs. It does not create new 
wealth in this country. New wealth comes mainly from the small business 
sector. It comes from families who own businesses. It comes from 
individuals who own businesses who are innovative, who try to develop 
new ways to get into the market. That is where all our new technology 
comes from. We need to make sure we do everything possible to give them 
an opportunity to do that. When we increase the burden of Government on 
small business, we make it more difficult for them to make the 
investment they need to grow. When they grow, they pay more taxes, and 
that is going to mean more revenue to Government.
  The problem is not tax cuts but spending. Tax receipts are growing. 
Yet we continue to have deficits because spending is growing even 
faster. The current Federal deficit is too high and out of control. 
Mandatory spending is threatening the economic security of future 
generations. This conference report will help keep the U.S. economy 
strong and growing. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the 
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 conference report. It will make a 
difference. It is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 10 minutes off the time on the Democratic side, as agreed to before.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              PATRIOT Act

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the PATRIOT Act 
reauthorization. Our Nation's Founding Fathers could never have 
foreseen the kinds of threats we face today from America's enemies, nor 
could they have imagined the technologies we use to anticipate attacks 
on our country and to prevent them with cell phones, computers, 
electronic bank reports, and other kinds of efforts. But they did 
foresee the threats of unchecked Government power on the civil 
liberties of each of us as Americans.
  The fourth amendment was adopted as a protection against the 
widespread invasions of privacy experienced by American colonists at 
the hands of the British Government. That is part of our history. That 
is why this debate is so important. That is why we are standing in this 
Chamber, just 11 days before the PATRIOT Act expires, to debate this 
reauthorization. And that is why my colleagues and I on both sides of 
the aisle are fighting to extend the current PATRIOT Act for 3 months 
while we work to get agreement on the right balance between our 
security and our right to privacy and due process.
  I want to particularly say congratulations and lend my admiration to 
the Senator currently occupying the Chair in this Chamber and thank him 
for his leadership on this issue. We have come together in a bipartisan 
way under his leadership and other colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle. I am very grateful for the Chair's leadership.
  We all agree that we need to protect our homeland, but we also have 
an obligation to protect the civil liberties that are the birthright of 
every American. It is important that we get the PATRIOT Act right, not 
just insist on getting it done right now. That is why we say extend it, 
don't end it. Extend it, don't end it.
  This is a critical debate. The terrorist threat to our country is 
very real, and it is vital that we provide the Government with the law 
enforcement tools necessary to protect our Nation, to protect our 
families.
  I am proud to have offered provisions in the PATRIOT Act to protect 
against money laundering. My provision, section 325, gives the Treasury 
Department the ability to better monitor anonymous bank accounts which 
can be used to move terrorist funds. This is an important provision 
that can be used to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.
  We need to use every tool possible to fight terrorism and to protect 
our citizens at home. At the same time, the threat to civil liberties 
is also very real in America today. Last week we were alarmed to learn 
that under a secret order signed by the President of the United States, 
the Government has been monitoring the international telephone calls 
and e-mail messages from people inside the United States, American 
citizens, without court approval. This is not something that is 
authorized by the PATRIOT Act or by any act of Congress but, instead, 
is being conducted under a secret Presidential order.
  This debate is not about whether the Government should have the tools 
that it needs to protect the American people. Of course, it should. 
Nobody in this

[[Page S14088]]

Chamber disagrees with that. That is why the PATRIOT Act passed 
overwhelmingly 4 years ago.
  The Senate's bipartisan reauthorization bill passed unanimously in 
July. It was an extraordinary effort by leaders on both sides of the 
aisle. I am very proud of what we did back in July in unanimously 
passing an improved version of the PATRIOT Act.
  This debate is not about whether the PATRIOT Act should suddenly 
expire. Of course, it should not. That is why we say, ``Extend it, 
don't end it.'' That is why we have offered a bipartisan bill to extend 
the PATRIOT Act for 3 months to give Congress time to reach a 
bipartisan compromise--again, authored by the Senator from New 
Hampshire, who is currently chairing this August body.
  This extension has 47 cosponsors and counting from both sides of the 
aisle. This debate is about balance. It is about ensuring the safety of 
the American people while at the same time protecting our rights and 
keeping the Government accountable for its actions. These are not 
mutually exclusive goals. Again, we need to amend the PATRIOT Act, not 
end it.
  The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report does make some 
important improvements and I want to thank Senator Specter and Senator 
Leahy for their hard work and leadership on this bill. The conference 
report contains the 4-year sunsets in the Senate bill instead of the 
original 10 years in the House bill. It no longer contains a provision 
that would have made it a crime merely to disclose the receipt of a 
national security letter. However, there is a lot more to be done 
before we should be passing this bill and sending it to the President.
  Under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, known as the library provision, 
the Government can obtain a secret order to access personal records of 
Americans without probable cause of a crime. That means the Government 
can get copies of Americans' medical or financial records, library 
records, gun ownership records, purchase records. It also prohibits the 
keeper of this information, such as a librarian, from telling anyone 
that they have handed over these records to the Government. Before the 
PATRIOT Act, the FBI had access only to certain kinds of business 
records such as hotel and rental car receipts and they had to meet a 
higher legal standards before a court in order to obtain this 
information.
  The PATRIOT Act did away with these limitations and lowered the 
standard for obtaining these personal records. The Senate version of 
the reauthorization bill reestablished a significant check on this 
power, and that is very important. Under the Senate bill, relevance to 
an authorized investigation is not enough. The Government must also 
show some connection between the records they are seeking and a 
suspected terrorist or spy. Unfortunately, this basic protection is not 
in the final conference report. The Senate bill also included basic 
protections for the recipients of a section 215 letter to allow them to 
challenge the automatic permanent gag order and these protections were 
left out of the conference report.
  The conference report's treatment of national security letters, or 
NSLs, also needs significant improvement. NSLs are documents issued by 
the Federal Government that allow the Government to seize a wide 
variety of business and financial records without the approval of a 
judge, a grand jury, or a prosecutor. This has been raised as a concern 
by the U.S. Chamber, other business organizations and others throughout 
the country. Like section 215, a person who receives an NSL is under a 
permanent gag order without any judicial review.
  Last month, The Washington Post reported that the FBI issues more 
than 30,000 NSLs per year. That is a hundredfold increase over past 
practices.
  Lastly, the conference report weakened the critical sneak-and-peek 
protections that were in the Senate bill. Under section 213 of the 
PATRIOT Act, the Government can conduct secret searches in criminal 
investigations. With a section 213 warrant, investigators can enter 
someone's home or their office, conduct a search, take pictures, seize 
items, without telling the person for weeks, months, or in some cases 
more than a year. The Senate bill replaced this standard with a 7-day 
rule, permitting the Government to obtain additional 90-day extensions 
when necessary. The conference committee changed that.
  Our Founding Fathers may not have foreseen the threats we face from 
our enemies today, but they did foresee the threats of unchecked 
Government power on the civil liberties and freedoms of all Americans. 
Protecting Americans from unlawful search and seizure is one of the 
Nation's founding principles. To ignore that is to undermine our 
identity as Americans and our American Constitution. We owe it to the 
people of America to get this right, and that is why I support an 
extension.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  That is why I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of Senator Sununu's bill, S. 
2082, extending the PATRIOT Act for 3 months; that the Senate proceed 
to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and 
be passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to amend the unanimous consent request as follows: 
That we call up the PATRIOT Act which is pending at the desk, have 2 
hours of debate, and go to final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Michigan consent?
  Ms. STABENOW. I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification.
  Is there objection to the consent request?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I notice 
that in the middle of the debate on the deficit reduction bill we are 
hearing a number of people debating what has been debated to 
a considerable degree, which is the issue of the fact that the PATRIOT 
Act, which is pending at the desk, will not be allowed to go to a final 
vote by the Democratic membership of the Senate. I would simply say 
this, that I guess it brings to mind the Shakespearean line, I think it 
was from ``Julius Caesar''--it might have been one of his other 
wonderful plays--methinks he doth protest too much.

  The corpse lies on their side of the aisle. They are the ones who 
have killed the PATRIOT Act, if they do not agree to vote it, which is 
sitting at the desk, which has gone through the committee process, 
which has been amended, which has been brought forward, and which has a 
majority of the Senate in favor of it. So I suppose it is a diversion 
from the deficit bill, which we should be debating, to bring these 
items up, but I think it is more simply an attempt to try to move the 
blame for the responsibility for what looks like is going to be the 
ending of the PATRIOT Act at the end of this year. I think that is 
unfortunate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, in response to my colleague, I simply 
say we have unanimous support on this side of the aisle to extend the 
PATRIOT Act for 3 months while working out the areas of concern to 
millions of Americans. I also find it rather curious, in watching this 
debate with the distinguished Senator, one distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire speaking to another distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire, who is in the chair, who is a Republican author, with 
another also distinguished colleague from Idaho who is another author 
of the extension. This is clearly a bipartisan effort on our part to do 
the right thing, to create the right balance to extend, not end, the 
PATRIOT Act at the end of the year. The choice is in the majority as to 
whether to join us to extend the PATRIOT Act, not end it.
  I would object to bringing up the bill one more time that, in fact, 
has been voted on at this point. Procedurally, we have said no to this 
conference report. We want to extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months, not 
end it, so that we

[[Page S14089]]

can go back to the great work done unanimously by the Senate, 
unanimously by this body.
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A consent request has been made. Is there 
objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, which is my right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. I am reserving my right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the rules, there is no formal right to 
object. The Senator from New Hampshire has been heard. Does he wish to 
be heard further on the point?
  Mr. GREGG. The Chair has an obligation, I believe, to allow me to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized to speak further on 
the point, without objection.
  Mr. GREGG. I will object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Michigan has the floor. Has she concluded her 
remarks? Has she yielded the floor?
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, in conclusion, we have an opportunity to 
reinforce the great work done back in July by the unanimous Senate. We 
have bipartisan agreement that this conference report does not include 
the balance necessary and we have come together in a bipartisan way, 
with every single person on our side of the aisle and great leadership 
on the other side of the aisle, to say: Extend the PATRIOT Act, don't 
end it. We know we can work together to get this right on behalf of the 
American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the PATRIOT Act has been inserted into this 
debate, which is unfortunate, but I do think it is important to make a 
couple of points in response to the Senator from Michigan because there 
is misrepresentation here, in my opinion, as to the characterization of 
the activity.
  The majority of the Senate has said it wants to pass the PATRIOT Act 
which is at the desk. The Senator from Michigan has refused to allow us 
to take up that act, as has the vast majority of her party--although 
there were a couple of folks on our side who I believe voted that way. 
So the issue is not that the majority of the Senate is opposed to the 
PATRIOT Act at the desk; the issue is the minority of the Senate is not 
going to allow the PATRIOT Act to come to a vote in the Senate and thus 
the PATRIOT Act will expire. The only reasonable analysis of that 
situation is the expiration is a result of the minority of the Senate, 
led by a fairly large number of the Democratic membership of the 
Senate, desiring to put form over substance and not allow the PATRIOT 
Act to a final vote and, as a result, forcing the expiration of the 
PATRIOT Act.
  They cannot now come to the floor and say, Oh, but we didn't mean it. 
We killed the PATRIOT Act, but we didn't mean it.
  The fact is, this bill which is at the desk has bipartisan support, 
has gone through the committee process, and is the proper way to deal 
with the PATRIOT Act.
  I suppose we can stay here all day and debate the PATRIOT Act, but 
actually this is a deficit reduction act and I hope we will get back to 
it.
  At this point, do you have any speakers?
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have not yielded the floor yet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire retains the 
floor.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask if we are going to return to speakers?
  Mr. CONRAD. I was going to take some time at this moment on the same 
subject. I, too, regret we have gotten onto the PATRIOT Act, but since 
we have, I feel a need to take on a couple of these points.
  Mr. GREGG. Senator Stevens is here to speak. How much time do you 
require?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will not take long.
  Mr. GREGG. So we can get it fixed up so we can get a time agreement?
  Mr. CONRAD. No, no, I will be very brief and then we will go to 
Senator Stevens.
  Mr. GREGG. All right.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are on the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. We are on the Budget Reconciliation Act. But people have 
come to the floor, as is their right, to discuss other issues. Now we 
have gotten into a discussion of the PATRIOT Act.
  I have great respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee, but I 
must say on this issue I profoundly disagree. The Senator from New 
Hampshire says there is a majority in the Senate who support the 
PATRIOT Act provisions that have come back from conference committee. 
That is true.
  It is also true that earlier this year on a unanimous vote the Senate 
version of the PATRIOT Act was approved. The House had very different 
provisions, and when the conference between the House and the Senate 
was concluded, they came back with PATRIOT Act provisions that could 
not command the votes necessary to pass the PATRIOT Act. That is a 
fact. There are not sufficient votes to pass the version of the PATRIOT 
Act that came back from the conference between the House and the 
Senate, and on a bipartisan basis--there were those who supported that 
version of the PATRIOT Act and on a bipartisan basis there were votes 
against that version of the PATRIOT Act. So let's be very clear.
  Now we may face a circumstance in which the PATRIOT Act would fail, 
would not be extended. It is still alive today. It is alive until the 
31st of this month, so all the talk that we killed the PATRIOT Act--no, 
the PATRIOT Act has not been killed. The PATRIOT Act is still in force. 
If we cannot reach agreement on something to make permanent, for 
goodness sake, in the Nation's security interest we should be able to 
agree on a time of extension.
  The Senator from Michigan has offered 3 months. The Senator from New 
York, Senator Schumer, earlier offered 3 months. The Senator from New 
Hampshire has talked about a year. I don't know which is exactly right. 
I frankly think 3 months may be too little; I think a year may be too 
long because we do want to keep pressuring our colleagues to actually 
reach agreement on something that might be more long lasting. But the 
one thing on which we should all agree, since every single one of us 
voted on the PATRIOT Act provisions that passed the Senate back in 
July--the one thing on which we should absolutely be able to agree is 
we do not allow the PATRIOT Act to lapse. That is one thing in this 
Chamber, deeply divided, that we certainly should be able to agree on. 
I hope before this week is ended we have found a way to extend the 
PATRIOT Act for some amount of time.
  Let's be clear. There are not the votes sufficient to pass the 
version of the PATRIOT Act that came back from the House. That is 
clear. It is also clear that earlier this year this body, on a 
unanimous vote, approved the Senate version of the PATRIOT Act and that 
every single Member of this body now wants some version of the PATRIOT 
Act to go forward. The details have not yet been agreed to. So there is 
an opportunity in these final hours to either get the PATRIOT Act in a 
fashion that can command sufficient votes to pass or that we extend the 
PATRIOT Act for some period of time so this Nation remains protected.

  I hope very much the cooler heads are going to prevail here and that 
we are going to find a way to keep the PATRIOT Act in force--modified, 
to be certain; that is what happens in the legislative process. None of 
us quite gets all he wants. But we should not be in a circumstance in 
which it is allowed to lapse completely.
  With that, Senator Stevens is waiting to speak. We are ready to turn 
to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am sure it will come to no one's 
surprise that I desire to use this time to discuss the appropriations 
bill, the Defense appropriations bill that is before the Senate in the 
form of a conference report.
  Over the night I have been thinking--as a matter of fact, too many 
nights I have been thinking about this conference report. As I thought 
about it, I thought about some of the comments that have been made that 
this is something new; that people should not put--

[[Page S14090]]

I should not put a nongermane portion into this conference report 
because it is a violation of the rules.
  I remember the times we discussed Senator Byrd's steel loan 
guarantees or the mountaintop mining problem. I remember Senator Conrad 
coming to me in a conference report dealing with the great problems of 
disaster funding in South Dakota and the Devils Lake issue. I remember 
Senator Dorgan on that one, too. I remember Senator Harkin coming to me 
and asking me to deal with the multibillion-dollar environmental 
program and agriculture authorization program in an appropriations 
bill. I remember Senators Jeffords, Kohl, and Leahy asking me to deal 
with the Northeast dairy compact. I remember Senator Bill Nelson 
telling me about the terrible problems of the shuttle disaster and 
ensuring key operations at the Kennedy Space Center.
  For Northeast Senators on LIHEAP, in this bill, at my urging, there 
is a provision for $2 billion as emergency funds for LIHEAP. The House 
was further reluctant to agree to that until we worked out the funding 
mechanisms for repayment of that money on an emergency basis when the 
funds come in from the sale of spectrum.
  Similarly, it went to the Budget Committee. They agreed that the 
estimate in the bill for ANWR of $2.5 billion for revenues from bidding 
was low and they, in fact, have agreed that there will be approximately 
$5 billion coming in.
  But they can't, under the procedures, change the estimate under the 
Budget Act.
  In this bill, we have allocated that money to repay emergency funding 
for other programs, emergency funding that the House would not agree to 
before including the $1.1 billion for homeland security.
  Some people say to me: What you are doing is dragging this in front 
of people. You want them to vote with you. I haven't talked to anyone 
in connection with what I have done in this bill and said I will do 
this if you will vote for this bill. I have done it because I believe 
those things are right to do. If the Senate believes they are right to 
do, they are going to vote for cloture on the conference report. If 
they want to send it back to the House, they will vote against the 
cloture on the conference report or they will vote in favor of a point 
of order against the conference report. And then it goes back to the 
House, the House has to reconstitute itself, and we have to appoint new 
conferees.
  The House has sent word this morning to forget about that. They heard 
what I said, and they said we will ask for a continuing resolution for 
the Defense Department appropriations until we all come back. Our 
people have gone home for Christmas, they say. I don't know whether 
they will.
  But all I know is we are at a crucial juncture of a series of things, 
and one of them is, in fact, the subject I have dealt with now for 25 
years since Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas came to me and said 
stop the filibuster against the bill called ANILCA in 1980. President 
Clinton wanted it very much. And they said we will set aside 1.5 
million acres of the Arctic as you have requested, and it will be open 
to oil and gas development until that process is finished. It will not 
became part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge until that is over.
  For 25 years now, I have tried to get that commitment fulfilled. We 
passed a bill and Clinton vetoed it. We have had it before several 
Senate sessions, and it has always been filibustered on the other side. 
This year, we are successful in getting it in the reconciliation bill, 
which is the bill before the Senate right now, at urging of a 
bipartisan group in the House. They urged me to allow them to defeat 
that so there would be easy passage for this bill over there. It was 
passed very quickly, and it is before us now. They said put the 
amendment on the Defense appropriations bill and we will help you get 
it passed in the House. They did that. An overwhelming majority voted 
for it.
  Now we hear all sorts of things--I am getting tired of being accused 
of so many things--outrageous, cantankerous Senator who is responsible 
for the bridges. I wasn't responsible for the bridges. They arose in 
the House. But I did defend them here in the Senate.
  As a practical matter, history is behind us now, and we have before 
us a bill which is the Defense bill.
  I have managed this bill, or the Senator from Hawaii has managed this 
bill, since 1981. I don't think there are any two Senators who know any 
more about funding for the Department of Defense than the two of us. We 
pride ourselves in doing a good job, and we have done the best possible 
job we can now. We have I think two of the best staff directors in the 
Senate. Sid Ashworth sits beside me now and Charles Houy is always 
beside Senator Inouye.
  We have a bill before the Senate now and a conference report that 
provides $446.7 billion to the Department of Defense. It has a $50 
billion contingency for Defense. It is a conference report which should 
be voted on.
  I hear some people say they are going to oppose cloture on the 
conference report. I can't imagine anyone voting against cloture on a 
conference report for Defense. You can argue about some of the 
amendments that were attached to it. That is fine. They can be voted on 
individually by points of order. But the conference report on Defense 
is for the troops. The conference report on Defense really goes far 
beyond the amendments that are on this bill.
  Those who vote against this conference report must know that what 
they are doing is they are setting up a delay in the process of getting 
money to the troops.
  I have argued since July that this bill should not be delayed. I am 
not responsible for the delay. What I am responsible for now, since 
this the last bill, is attaching three important amendments to it.
  One deals with Avian flu. That issue was raised by Senator Harkin. 
When I managed the bill on the floor, I first said that is extraneous, 
and we shouldn't put it in the bill. The more I thought about it, I 
went to him and said: You are right. Let us take this to conference and 
see what we can do.
  We took it to conference and what resulted was not only money for 
avian flu, but the money for avian flu was approximately the same as 
Senator Harkin sought.
  But we have added liability compensation provisions to it. This is a 
stronger amendment now than Senator Harkin asked me to add to the bill.
  I ask: Are we going to vote against getting ready for the pandemic? 
If this bill falls, we will go back into conference. But a point of 
order against this bill under rule XXVIII, as I understand it--I will 
explain that in a minute--will take all of those, and it is a matter 
for the Senate to decide.
  If a rule XXVIII point of order is raised against the conference 
report, the conference report in its entirety collapses. Rule XXVIII 
does not act similar to the Byrd rule and the offending provisions are 
taken out of the bill. A brandnew conference will have to be convened 
and new conferees will have to be appointed by each House. When the 
conference convenes, the conferees have to be circumspect about 
including any matter not committed to the bill by each bill from the 
House.
  In other words, we will go back and be in conference, and we will 
come back and still be right where we are now. The items for the avian 
flu would be added. It may be that ANWR would be deleted.
  I have to tell you, if we are going to a new conference, I am going 
to argue to put it back in. It should be there, and the votes in the 
conference are there to put it back in.
  We are going to face up to ANWR either now, or Christmas Day, or New 
Year's Eve, or sometime--however long we stay in. We are going to face 
the question of should we keep the commitment made by Senator Jackson 
and Senator Tsongas.
  This bill goes beyond, though, in terms of the subject matter that 
should be discussed.
  We have to realize that ANWR is germane to the bill. Nothing is more 
germane and essential to national defense than energy. Our Department 
of Defense consumes 110 to 112 million barrels of oil. I have a chart 
concerning that. That is the consumption of Department of Defense.
  The consumption during this global war on terror has risen to 133 
million barrels of oil. This is a 20-percent increase in demand due to 
the general war on terror.
  ANWR supports national security because it unquestionably will 
increase the national supply.

[[Page S14091]]

  So when you vote on the question of whether this is beyond the scope, 
sure it was not in either bill, but is it germane?
  Is it part of national defense? Listen to what Senator Jackson said 
at the time we debated the oil pipeline amendment, which Senators will 
remember was passed by one vote when the Vice President of the United 
States broke the tie.
  In almost every issue I have been involved in since I have been here 
about Alaska, it has been a narrow vote. Why? Because extreme 
environmentalists think it is their playground, that they should set 
the policies for Alaska.
  Here is what Senator Jackson said as chairman of the Energy 
Committee. This involves national security. It is a national security 
issue. He said this:
  It involves national security. There is no serious question today 
that it is urgently in the national interest to start North Slope oil 
flowing to markets. Today we have a pipeline. I ask unanimous consent 
this report be printed in the Record following my remarks. It is titled 
``Prudhoe Decline Highlights U.S. Oil Dependence.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1)
  Mr. STEVENS. It shows Alaska's oil has decreased. Here are the 
figures. At one time we went up to 1.885 million. We actually have an 
ultimate capacity of 2.1 million. There were some surges where we 
transported more than 2 million barrels a day. Its design capacity is 
more than 2 million barrels a day. Now, throughput is 935,000. I was 
informed recently that the amount going through at this time, the 
average production, is down to 381,000. We have a pipeline designed to 
carry 2 million barrels of oil and it is running at a little over 30 
percent throughput.
  Where is the oil to come from? ANWR. It should have come from ANWR. 
If President Clinton had not vetoed our bill in 1995, it would be 
coming through now.
  I urge my colleagues to think about what ANWR means and why we are 
here. We are here because every time we have been here, we have been 
frustrated by filibuster. Is it unethical to try to find a way around a 
filibuster, to try and find a way so we can fulfill our constitutional 
right--that is, to have an issue decided by a majority vote? All I am 
asking is to have an issue decided by majority vote.
  Cloture is a creature of the Senate. The concept of unlimited debate 
is a creature of the Senate. I abide by it. I believe in it. However, 
we also have the process to curb that; that is, to have cloture on a 
bill. Now it is cloture on a Defense bill. I don't ever recall having 
to get cloture on a Defense appropriations bill.
  As I said, in the 1973 timeframe when we had the Alaska oil pipeline 
built, a most controversial bill at that time, there was not one 
Senator who suggested a filibuster. We all knew oil was a matter of 
national security. It was agreed it would be an up-or-down vote. As a 
matter of fact, we had two votes. We had the first vote, and because 
one person was off the floor, we then had a second vote. That person 
came back to the Senate. He was standing right outside the door. When 
he voted, it created a tie. The Vice President then broke the tie.
  We are at the point now where we should recognize what we have done 
is to finally have found a way to get a vote on the basic issue in the 
Senate in a way that will take the bill to the President. It is a DOD 
bill. It is a bill the President will sign, I am certain. But keep in 
mind what else is in this bill.
  Before I get to that, I have to remember my good friend Judge James 
Buckley. I said before in the Senate, he was one of the first ones to 
oppose drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. In January of this year 
he sent me a letter, unsolicited. He says this in the final paragraph:

       Having visited the Arctic on nine occasions over the past 
     13 years (including a recent camping trip to Alaska's North 
     Slope), I don't think I can be accused of being insensitive 
     to the charms of the Arctic qua Arctic. I just don't see any 
     threat to the values I cherish.

  He changed his mind. He said, do your best to get it drilled.
  I ask unanimous consent to have his letter printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2)
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, beyond that, we have a series of problems 
I would like to mention in closing. Then I will be back. That is the 
question of the point of order.
  In 1996, we overturned a point of order on the aviation bill. It was 
a question of the FAA conference report, conference on the FAA. Senator 
Hollings, my great friend, Fritz Hollings, offered an amendment to that 
bill. The Chair ruled that Senator Hollings' amendment exceeded the 
scope of the conference. The Senate voted 56 to 39 to overturn the 
ruling of the Chair. I was part of that debate and in support of 
Senator Hollings. There are still in the Senate a series of people who 
voted to overturn that Chair. Senator Chafee's father, the former 
Senator Chafee did, Senator Conrad did, Senator DeWine did, Senator 
Domenici did, Senator Feinstein did. We have a whole series of people. 
My great friend, brother, Senator Inouye did, Senator Jeffords did. We 
have a series of Members who did. Senator McConnell did. Senator 
Pryor's father did. Senator Reid did. So did several other Members here 
today.
  I am making the point it is not something new to ask the ruling of 
the Chair be disagreed with. We seek to settle the disagreement over 
whether the amendments are within the scope--they technically are 
beyond the scope--but should the scope be adhered to in the 
circumstances today? Should they be adhered to for avian flu? Is there 
any Senator who wants to protest against that? Should they be adhered 
to on Katrina? Sure, if there is advance appropriations on Katrina, I 
found ways to advance moneys to the people in those disaster areas and 
repay them with future income.

  The House of Representatives has approved that. The Committee on the 
Budget says if you make the assumptions I make, it is a fair way to do 
things. No, they did not say ``fair way'' but a way to do things.
  When you look at it right now, the issue comes down to my amendment 
and that is ANWR. ANWR, to me, is the most significant thing we can do 
today because we are down now to importing almost 60 percent of our 
oil. No matter what anyone says, that is an enormous burden on our 
economy. It is such a great burden that the scope of it has to be 
detailed in order to find the solutions for the problems we face.
  Remember, in defense now, 7 of the 10 suppliers of this country for 
petroleum for defense are not U.S. suppliers. Did you know that? Of the 
10 suppliers of petroleum to defense, 7 are foreign countries. Twenty 
percent of the petroleum the DOD purchases comes from Middle East 
countries that embargoed our oil in the past.
  We are dealing with a matter of security to increase our domestic 
supply. Our State not only produces oil, we refine in Alaska a 
considerable amount of the jet fuel used by our military. A 
considerable portion of our military comes to Alaska each year: 52 
million gallons in Elmendorf, 21 million gallons in Eielson, 3.5 
million gallons for Coast Guard, 76.5 million gallons in terms of our 
total purchases from our refined oil.
  I do believe we have more than doubled our energy imports since 1969 
and we are exporting now approximately half a billion a day for foreign 
oil. If that money were spent in the United States--we only spent $1 
billion of it in the United States--it would produce 12,500 jobs. In 
2003, we outsourced 1.3 million jobs by importing oil rather than 
producing it in the United States.
  In the area where the distinguished occupant of the Chair comes from, 
Louisiana produces a substantial portion of this oil, but many of the 
facilities down there have been damaged or are in need of repair.
  We should be doing everything we can to diversify the sources of our 
energy supplies. By developing the coastal plain, we will create 
between 700,000 and 1 million jobs. We will put $60 million back into 
the economy each day, money that will be paid to U.S. employees and 
paid to the United States, which will increase the flow of taxes into 
our Treasury.
  I apologize for being slightly tired and sort of disconnected in 
terms of how I deal with this process, but I summarize by this: We have 
disaster assistance, we have home energy assistance, LIHEAP, we have 
interoperable equipment for the first responders, we have

[[Page S14092]]

emergency preparedness for the cities and the States, we have border 
security, 1.1 billion of real money, 1996 money. There is no other 
money available for 2006. It includes money for infrastructure and 
border assistance. And we also have money for agricultural assistance.

  The amendment of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Cochran, really does a tremendous job in meeting some of the 
disaster needs beyond those which will be met by my amendment.
  I will have more to say later. But, Mr. President, I urge the Senate 
to think. We can either pass this bill soon and do our job and fulfill 
the demands and desires of millions of people, or we can pull this bill 
down, the conference report down, and ask the House to reconstitute 
another committee, a conference committee, and go back into the 
conference committee with approximately the same conferees and try to 
reach a different result.
  I, frankly, do not see there would be much difference. As a matter of 
fact, if I am a member of that conference committee, it will produce 
the same result. So face up to the issue now and decide whether you 
want to provide for energy independence in the future, whether you want 
to provide for LIHEAP, for disaster, for first responders, for border 
security, or whether you just want to continue debating ANWR.
  Thank you very much.

                               Exhibit 1

             Prudhoe Decline Highlights U.S. Oil Dependence

                         (By Tarek El-Tablawy)

       New York.--Alaska North Slope crude oil production, once 
     heralded as a domestic mother lode, has hit a new output 
     low--embodying the precarious balance confronting the United 
     States as it struggles for energy security in an era of 
     volatility in the international oil market.
       The decline in Alaska is led by a slump in output from the 
     once-mammoth Prudhoe Bay field, which has been producing 
     since 1969. At its height in fiscal 1988, the field produced 
     an average of 1.6 million barrels per day. In fiscal 2005, it 
     was down to 381,000 barrels per day. Overall production in 
     the North Slope has dropped to an average of 916,000 barrels 
     per day from 2.01 million barrels in the same period.
       In Alaska, re-boosting output is as much dictated by 
     politics as it is by geology.
       While the Bush administration has pushed for opening a 
     pristine Alaskan refuge believed to hold about 10 billion 
     barrels of recoverable crude oil, environmentalists argue 
     such a move would only temporarily delay the inevitable while 
     ruining the delicate arctic habitat.
       For Alaskans, Prudhoe's decline in particular, and the 
     North Slope's in general, transcends politics and raises 
     fiscal and emotional issues. Each year, state residents 
     receive a substantial dividend from an investment account 
     built over the year by a portion of oil tax revenues.
       Those dividends, based on market investment performance, 
     have ranged from a record $1,964 per resident in 2000 to $845 
     in 2005. But dividends are estimated to rise over the next 
     decade, as returns on investments take the place of declining 
     oil royalties and taxes that go into the fund.
       ``The word I would use is concern,'' said Michael Williams, 
     the Alaska Department of Revenue's chief economist. North 
     Slope crude ``represents a substantial portion of income for 
     the state. The issue is: What's going to happen when it goes 
     very low, or runs out?''
       State officials are negotiating with three major oil 
     producers to build a North Slope natural gas pipeline to 
     markets in the Midwest they hope will compensate for losses 
     from the decline in oil. State officials say oil is expected 
     to account for at least 74 percent of Alaska's unrestricted 
     general purpose revenue through 2013.
       The history of Prudhoe, and the several fields discovered 
     later that once helped buoy the state's oil daily production 
     to over 2 million barrels, offers a window into the dichotomy 
     of the energy security debate in the United States as oil 
     prices hover tenaciously around $60 per barrel.
       The fall in the North Slope comes even with the startup of 
     the Northstar and Alpine fields which, with a combined 
     projected output of over 200,000 barrels per day, many hoped 
     would partially offset the decline in Prudhoe Bay.
       Prudhoe ``was one of the last great fields in America,'' 
     said Bill Samuelson, an analyst with the Houston-based 
     consultancy, Purvin & Gertz.
       ``When you have such a large field that is declining so 
     steeply, it's hard to offset that decline,'' he said. ``It's 
     inevitable.''
       Projections for new fields slated to come on-stream over 
     the next 10 years are expected to do little but temporarily 
     offset the steady decline. North Slope output, according to 
     the state, is projected to drop to about 833,000 barrels per 
     day by 2015, with 50 percent of that production coming from 
     new fields.
       Inevitability is an immediate issue across the country. 
     U.S. domestic crude production, currently estimated at 5.4 
     million barrels per day, is slated to peak at 5.9 million 
     barrels per day in 2014 before starting a steady decline to 
     an estimated 4.99 million barrels in 2025, according to the 
     Annual Energy Outlook, 2006, issued Monday by the Department 
     of Energy's Energy Information Administration.
       High crude prices have allowed small producers to restart 
     ``stripper wells''--fields that were otherwise economically 
     unfeasible because of recovery costs and minuscule reservoir 
     pools. Such activity has increased in states like Kansas and 
     Kentucky.
                                  ____

                                     Sharon, CT, January 24, 2005.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ted: Twenty-six years ago, after leaving the Senate, I 
     was a lead signatory in full-page ads opposing oil 
     exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve that 
     appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post. I 
     opposed it because, based on the information then available, 
     I believed that it would threaten the survival of the 
     Porcupine caribou herd and leave huge, long-lasting scars on 
     fragile Arctic lands. Since then, caribou populations in the 
     areas of Prudhoe Bay and the Alaskan pipeline have increased, 
     which demonstrates that the Porcupine herd would not be 
     threatened, and new regulations limiting activities to the 
     winter months and mandating the use of ice roads and 
     directional drilling have vastly reduced the impact of oil 
     operations on the Arctic landscape.
       In light of the above, I have revised my views and now urge 
     approval of oil development in the 1002 Study Area for the 
     following reasons:
       1. With proper management, I don't see that any significant 
     damage to arctic wildlife would result, and none that 
     wouldn't rapidly be repaired once operation ceased.
       2. While I don't buy the oil companies' claim that only 
     2,000 acres would be affected, even if all of the 1.5 
     million-acre Study Area were to lose its pristine quality (it 
     wouldn't), that would still leave 18.1 million acres of the 
     ANWR untouched plus another five million acres in two 
     adjoining Canadian wildlife refuges, or an area about equal 
     to that of the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, 
     and New Hampshire combined. In other words, it is simply 
     preposterous to claim that oil development in the Study Area 
     would ``destroy'' the critical values that ANWR is intended 
     to serve.
       3. In light of the above, it is economic and (to a much 
     lesser degree) strategic masochism to deny ourselves access 
     to what could prove our largest source of a vital resource.
       Having visited the Arctic on nine occasions over the past 
     13 years (including a recent camping trip on Alaska's North 
     Slope), I don't think I can be accused of being insensitive 
     to the charms of the Arctic qua Arctic. I just don't see the 
     threat to values I cherish.
       With best regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                 James L. Buckley.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we do not have a formal agreement but an 
informal agreement. We would go to Senator Murkowski for her remarks.
  Can the Senator give us an idea, roughly, how long she might proceed?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, just approximately 15 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Fifteen minutes. All right. Then on our side, it would be 
Senator Harkin for approximately 30 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Then we come back to Senator Coburn.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think we have some others in between to fill out the 
time. I think Senator Coburn is not until 2:15, so we have some others 
to fill in so we use the time as efficiently as we can during the 
period.
  With that, I think, Mr. President, the next person to be recognized 
would be Senator Murkowski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the comments of my colleague and 
my friend, the senior Senator from Alaska, giving us some of the 
historical perspective about some of the process we have seen in the 
Senate.
  As we take up the issue of the Defense appropriations bill and as it 
contains within it the issue of energy exploration in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, it is fair to say there has been a hue and 
cry of ``This can't be done. We can't have this included in it,'' and 
almost a sense of outrage that such a controversial issue would be 
inserted in a bill that truly our troops, our national security depends 
on.
  We know this is not a new issue in the Senate. This is not a new 
issue in the Congress. The Alaska delegation has been fighting this 
issue for just about three decades now. Senator Stevens has indicated 
that for 25 years he

[[Page S14093]]

has been working on this issue. My father, who held this office before 
me, spent the 22 years of his career working to advance ANWR; trying to 
get our colleagues here in the Senate to understand the issue and to 
move it through the process, to convince the Congress of the merits of 
opening the Coastal Plain to environmentally sensitive energy 
development. We have debated this issue so many times on this floor, I 
have some of my colleagues saying: Can't we just pass ANWR so we don't 
have to keep hearing this debate year after year after year? And we 
have been successful, twice here on the Senate side and numerous times 
on the House side, where the measure has moved through. We were 
successful in moving the ANWR provision through the Congress, both 
Houses, in 1995, only to have President Clinton veto it, and we were 
successful just several months ago in passing the ANWR measure through 
on the reconciliation bill. So this is not new debate. This should not 
come as a surprise that this is a priority, not just for the Alaska 
Senators, but a priority for the Congress, a priority for this country.
  Senator Stevens spoke to the issue of national security and how ANWR 
can assist us in that.
  When we talk about the ``whys,'' why we should open ANWR to limited 
exploration and development, what we are talking about with ANWR is not 
an insignificant quantity of oil. It is not the ``drop in the bucket'' 
that some people suggest. It is not the ``mere months of supply'' that 
some people suggest. At predicted prices, at what we are seeing today, 
we recognize that the expectation out of ANWR is between about 6 
billion barrels of oil and 14.65 billion barrels of oil. So the mean 
figure that we use, a conservative figure, is about 10 billion barrels 
of oil for this country. This is by far the largest known source of 
domestic onshore oil in this country today. The estimates lead us to 
make the statement that we believe that the ANWR field, or oil find, 
could rival that of Prudhoe Bay, which has been supplying this country 
with about 20 percent of our domestic needs for about the past 25 
years.
  Now, when we recognize what high oil prices are doing to this country 
in terms of the health of our economy, in terms of our ability to 
travel. Face it, the energy costs this country are facing are a burden 
on hard-working Americans. And what is the expectation? Do we expect 
the price of oil is going to be dropping? Right now, we are looking at 
future prices in the area of $60-a-barrel oil. The Energy Information 
Administration, EIA, 2006 forecast has predicted the price of oil is 
going to remain between $50 and $55 a barrel for the next couple 
decades. We have to recognize that everything we can do to bring down 
that cost of oil through increased production domestically is going to 
help us.
  We have always talked about the jobs, the jobs aspect that ANWR will 
help bring about. It will bring about hundreds of thousands of jobs, 
not just in my State of Alaska, but all around the country.
  And as we talk about these issues we must remember the deficit we 
face as a nation and the balance of payments deficit that we face. This 
especially is where ANWR development can make a dramatic improvement in 
reducing our balance of payments deficit. If we are at peak production 
with ANWR, anticipating 1 million barrels a day, this will reduce our 
country's balance of payment deficit by just about $20 billion 
annually. This is significant, folks. This oil is coming from the 
United States. This is domestic production.
  Now, the big debate today, of course, is the fact that this 
provision, the ANWR provision, has been included in the Defense 
appropriations bill. Is this the perfect place for this? Well, when we 
started several months back, at the beginning of the year, it was not 
in this bill. It was in the reconciliation bill. We took criticism, 
great criticism, at the time for inserting it in that legislation as 
well. But let's talk about why it makes sense, why it is not illogical 
to place the ANWR provision in the Department of Defense appropriations 
bill.
  My colleague from Alaska made mention that there is a great tie-in 
between ANWR and our national security and meeting the needs of our 
military.
  We have direct benefit through increased domestic oil production 
because we help our military to strengthen our national security by 
becoming less reliant on foreign sources. Sufficient reliable energy 
supplies are vital to our military. That is absolutely the bottom line. 
Consider that it takes eight times more oil today to meet the needs of 
the average soldier than it did decades ago during World War II. Our 
military today consumes on average about 4 percent of the oil we as a 
nation consume daily about 800,000 barrels per day. This is a reality. 
This is what we are dealing with.
  Right now, the military accounts for about 80 percent of all the oil 
that our Government consumes daily. So when we look at what we can 
anticipate from ANWR--about a million barrels a day at peak 
production--that development will help us to fully meet our military's 
total fuel needs. This fact alone makes ANWR a worthy candidate for 
inclusion in the Defense appropriations bill.
  Really what we need to be focused on is what ANWR does for us, how it 
helps facilitate our energy security and, in turn, our national 
security. Opening ANWR offers America the best chance for finding a 
secure supply of oil that helps to reduce our dependence on OPEC, on 
other nations; and it does this for decades.
  You all heard that we are 58 percent dependent today as a nation on 
foreign sources of oil. We are expected to pass the two-thirds mark 
within about 20 years. When you put that into perspective and you 
recognize that such a quantity of our energy--more than half of our 
energy comes from elsewhere--particularly from OPEC or unstable Mideast 
regimes, that we have a vulnerability. Think back to some of the 
statements made earlier this year coming out of Venezuela, one of our 
leading sources of imported oil. Again, this should remind us that we 
need to do all that we can responsibly do to increase our domestic 
energy production. Look at the world picture--what is happening with 
China and India and a host of developing nations and their need for 
supplies of oil. That makes it all the more important to make sure we 
are doing what we can at home.
  So we need to increase our energy independence, but we also need to 
do it in balance with our environment and diversifying energy supplies. 
I wish to talk about the environmental perspective for a minute because 
this is important. We just cannot develop for development's sake 
without a corresponding obligation to balance our environmental needs 
and requirements. But this bill containing the ANWR provision actually 
lets us address the environmental issues that have been raised about 
ANWR for years.
  When the reconciliation bill was going through, because of procedural 
issues--notably the Byrd rule--we were not able to include, for 
instance, all the environmental safeguards in that that we might have 
liked. It could plain and simply only open ANWR. But contained within 
this Defense appropriations bill are the environmental safeguards, the 
provisions that we have been discussing for decades. It also has 
provisions that will require the best technology. We are talking about 
directional drilling to limit the surface disruption. It requires 
industry to maintain winter exploration drilling schedules, a technique 
of using ice roads so the wildlife isn't disturbed. The tundra remains 
protected. It includes the provision that we voted on not too terribly 
long ago that would limit ANWR oil from export, from going outside this 
country. There is an export ban that would be in place contained within 
this legislation.
  For Alaska Natives, it finally allows them to develop their lands as 
long as the total disruption doesn't exceed 2,000 acres of the surface 
of the coastal plain. That is another point that needs to be made. We 
are not talking about disturbing the surface of the entire 1.5 million 
acres of Coastal Plain; we are asking for permission to explore and 
drill in the entire plain, but not to impact more than 2,000 acres in 
the process. For some in rural areas, that is the size of a small farm. 
For some in urban centers, this is size of your airports. That is what 
we are talking about. This bill allows us to place this language in it.
  There was mention in the Washington Post this morning that somehow or 
other the language contained in the bill allows for an even greater 
area

[[Page S14094]]

to be opened for oil exploration and development. That is not the case. 
The case is that the 2,000-acre limitation covers both federal and 
Native and state lands. What it does allow for is for Alaskan Natives 
who live up there to have the ability to gain their final land 
selections, but any development from those lands are subject to the 
2,000-acre limitation. It is a 2,000-acre limitation in total.
  We also require the Department of the Interior to consult with the 
Natives so that their local knowledge is considered to reduce the 
impact on the environment and their subsistence lifestyles. We have the 
support of those Natives who live there, work there, and send their 
children to school there, who want to see good infrastructure in terms 
of health facilities and schools. They support opening ANWR, but they 
want to do it in a responsible manner and in consultation, so that they 
know their voices are heard. We have put language in this bill that 
speaks directly to those wishes.
  We have also included a provision that provides for local impact aid 
for any of the communities that may be subject to oil development 
impacts. These include the Inupiat of the North Slope, the Gwich'in 
south of the Brooks Range, and the municipalities and Native 
Corporation lands that border the Trans-Alaska Pipeline corridor.
  And we included language that encourages project labor agreement 
talks and local hire provisions.
  So we have been able in this legislation to take the concerns of some 
of our friends and colleagues who have been working with us--our 
friends from Hawaii wanted to make sure we had Native consultation 
provisions included. We have been able to add that in this Defense 
appropriations bill along with the environmental provisions that have 
been discussed for decades, ensuring that when we move forward with 
opening ANWR to responsible oil exploration and development, we have 
all of these provisions in place. This is key to us in the Senate, and 
it is certainly key to the Alaskans whom I represent, and most 
certainly to those who live and work on the Coastal Plain.
  Now, I have to comment very quickly about a remark that was made 
yesterday by my colleague from Washington. In her argument against 
opening ANWR, she talked about ``toxic'' spills on the North Slope, and 
essentially argued that Alaskans are not being responsible somehow with 
our oil development. That does require a response.
  Opponents have claimed there have been a high number of spills. But 
they fail to mention that the companies who operate on Alaska's North 
Slope have to report spills of most any substance that is more than a 
gallon in size, whether it is pure water, salt water, oil, or 
chemicals; whatever it is, it has to be reported if it is over a gallon 
in size.
  According to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 
there has been an average of 263 spills on the North Slope yearly, 
seven times less than in the rest of the state yearly. The average oil 
spill, however, was just 89 gallons--that is about 2 barrels of oil--
and 94 percent of that was totally cleaned up. Most spills are of water 
used in making ice roads.
  According to the National Academy of Sciences's 2003 study, if you 
look at all the spills from 1977 through 1999, 84 percent of all those 
spills were less than 2 barrels in size. Only 454 barrels of oil per 
year have been released into the environment, compared to the 378,000 
barrels of oil that enter North American waters yearly as a result of 
urban runoff, the drips we see at filling stations and other spills. 
That may be less oil than enters the Alaska environment naturally 
because of the oil seeps that come up from under the ground on the 
North Slope.
  I wanted to take a second to correct the record on other point.
  Senator Stevens spoke in his comments previously about how including 
ANWR in the Defense appropriations bill not only helps Alaskans in 
getting the pipeline from a status of half full, or less than half 
full, to full; but it is also important to point out how adding ANWR to 
the Defense bill is going to help Americans overall.
  I have mentioned national security. I have mentioned the jobs. I have 
mentioned the economic security and the reduction in the overall trade 
deficit.
  What we will also be able to do as a result of the ANWR proceeds and 
the revenues that will come forth is to aid Americans who have been 
impacted by the disaster on the Gulf Coast. The bill also allocates 5 
percent of the revenues to go to fund increases in money for the 
program that will also help Americans with their energy costs. This is 
the LIHEAP program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. We 
know here it is getting cold, and it is going to be a colder winter as 
we move into January and February. Americans are looking at their home 
heating bills. They are looking at their utility bills, and they are 
seeing increases of 30 to 40 percent. We are going to see natural gas 
increases in our utility bills in excess of that.
  This is a huge consideration for us as we try to balance our budgets 
within our own homes. So the ability to share with those who have been 
impacted by Katrina, helping to provide financing, if you will, for 
Gulf Coast rebuilding is a key of this bill. Under the Gulf Coast 
Recovery and Disaster Prevention and Assistance Fund about 25 percent 
of the total ANWR revenues will go into the fund--80 percent of the 
bonus and 20 percent of the longer-term royalties from ANWR production 
will go to the Gulf Coast States to help them recover from the effects 
of Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.
  Also, we are talking about the reduction of the Nation's budget 
deficit over the life of the field--tens of billions of dollars to 
reduce the budget deficit will come from the proceeds from ANWR.
  What is coming from ANWR is not something that only benefits 
Alaskans, and there have been those who have suggested that. It is not 
something that benefits only oil companies, and there are some who have 
mentioned that. The proceeds from ANWR and what we will be able to do 
in terms of providing for jobs, for energy security, national security, 
funding programs such as LIHEAP, funding to the States of Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida in the restoration fund, are 
significant; it is important, and it is appropriate that all are 
included in the legislation before us.
  I, too, join my colleague, my senior Senator from Alaska, in asking 
our colleagues to end this debate once and for all, after the 25, 30 
years we have been debating, arguing, and talking, and allow America to 
finally use its own resources to help our economy and protect our 
security.
  Mr. President, I have several letters and resolutions I would like 
printed in the Record. These are a letter from the mayor and city 
council of the city of Kaktovik, addressed to Members of Congress; a 
board resolution from the Alaska Federation of Natives in support of 
opening ANWR; letters of support from unions; from the Chamber of 
Commerce; from Americans for Tax Reform; from the American Gas 
Association, as well as the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth. I 
ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                              City of Kaktovik, AK
                                                    December 2005.
       Dear Member of Congress: If ever there was an issue that 
     cried out for a fresh infusion of truth, reason and balance, 
     it is oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge. The fact is: a vote to support oil and gas 
     exploration within the 1002 section of ANWR more than meets 
     the criteria for thoughtful, far-reaching policy-making in 
     the national interest.
       Many of the Republican Main Street members of the House of 
     Representatives have come under intense pressure to remove 
     the provision for oil and gas leasing within ANWR from the 
     budget reconciliation bill. In most cases this pressure comes 
     from people who neither live on the Arctic Coastal Plain nor 
     have ever set foot in our community.
       We, the people of Kaktovik, Alaska--the only people 
     directly affected by leasing on the coastal plain--
     understanding the pressure you are under, respectfully 
     request that you consider the following important facts about 
     this issue.
       The homelands of the Kaktovikmiut Inupiat encompass the 
     coastal plain and much of the refuge to the Continental 
     Divide. These homelands define who we are as a people, they 
     feed us and they are part of the legacy we leave for our 
     children.
       Despite how things may appear to outsiders, this is not 
     empty country. We have lived here for millennia and will 
     continue to do so. Our collective memory, the spirits of our 
     ancestors, our place names, our dreams for the future, fill 
     this place.
       Protection and survival of our culture depends on nurturing 
     new economic activity that allows our young people to remain 
     and thrive here in their own country.

[[Page S14095]]

       Although the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was 
     established without our consultation or consent, we have 
     tried hard to adjust to this regime superimposed on our 
     homeland--and not without considerable hardship. But there 
     remains a critical fact: It is a matter of explicit and 
     settled Congressional policy that we retain ownership of 
     lands on the coastal plain and have been granted 
     permission to help build a viable future for our children. 
     There is an issue of fundamental fairness and of Native 
     rights to be considered here.
       Despite much rhetoric, oil development here offers real 
     benefits to the nation as part of a responsible comprehensive 
     strategy to develop diverse energy sources to help build and 
     sustain a strong and secure economic future.
       Most importantly to us, and to the majority of Americans, 
     these benefits will NOT sacrifice the values the refuge was 
     created to protect, in particular the wildlife and ecosystem 
     on which they depend. Claims to the contrary are simply not 
     supported by the facts.
       We not only live in this country, we're intensely 
     protective of it. We would not have agreed to the idea of oil 
     leasing if we did not have assurances of the most rigorous 
     stipulations to protect our lands, the animals on which we 
     depend, the culture and values that guide us to the future.
       These assurances are contained in a bipartisan bill, S. 
     1891, the Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act, 
     introduced by Sens. Stevens, Murkowski, Inouye and Akaka. 
     This bill sets very high standards for the leasing process, 
     holding industry and government accountable for doing it 
     right. Key to our concerns, it gives Kaktovik an explicit 
     role in monitoring and helping shape the leasing process so 
     there is no lasting negative effect on the lands, waters and 
     wildlife of this country.
       We have lived in respectful and intimate association with 
     this land for a very long time. We know with a sensitivity 
     and a depth of practical ecological understanding--an 
     understanding that deserves far greater recognition and 
     respect in this debate--that under our watchful eye leasing 
     on the coastal plain will be a safe, responsible undertaking.
       You have the power to make a dramatic positive impact on 
     the security of the nation's energy supplies while protecting 
     our wildlife, our people and our cultural heritage. We 
     respectfully ask that you join with your colleagues in the 
     Senate and support the inclusion of language opening the 
     Arctic Coastal Plain as a part of the 2005 Budget 
     Reconciliation.
           Sincerely,
         Lon Sonsalla, Mayor; George Tagarook, City Council; Norah 
           Jane Burns, City Council; Ida Angasan, City Council; 
           Sherry Wolf, City Council; Richard Holschen, City 
           Council; Joseph Kaleak, Vice-Mayor; Phillip Tikluk, 
           Jr., President, Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (Tribe); 
           Annie Tikluk, Board Member, Native Village of Kaktovik; 
           Adam Linn, Administrator, Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation; 
           Isaac Akootchook, President, Native Village of 
           Kaktovik.
                                  ____


 Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc., Anchorage, AK, Board of Directors


                         BOARD RESOLUTION 05-01

       Title: Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) Support of 
     Opening of the Alaska National Wildife Refuge (ANWR) to Oil 
     and Gas Development
       Whereas: The delegates of the Annual Convention of Alaska 
     Federation of Natives of 1995 are on record in supporting the 
     opening of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil and 
     gas development; and,
       Whereas: The opening of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 
     to oil and gas development will bring considerable econoniic 
     benefits to the State of Alaska; and
       Whereas: The Alaska Natives should be assured of sharing in 
     such economic benefits; and
       Whereas: The Alaska Native Communities lack many basic 
     infrastructure and economic opportunities and energy costs 
     are extraordinary; and
       Whereas: The Native Corporations created under the Alaska 
     Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) are charged by Congress 
     with promoting the economic and social welfare of the Alaska 
     Natives; and now therefore be it
       Resolved by the Board of Directors of the Alaska Federation 
     of Natives, that in the consideration of the economic wealth 
     that will be generated by the development of ANWR that the 
     Alaska Federation of Natives request Alaska's Congressional 
     Delegation to pursue federal legislation that will include:
       Federal support to fully fund the Power Cost Equalization 
     Endowment Fund;
       Measures that ensure ANCSA corporations with an opportunity 
     to participate in the ANWR development activities;
       Measures providing the ANCSA corporations with the 
     opportunity of ownership interests in the development of 
     ANWR; and
       A 20 percent Alaska Native employment requirement in the 
     authorizing legislation leading to the development of ANWR; 
     and, be it further
       Resolved that AFN also pursues legislation that will 
     include revenue sharing of two percent (2%) of federal or 
     state royalties from any oil and gas development of ANWR be 
     earmarked for the tribal governments and non-profit 
     organizations.
                                  ____



                                     U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

                                Washington, DC, December 16, 2005.
       To Members of the United States Senate: The U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce, the world's largest business federation 
     representing more than three million businesses and 
     organizations of every size, sector, and region, strongly 
     supports legislation which may be considered in the coming 
     days that would authorize the much needed energy exploration 
     in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The Chamber 
     urges you to support passage of this important legislation.
       As one of America's greatest prospects for domestic oil 
     exploration, ANWR is conservatively estimated to contain 10.4 
     billion barrels of recoverable crude oil. According to the 
     U.S. Energy Information Administration, ANWR would provide 
     the United States with approximately one million barrels of 
     oil each day for the next 30 years. This additional 
     production would decrease oil imports from the Persian Gulf 
     region by 40%, which would strengthen national security by 
     making the United States less dependent on oil from 
     politically unstable regions.
       In addition, ANWR exploration makes sense because of its 
     potential to raise substantial revenues. Recently, the 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a recalculation of 
     the amount of revenue that may be generated through lease 
     sales in ANWR. Using a $50 per barrel long-term price for 
     oil, as opposed to the $25-$35 per barrel used earlier this 
     year, ANWR exploration would generate more than $10 billion 
     in revenue by 2010.
       Important policy objectives, such as energy security and 
     fiscal responsibility, are placed at risk when substantial 
     domestic energy resources remain off limits. The provisions 
     in H. Res. 315 are an important step toward providing an 
     affordable and reliable supply of domestically-produced 
     energy.
       The Chamber urges you to support passage of legislation 
     that would authorize much needed energy exploration in ANWR. 
     The Chamber will consider including votes on or in relation 
     to this measure in our annual ``How They Voted'' scorecard.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____



          MEMO: UNIONS SUPPORTING RESPONSIBLE ANWR DEVELOPMENT

                                                December 17, 2005.
       Within the next few days, you will be asked to vote on 
     legislation making appropriations for the Department of 
     Defense and other vital government programs. One of these 
     important policies is the authority to develop vast oil 
     resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, popularly 
     known as ANWR. This is a jobs issue for our unions and our 
     members.
       On December 7, 2005 the Congressional Budget Office wrote 
     Senator Ted Stevens and responded to the Senator's inquiry 
     that ANWR bonus bid receipts ``might total at least $10 
     billion--roughly double CBO's official estimate.'' That means 
     it also increases the federal revenue to a total of $5 
     billion, as the state of Alaska and the federal government 
     will share bonus bid receipts on a 50/50 basis. In the 
     Defense appropriations legislation, the conferees have 
     dedicated a significant portion of those additional revenues 
     for funding future federal disaster relief programs. As we 
     understand it, these sums will also be used as collateral for 
     immediate relief for damage caused in the Katrina, Rita and 
     Wilma disaster areas.
       We also see all of this as an affirmation of the 
     progressive jobs policies generated by ANWR production.
       Again, we urge you to support this legislation, because 
     ANWR will create thousands of jobs for our members for many 
     years. The bill assures ANWR work is protected by a project 
     labor agreement. You will hear strident calls from opponents 
     who claim opening ANWR will degrade the environment. We have 
     heard their arguments, discussed them and made reasonable 
     adjustments. They remain unyielding. Their baseless slogans 
     can no longer be used as impediments to creating jobs or 
     frustrating reasonable energy development.
       When the question is called on the Defense Appropriations 
     bill, it will be framed as one of process--to invoke cloture 
     on the bill.
       For us, process is policy.
       The choice is clear. We can either continue to be hamstrung 
     by the exaggerations of obstructionists, or be guided by 
     policies that create jobs and assure a secure energy future.
       Please support the Conference Report and oppose procedural 
     devices that would delay this important legislation.
       Thank you for your consideration.
       International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO.
       Seafarers International Union, AFL-CIO.
       International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Change to Win 
     Federation.
       United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters, AFL-CIO.
       Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO.
       United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 
     Change to Win Federation.
       Building & Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO.

[[Page S14096]]

                                        Americans for Tax Reforms,
                                Washington, DC, December 12, 2005.
     Hon. William Frist, MD,
     Majority Leader, United States Senate.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, House of Representatives.
       Dear Majority Leader Frist and Speaker Hastert: On behalf 
     of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), I am writing to express 
     this organization's strong support for ensuring the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) provision, included in the 
     Senate version of the budget reconciliation package, is 
     included in the final Senate/House conference agreement.
       In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, it has became 
     increasingly evident that America must begin to increase its 
     own domestic oil production. Requiring more domestic energy 
     will create new jobs, lower prices, and boost the economy.
       The ANWR provision in the Senate reconciliation package is 
     expected to raise $2.4 billion by producing more than 10.4 
     billion barrels of oil in ANWR. Obviously, this is a win-win 
     situation as the provision will increase future energy 
     supplies, reduce American's dependence on foreign oil and 
     help lower oil prices in the future.
       Once again, I urge you to ensure the ANWR provision is 
     included in the final Senate/House Conference Agreement of 
     the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
           Onward,
     Grover Norquist.
                                  ____



                                     American Gas Association,

                                Washington, DC, December 16, 2005.
       Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the 195 local energy 
     utility members of the American Gas Association, which 
     deliver natural gas to more than 56 million homes, businesses 
     and industries throughout the United States, I urge you to 
     support legislation that would open the Alaska Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to energy production, which 
     will be included in the FY-06 defense appropriations bill 
     scheduled to be voted on by Congress this weekend.
       Allowing energy production in ANWR is a vital component to 
     addressing one of our nation's more urgent public policy 
     issues, namely the imbalance between energy demand and 
     available supply, and the resulting high and volatile energy 
     prices that America is experiencing. Increasing our access to 
     domestic energy supplies is critical to enhancing America's 
     energy security, sustaining America's economy and providing 
     the American consumer with relief from ever spiraling energy 
     costs.
       AGA speaks on this matter not only as the representative of 
     natural gas utility companies, but also as a voice for their 
     customers who have been hit so hard financially because of 
     higher natural gas prices. Whether it's a homeowner 
     struggling to pay the heating bill, a small business facing 
     significantly increased energy-related business costs or an 
     industry being forced to move overseas in order to compete in 
     the global marketplace, soaring energy prices have been a 
     severe detriment to America's quality of life.
       Thanks to new technological developments energy can now be 
     produced without undue harm to the surrounding environment. 
     Hopefully, this vote will be the beginning of a trend that 
     recognizes America's energy needs can be met with adequate 
     environmental protections.
       Again, we urge you to support passage of legislation 
     containing the provisions to finally open ANWR.
           Sincerely,
     David N. Parker.
                                  ____

                                           Alliance for Energy and


                                              Economic Growth,

                                                December 16, 2005.
       To All Members of the United States Congress: We are 
     writing to you again in strong support for legislation to 
     open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to energy 
     production, which is now being moved in the defense 
     appropriations legislation. This is an issue of both national 
     and economic security for America. Our country depends on 
     foreign sources for almost 60 percent of the oil Americans 
     consume. In a world that continues to be plagued by 
     instability in many of the oil-producing regions, this type 
     of dependency should be of concern to all of us.
       The Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth (AEEG) is a 
     broad-based coalition whose members develop, deliver, or 
     consume energy from all sources. With more than 1,200 member 
     organizations and businesses, AEEG is seeking to build a 
     national consensus for a comprehensive U.S. energy strategy 
     that balances supply and demand, without compromising 
     environmental safeguards, so that we can fuel America's 
     dynamic economy and support our quality of life.
       Our members believe that ANWR is one more critical part of 
     securing America's energy future. While ANWR alone can't 
     provide us with all the domestic energy we need, combined 
     with the rapid development of other domestic oil and natural 
     gas supplies ANWR would make a tremendous difference, 
     especially when coupled with greater energy efficiency, 
     conservation and diversification. In addition, we must 
     protect those Americans most at risk by supporting full 
     funding of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
     (LIHEAP).
       ANWR's Coastal Plain holds the nation's greatest potential 
     for another Prudhoe Bay-size discovery. Conservative 
     estimates from both the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. 
     Energy Information Administration peg technically recoverable 
     crude oil reserves at approximately 10 billion barrels. That 
     is enough to provide the United States with 1 million barrels 
     of oil a day for 30 years.
       Oil production on the North Slope of Alaska is handled with 
     the greatest care possible for the environment and with the 
     least possible disturbance of wildlife. To ensure continued 
     environmental protection, House and Senate language on ANWR 
     development requires the application of the best commercially 
     available technology for oil and gas exploration, 
     development, and production.
       Now more than ever, it is time to increase access to areas 
     containing vast domestic reserves of energy-such as ANWR. As 
     we have stated in the past, energy is the lifeblood of our 
     nation's economy. While Congress has taken a number of steps 
     over the past two years to improve the nation's energy 
     policy, we still urgently need to increase domestic supplies 
     of oil and natural gas. Our members, who represent the 
     agricultural community, manufacturers, small and large 
     businesses, labor and the energy industry, all recognize that 
     additional supplies of oil and natural gas are critical to 
     this nation's energy security and more affordable energy is 
     needed to support economic growth.
       We urge you to support the bill and the rule (in the House) 
     that contains legislation to open ANWR.
           Sincerely,
                                         The Management Committee.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee.) Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the ranking member was going 
to yield me 30 minutes of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last week this story, ``Prayers Made to 
Protest Budget Cuts,'' appeared in the Quad-City Times in my State of 
Iowa. Ollie Finn of Bettendorf said:

       We're concerned about the budget cuts and that's why we're 
     having the prayer vigil. We wanted to bring awareness to the 
     community about how horrible these budget cuts are. . . .
       The Rev. Roger Butts, pastor of the Unitarian Church of 
     Davenport, asked people to determine whether the Fiscal Year 
     2006 budget serves the common good. ``I've come simply to 
     pray with you and to stand with you for those whose voices 
     are easy to ignore,'' he said.

  I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Quad-City Times be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Prayers Made to Protest Budget Csuts

                         (By Mary Louise Spear)

       People representing faith and social action organizations 
     gathered together Wednesday to protest federal budget cuts 
     that will affect low-income families.
       The group prayed together at the building that houses the 
     Social Security office in downtown Davenport. They presented 
     petitions with 438 signatures protesting the cuts to 
     representatives from U.S. Sens. Tom Harkin and Charles 
     Grassley of Iowa and U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle's offices. The 
     group also plans to present copies to U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin 
     and Barack Obama and U.S. Rep. Lane Evans, of Illinois.
       ``We're concerned about the budget cuts and that's why 
     we're having the prayer vigil. We wanted to bring awareness 
     to the community about how horrible these budget cuts are,'' 
     said organizer Ollie Finn of Bettendorf.
       People at the vigil represented Pax Christi, Progressive 
     Action for the Common Good, Churches United of the Quad-City 
     Area, Sisters of Humility and Carmelite order.
       The majority in Congress are proposing $60 billion in tax 
     cuts which includes extending the capital gains and dividend 
     tax cuts through 2010 according to information from Harkin's 
     office. He opposes the cuts. Senate Republicans are also 
     looking at taking $35 billion out of entitlement programs 
     which help working Americans, he said.
       The U.S. House of Representatives has called for $50 
     billion in cuts to food assistance, support for children in 
     foster care, Medicaid and enforcement of child support 
     payments.
       The Rev. Roger Butts, pastor of the Unitarian Church of 
     Davenport, asked people to determine whether the Fiscal Year 
     2006 budget serves the common good. ``I've come simply to 
     pray with you and to stand with you for those whose voices 
     are easy to ignore,'' he said.
       ``The group is hoping legislators respond to their concerns 
     about the proposed cuts.
       ``We are working to at least restore the additional $15 
     billion in cuts. We feel this will have a strong effect on 
     the poor,'' said Rick Schloemer of Rapids City, Ill.
       The Wednesday vigil coincided with members of the U.S. 
     Senate showing their support for a motion from Harkin. He 
     asked members of the joint House-Senate conference committee 
     to reject the House's proposal for food assistance cuts.

[[Page S14097]]

       ``The number of Americans who are food-insecure has been 
     steadily rising over the past few years, and it's critical 
     that conferees reject any attempts to scale back food 
     assistance that will make this problem even worse,'' he said.
       Single mothers living in Humility of Mary Housing Inc. 
     transitional housing program would certainly feel the impact, 
     said Sr. Pat Miller of Humility of Mary and a board director. 
     They have 57 apartments in Davenport and about half of their 
     budget for programs and housing comes from the federal 
     government, she said. These women also depend on food stamps 
     and assistance to help with heating bills.
       The budget cuts ``will particularly affect the poor we 
     serve,'' agreed Sr. Michelle Schiffgens of Humility of Mary. 
     ``We have many single moms with kids living in those 
     apartments and they are greatly concerned about what could 
     happen to them.''

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know that people of faith held many 
events in Iowa, Washington, and many other places around the country 
last week on this very topic. Unfortunately, their prayers were not 
enough. Their prayers were not enough because yesterday we awakened to 
the flurry of late-night activities in the House of Representatives. 
House Republicans waited until the middle of the night Sunday, less 
than a week before Christmas, to order deep cuts to health care 
initiatives and farm programs and to sneak through blanket protections 
for the pharmaceutical industry.
  It is not an accident these House votes occurred in the dead of 
night. There are now only 5 days until Christmas. Throughout much of 
the world, it is the season of giving, but here in Congress, it is the 
season of taking away--taking away education programs, taking away job 
training, taking away health care from low-income families, taking away 
money for needed medical research, taking away from farmers and rural 
communities and, worst of all, taking away hope from so many. This is a 
cruel holiday surprise for many American families.
  Why are we doing this? Not for deficit reduction, but to provide tens 
of billions of dollars in tax giveaways for the wealthiest in our 
society. Forty percent of the benefits in the House tax bill go to 
those making more than $1 million a year.
  Seventy-eight percent go to those making over $100,000 a year. Only 8 
percent go to those making under $50,000 a year. So, again, those in 
the bottom of the ladder get some crumbs from the table. So while the 
wealthiest in our society unwrap Christmas presents, while the 
wealthiest in our society are hanging their Christmas stockings and 
getting thousands of dollars of tax giveaways stuffed in their 
stockings, for the poor and low income, Congress has come with a couple 
of lumps of coal for their stockings.
  Take a look at some of the provisions I am talking about. Take the 
provision of the child support enforcement. This is essential to 
helping families achieve self-sufficiency. For families in poverty who 
receive child support, those payments account for an average of about 
30 percent of their income. Next to a mother's earnings, child support 
is the largest income source for poor families receiving assistance. 
Child support payments are used to pay for food, child care, shelter, 
and the most basic essentials of life. The bill slashes funding for 
these child support enforcement efforts.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that as a result of the 
cuts, more than $8.4 billion in delinquent payments will go uncollected 
in the coming 10 years. The biggest negative impact will be by children 
living in poverty and low-income households. One hundred seventy-six 
thousand children benefit from child support payments in my State of 
Iowa alone. In the past, President Bush himself praised the program, 
calling it one of our highest performing social services programs, and 
he is right. For every dollar in Government spending, $4.38 is 
recovered for families in child support payments.
  Since 1996, there has been an 82-percent increase in collections, 
from $12 billion to $22 billion. If we were smart, if we were 
compassionate, if we were looking at ways to get the most bang for the 
taxpayers' dollar, we would be increasing funding for the child support 
enforcement program. The bill before us cuts this program in order to 
make way for more tax cuts for the wealthiest. It is simply 
unconscionable.
  Let us take a look at Medicaid. I am very concerned about the cuts to 
Medicaid in this bill. I have said all along, if one wants to do 
something about Medicaid we ought to have a fair, honest, open debate 
about reforming Medicaid. We should do so in a way that does no harm to 
the beneficiaries because who are the beneficiaries of Medicaid? The 
poorest among us, poor women and children, the disabled, low-income 
elderly who need access to long-term care.
  This bill before us today makes two changes that are permanent 
changes. One, under this bill, States can now alter or eliminate 
services to individuals. They can do it on their own. Secondly, the 
bill allows States to charge fees--sometimes it could be exorbitant 
fees--on many services where there were no fees before. Again, this 
could limit access to care for so many.
  For example, States may provide any child, even those whose families 
have the lowest incomes, with a smaller benefit package than they have 
today. That means that low-income children, no matter how poor, are no 
longer guaranteed, as they are now, vision screening; no longer 
guaranteed coverage for eyeglasses; no longer guaranteed therapy 
services, medical equipment or any other benefit.
  This bill would allow States to charge up to 20 percent of the cost 
of each medication that an individual gets in Medicaid. For individuals 
who take multiple drugs, this is 20 percent for each medication, so an 
individual who has multiple drugs or maybe an individual who needs 
expensive medication, these provisions could, in effect, eliminate 
access to needed medicines.
  Keep in mind these are people who qualify for Medicaid. That means 
they are poor, by definition. They do not have money. So now we are 
going to ask them to pay more for services? Now we may ask them to pay 
for eyeglasses for their kids. Well, their kid needs eyeglasses, they 
do not have any money, they cannot pay for it, tough. That is the way 
it was 50 years ago in our country.

  I suppose they can go get charity, can they not? I forget about that. 
That is right. I suppose they could go to their local church or their 
local synagogue maybe, local mosque, and maybe they will pay for all 
the eyeglasses for all the poor kids in our country now.
  Under the bill, medical care providers can deny medical care if the 
patient has no ability to pay the charges at the time the care is 
needed. States can terminate coverage if the family cannot pay the 
monthly premiums. Again, these changes were made despite a large body 
of evidence, research, and studies that determined that such cost-
sharing increases are likely to lead many low-income Medicaid patients 
to forgo various health care services and medications or not to enroll 
in Medicaid.
  Guess what. When they do not take their needed medications, when they 
forgo needed health services, when they do not sign up for Medicaid, 
guess where they are seen. They are in the emergency room, and we are 
paying three, four, five times as much to help them. So much for the 
health care safety net that we have worked so many years to provide for 
low-income Americans.
  Let us look at education, student loans. The reconciliation bill 
increases the interest rates paid by the parents of students who are 
taking out loans to help their kids. Merry Christmas; you are going to 
get higher interest payments.
  It also creates a potential problem for the federally operated direct 
loan program. This is a direct loan program utilized by many schools. 
The University of Iowa, UNI, Iowa State University in my State all use 
it. This bill before us says the accounting of the administrative costs 
for the direct loan program now goes to Labor and Health and Human 
Services rather than being automatic. That means it is subject to a 
cut. This year's Labor-HHS-Education bill has been cut this year. And, 
I expect next year could be very difficult.
  Let's look at agriculture and rural development, so important in my 
State and so many other States. I have long believed that there was 
really no justification for making budget cuts in the area of 
agriculture and rural development programs. Commodity prices are down. 
Prices for energy and fertilizer and other goods and services

[[Page S14098]]

that farmers buy are sharply higher. Rural communities are struggling 
to hold onto jobs, to survive.
  Keep in mind, when we wrote the 2002 farm bill--I happened to be 
chairman at that time--we stayed within the budget allocation we were 
given. In fact, the commodity programs in that bill have cost us $14 
billion less than what we were allocated. That is $14 billion that we 
saved the taxpayers of this country.
  There were commitments made in the farm bill, but this reconciliation 
bill reneges on those commitments. In agriculture and rural programs, 
again, the sacrifice is being imposed on those least able to bear it. 
It is hard to understand what they have in mind for our farmers or 
rural communities.
  Secretary Johanns and the President and others have been going around 
the country saying the future of farm policy lies in less emphasis on 
the traditional commodity programs and greater focus on conservation, 
renewable energy, agricultural development, and agricultural research. 
You cannot argue with that. It all sounds good. That is what we did in 
the 2002 farm bill because these types of assistance are all allowed 
under the WTO trade agreements. We put those in the farm bill. We put a 
tremendous focus on conservation in the farm bill.
  President Bush, when he signed it, touted it and said oh, this is 
wonderful. There is a lot of good conservation. We put in for the first 
time ever an energy title in the farm bill. It came out of the Senate, 
not the House, with an energy title to get farmers--to get us all 
focused on energy.
  Rural economic development and new rural investment-type programs for 
rural development, we put in money for broadband extension to small 
communities all over America. Guess what they are cutting in the 
reconciliation bill: conservation, renewable energy, rural economic 
development, agricultural research--all being cut. Conservation suffers 
the largest funding cuts of all, and the Conservation Security Program 
is hit the worst. The Conservation Security Program is a voluntary 
program of incentive payments for farm and ranch conservation 
practices, exactly the kind of program that Secretary Johannes and the 
administration are talking about as they go around the country. Yet the 
Conservation Security Program is virtually demolished in the bill 
before us. It is cut back so far that there will probably be few 
enrollments next year. The damage to the CSP is only a part of the 
serious cuts to a number of farm conservation programs in this bill.
  Some argue that in the Defense appropriations bill there will be some 
money to make up for cuts in conservation. Don't be misled. Defense 
appropriations funds are not even available until 2008, and then only 
if Congress doesn't take them out later on, as they have done year 
after year. What is going on here? Why are drastic cuts conservation 
being made in one bill and then we have a restoration a few years later 
in another bill?
  The DOD bill is going to come before us, and you will hear some talk 
about: ``There is money in there. We have some money for 
conservation.'' There is money in there for 2008 but, guess what, next 
year they may come and say we need that money, we will make up for it 
in 2009. They may keep doing this every year to us, the old shell game.
  The bill takes away rural development funding to expand high-speed 
broadband access in rural communities. President Bush set a goal. He 
set it in Des Moines, IA. We are going to have broadband in all rural 
communities by 2007. Yet they are cutting the funding in the 
reconciliation bill for that very purpose. Do I hear anything from the 
President about it? Not a peep.
  The bill takes away $20 million of $23 million for an innovative 
program to help farmers and rural businesses adopt renewable energy 
systems and energy efficiencies and improvements. When you take $20 
million out of a $23 million fund, that kills it. Let's face it. I 
guess the $3 million they are leaving is for some bureaucrats so they 
can sit at their desks and twiddle their thumbs because and little 
else.
  The bill cuts $760 million, almost three-quarters of a billion 
dollars, out of funding that we had in the farm bill that goes to 
agricultural research.
  Again, the administration has just been in Hong Kong saying we have 
to push for cuts to farm income and commodity programs to make them 
combined with WTO. But at the same time they are in Hong Kong, they are 
here in the House and Senate cutting the very programs to sustain 
farmers, to sustain rural communities, and provide for rural economic 
development that will be consistent with WTO provisions.
  I said all along the reason they are doing this is not to cut the 
deficit. The deficit actually goes up under this bill. I think of the 
word, ``reconciliation.'' We have before us the reconciliation bill. 
``Reconciliation''--nice word; to reconcile, to make things even. To 
reconcile things. To make them fit.
  When we passed the Budget Act 30 years ago we put in this 
reconciliation process so that the budget would come out, the 
Appropriations Committee would do their work, and then after they did 
all their work they would reconcile the spending with the budget, so as 
to keep the deficit under control. That is the way it is supposed to 
work.
  We had a budget. We did all of our appropriations work. We have the 
reconciliation bills. Does the reconciliation bills make the deficit 
come down? Not on your life. This reconciliation bill actually is the 
first in a pair of reconciliation bills that increases the deficit so 
it has the reverse effect of what reconciliation bills were supposed to 
be. They may use that word, but this is a deficit-increasing process. 
This is one of a pair of bills to provide tax giveaways to the wealthy 
and increase the deficit. It sure cannot properly be called a 
reconciliation bill.
  So they cut child support enforcement, foster care benefits, cut 
Medicaid, make students pay more interest on their loans for going to 
college. But we get to ram through $70 billion in more tax giveaways 
mostly for the most privileged. Not only is this fiscally 
irresponsible, it is the wrong priorities. It is the wrong values for 
America.
  The two main tax provisions we are considering in this process are, 
No. 1, the extension of the dividends and capital gains cuts and No, 2, 
the alternative minimum tax. The extension of the dividends and capital 
gains tax cuts for just 2 years will cost the Treasury $50 billion. 
Because of it, 40 percent of the benefits of the House Reconciliation 
Tax bill will go to individuals making over $1 million a year.
  Back in 2001, when they rammed through the first year's tax giveaway 
bill, they purposely doubled the number of taxpayers who would pay 
higher taxes because of the alternative minimum tax, but then they 
delayed the impact for the first few years. Now we have to pay the 
Piper to the tune of $30 billion just to fix it for 2006.
  This chart is a little hard to read. It is from the official 
Congressional Joint Tax Committee explaining the bill written at the 
time. Basically, under the old law before the tax cuts of 2001, by 2010 
there would be 17.5 million Americans paying the alternative minimum 
tax. When they passed the tax giveaway program of 2001, it doubled it 
to 35.5 million. Many of these are basically middle-income people. Now 
we all want to fix it. To fix it costs $30 billion for just 2006.
  Again, the Republicans will argue that everyone benefits from the 
2001 and 2003 tax cuts. I guess that is true. Everyone benefits. Even 
when you get crumbs from the table, you get food. Even when some crumbs 
fall off the table, you can say: Well, the people on the floor got some 
food. The same with tax cuts.
  Look at the chart. The bottom fifth of taxpayers, individuals and 
families making under $13,500 a year, gain an average of $23 a year. 
This is the bottom 20 percent. These are the one out of every five 
Americans.
  I know it is almost hard to believe that for people around here when 
you are making $157,000 a year, and out of 100 Senators you have some 
who are megamillionaires. It is hard to imagine one out of five people 
outside this building, outside of these hallowed halls, one out of five 
making less than $13,478 a year. They got 23 bucks. You can say: Well, 
they got a break--23 bucks. Will that buy 8 gallons of gasoline? Well, 
maybe--7 or 8 gallons of gasoline. It will not even fill up your tank. 
That is for 1 year.
  People in the middle 20 percent who make between $25,847 and $44,451, 
they

[[Page S14099]]

got $618 a year. It is not bad. But you spread that over a year's time, 
that is a tax cut of about $26 a paycheck.
  That is why, when you ask your typical middle-income American, Did 
you see any gain from this tax cut, they will say, Are you kidding? 
They might have gotten $26 a paycheck. Guess what. It went out in 
higher taxes for their property taxes. Why? Because we have cut back 
funding for No Child Left Behind and for education and for special 
education which means that middle-income families have to pay more on 
their property taxes for education and that chewed up more than $26 a 
paycheck which they got back. Again, a good old Republican tax shell 
game.
  Where did the money go? The top one-tenth of 1 percent of income 
earners, people making over $1,589,000 a year--yes, there are people in 
America who make that kind of money. I don't hold that against them. 
That is fine. It is part of the American dream--to make money. But it 
is not the whole American dream. Over the last 4 years, $1.7 billion in 
tax cuts, 145,000 people with incomes over $1.59 million a year got 
$195,762 a year. I will bet they noticed that.
  Again, the old trickle-down capitalism. All you have to do is give 
more money to the top and it all kind of trickles down. The best way to 
help the poor at the bottom is set a lavish table with all the finest 
foods and let the people at top eat the best, drink the best and the 
crumbs will fall off and the poor will get help. Trickle-down 
economics, trickle-down capitalism.
  There is another form of capitalism. It is called percolate-up 
capitalism. It is where you invest in education, it is where you get 
people decent jobs and job training. It is where you provide decent 
housing and health care so people are able to work and keep their 
families together. It is a kind of a capitalism that understands you 
don't eat your seed corn. You invest in people, and these people then 
became better educated, healthier, more productive citizens, and they 
make the pot grow.
  Other examples of the difference between trickle-down capitalism and 
percolate-up capitalism. Sure. Look at the 1981 tax cut when Reagan 
came in, big, massive tax cuts, again, mostly for the wealthy. We lost 
3.5 million jobs in the 18 months after it passed. Guess what. Later, 
we saw employment rise. But, that followed several tax increases.
  The Democratic administration came in, in 1993. Yes. We had a 
responsible tax increase in large part on the wealthy to help eliminate 
the huge deficits. Many on the other side predicted economic disaster. 
Look at what happened. We got 4.4 million new jobs in the following 18 
months. That is percolate up. That is giving people hope, giving people 
jobs. Guess what. Everybody did better. The rising tide lifted all the 
boats.
  Then we come back in 2001. Again, similar to 1981, we had not learned 
our lesson, massive tax giveaways for the wealthiest, large increases 
the deficit, we lost 2.7 million jobs.
  We keep doing trickle-down economics. We tried it under Reagan. We 
tried it under Bush. The same thing happened: less new jobs. But there 
is something about a belief system and trickle-down economics. I will 
tell you what that belief is. Their wealthy friends made out like 
bandits. That is exactly what happened.
  Simply put, what we have before us is not a reconciliation bill. What 
we have before us is a bill that turns topsy-turvy what we are supposed 
to be about, in terms of providing for justice in our society, a fair 
shot at the American dream to ensure that people have a decent safety 
net when things happen beyond their control; when they become disabled, 
when they get sick, when families split up, and the father deserts and 
isn't paying child support any longer.
  We need to pay attention.
  In terms of topsy-turvy, what we are supposed to do at this time of 
the year--we all remember Charles Dickens' classic tale of ``A 
Christmas Carol,'' the story of Ebenezer Scrooge. He learns the true 
meaning of Christmas at the end and opens his heart to those less 
fortunate than he.
  Unfortunately, in the Congress, life does not imitate art.
  Less than a week before Christmas, Congress is poised to deliver a 
cruel blow to the most underprivileged and disadvantaged in our 
society. Unlike Dickens' tale, no remorse at the end, no nagging 
conscience, no change of heart at the end of the day. In this Congress, 
in this Senate, Scrooge would feel right at home. This is Scrooge's 
domicile. Scrooge lives in the Senate and in the House.
  That is why we need to reject this proposal. We need to reject it. We 
need to have the spirit of Christmas to understand that there are less 
fortunate in our society. They need hope. They need a hand up. They 
need the Government to make sure that their kids can get a decent 
education and housing and health care, that they will get their child 
support payment, that they will invest in medical research.
  That is what we ought to be doing. That is why we have to defeat this 
conference report under the so-called reconciliation process. We do 
need to extend some tax provisions, but they should be progressively 
paid for.
  Send this bill back. Let us be similar to Scrooge at the end, when we 
look upon the poor family and we have a change of heart and we realize 
that what we have done before we can't keep doing. Let us have the 
change of heart and defeat this so-called reconciliation bill. Let us 
have a continuing resolution, let us come back after the first of the 
year and do the right thing for the American people.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the conference 
report to accompany S. 1932. The majority has 2 hours 24 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the PATRIOT Act 
and on the National Security Agency story in the New York Times for 
approximately 20 minutes. Is there any limitation on my ability to do 
so?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             PATRIOT Act and National Security Agency Story

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since the New York Times revealed the 
existence of a classified program whereby the National Security Agency 
was conducting intelligence operations on al-Qaida and terrorist-
related operatives here in the United States and overseas, there has 
been a lot of reaction to that revelation.
  First of all, we know the New York Times had been sitting on that 
story for approximately a year, and then for some unstated reason 
decided to release the story the day we were supposed to vote on the 
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. As a result of a variety of 
circumstances, but I believe in part that story, we find ourselves in 
the very strange position of not having reauthorized the PATRIOT Act 
and having the PATRIOT Act expire--16 provisions of it at least--on 
December 31, 2005.
  There are some who said when they heard about the National Security 
Agency's surveillance of foreign terrorist suspects that this was an 
illegal usurpation of congressional authority by the President, or 
otherwise improper. Others have asked questions about the propriety of 
the program.
  Frankly, I do think there has been more heat than light generated on 
this subject, and what I would like to do is spend a few minutes 
sharing with my colleagues some of the research I have been able to do 
over the past few days to try to understand exactly what the 
President's authority is and what procedures apply to the collection of 
signals intelligence, telephone communications between terrorist 
suspects in America and abroad.
  The fact is that previous Presidents have also argued that they had 
authority that the President of the United States claims to have under 
the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, in 1981, President Ronald 
Reagan signed Executive order 12333, which provided for warrantless 
searches directed against a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. 
That was in 1981.
  So it perhaps should be no surprise the President who immediately 
preceded the current President, President

[[Page S14100]]

Bill Clinton, his administration, also argued specifically in testimony 
provided by Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General, on July 14, 1994, 
before the Intelligence Committees, that the Clinton administration 
believes and the case law supports that the President has inherent 
authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence 
purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this 
authority to the Attorney General.
  So we see there is historical precedent for the argument made by 
President Bush, our current President, that Presidents have some 
authority to act even without employing the use of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act to protect American lives and to save us 
against the designs of terrorists who would kill innocent American 
citizens.
  It also appears that the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on a related 
issue that could be interpreted to confer authority on the President of 
the United States. My colleagues recall that in 2001, after the 
terrorist attacks that occurred in Washington and in New York City and 
which was thwarted in the fields of Pennsylvania, this body passed a 
use-of-force resolution authorizing approval of the President and the 
executive branch's use of force to combat and win the global war on 
terrorism.
  We recall that not too long ago, when trying to determine the extent 
to which the President's powers extended, the United States Supreme 
Court decided a case called Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. This involved Yaser 
Hamdi, who was being held as an enemy combatant, and claimed that his 
detention violated 18 U.S.C. 4001. Section 4001(a) states that ``[n}o 
citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States 
except pursuant to an Act of Congress.''
  This is analogous to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which 
claims that it is the exclusive method by which foreign intelligence 
may be obtained by use of signals intelligence.
  Justice O'Connor's plurality opinion, joined by Chief Justice 
Rehnquist, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that the use-
of-force resolution was ``an act of Congress'' that authorized Hamdi's 
detention, notwithstanding the argument that it violated 18 U.S.C. 
4001.
  Her rationale, as I understand the opinion, was that because the 
detention was meant to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield, 
it was a fundamental incident of waging war in permitting the use of 
necessary and appropriate force.
  Justice O'Connor, in the plurality opinion, concluded that Congress 
had clearly and unmistakably authorized detention in the narrow 
circumstances considered here. Thus, the question seems to me to be, by 
analogy, whether this use-of-force resolution, which authorizes 
American troops and our military to search out and to detain and, if 
necessary, to kill terrorists before they come to our shores and kill 
us--the question is, is the intelligence gathered by the use of this 
surveillance a fundamental incident of waging the war on terror? And it 
strikes me that it is.
  Inherent in waging war is obtaining actionable intelligence from our 
enemy or on our enemy. Certainly, I would believe, under the rationale 
in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, that this would be a fundamental 
incident in waging the war on terror and one authorized by the use-of-
force resolution in 2001.
  So we see that President Clinton believed, as did President Reagan, 
that the President had authority, even outside of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, but another arguable basis of that 
authority is the resolution that Congress itself passed in 2001.
  Now, there is one other authority that I think bears on this issue 
that is important. When the Congress created the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act in 1978, it created a special court to consider ex 
parte--that is, ``without the benefit of the other side being there''--
applications for orders to get electronic surveillance.
  Now, people have thought: Well, this must be similar to other courts. 
But the truth is, it is not an adversarial process because we do not 
let our enemies know we are going to the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court to get an order so we can find out what they are 
doing. But, nevertheless, Congress did create this, what we call a 
court, for the purpose of considering those applications.
  But more to the point, the Congress also created an appeals court 
called the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Now, 
granted, most of the time the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 
operates in secret and does so for the obvious reasons that these are 
classified operations. We cannot let our enemies know what we know, so 
we can discover their attempts to hurt innocent American civilians.
  The Congress understands, and certainly the Intelligence Committees 
and all the Members of Congress understand, that most, if not all, of 
this has to operate in confidential or classified circumstances.
  But in November of 2002, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 
of Review--this appellate court created by Congress under the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act--actually issued a public opinion, which 
was extraordinary. It is the first time since the creation of FISA, the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that an appeal was actually 
brought and that the court actually issued a written opinion.
  Now, notwithstanding the fact that there is not an adversarial 
process--again, it is a one-sided process by the Government seeking 
permission from the judges to conduct this important surveillance 
against foreign agents and international terrorists--notwithstanding 
that fact, the court invited the American Civil Liberties Union and the 
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to submit briefs so 
they might consider their decision with the additional input of these 
organizations that, by their nature, would argue perhaps a more limited 
approach to Government power.
  Well, all of that I say to point out that in the absence of a 
controlling U.S. Supreme Court decision--and I mentioned the Hamdi case 
which is applicable by analogy to this situation when it comes to the 
authorization of the use of force--in the absence of a controlling 
decision on the President's inherent power to conduct these operations 
through a warrantless surveillance, the court created by Congress to be 
the authoritative decisionmaker of these matters, in 2002, said, on 
page 48 of this opinion:

       We take for granted that the President does have that 
     Authority [that is, to conduct warrantless searches to obtain 
     foreign intelligence information] and, assuming that is so, 
     FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional 
     power.

  Now, concededly, that is what lawyers like to call ``dicta.'' It is 
perhaps not essential to the decision of the specific issues that came 
before the FISA Court of Review, but it does recognize that the case 
law and precedent supports the President's authority to conduct 
warrantless surveillance in foreign intelligence and international 
conspiracies against the United States because of the power conferred 
on him under article II of the Constitution.
  So in summary, we see that not only did the Clinton administration 
believe the President had that authority, the Reagan administration 
believed the President had that constitutional authority under article 
II and, by analogy, that the U.S. Supreme Court has suggested that the 
use-of-force resolution would authorize surveillance as a fundamental 
incident of waging the war on terror.
  So these are helpful in shedding some light on exactly what authority 
the President had during the course of this surveillance, which he says 
was essential to protecting American lives against foreign agents bent 
on doing Americans harm.
  It seems reasonable to me that the President ought to be able to rely 
on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review's opinion that 
has stated that every court that has reviewed this or similar questions 
has found inherent authority to conduct this type of intelligence.
  Certainly, I agree that it is appropriate for Congress and this 
Senate to have oversight hearings. I know Senator Specter has indicated 
his interest in doing so; Senator Roberts, chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, likewise. But we have to understand, as I know my colleagues 
do, that this is a classified program. There are limits to what we can 
talk about in public without putting in jeopardy our methods and 
sources of obtaining information

[[Page S14101]]

against those people who are bent on our destruction and certainly the 
destruction of innocent American lives.
  So it is appropriate to have a hearing. But it is not appropriate for 
anyone, including a Member of the Congress, to leak classified 
information about the existence of this program.
  Now, some have said: Well, it is not illegal nor unconstitutional for 
the New York Times to write about it. And I will leave that for some 
court sometime, someplace. But we know for a fact it is a violation of 
the criminal law of the United States to leak classified information. 
My hope is that the Justice Department and the appropriate authorities 
will conduct a prompt and thorough investigation into how this 
information was leaked because, as a result, our enemies now know what 
we are doing and, to some extent, how we are doing it, in a way that 
undermines our ability to fight and win the global war on terror.
  It strikes me, when you are trying to be analytical about this, 
trying to figure out why is it important that the President have this 
authority--that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review 
has assumed the President has and that President Reagan and President 
Clinton claimed to have--why is it important that authority exists 
outside of a typical law enforcement or criminal prosecution context?
  Well, of course, in an intelligence-gathering mode, we may not have a 
target per se of that intelligence-gathering activity. There may not 
really be knowledge that a crime has actually yet been committed but, 
rather, a reasonable belief that there are individuals who are 
plotting, conspiring to do innocent American civilians harm. So it is 
impossible to do in that context what we would ordinarily do in a 
criminal prosecution context, which would be to have an affidavit filed 
by an FBI agent in support of a petition for an issuance of a warrant, 
which would then be filed as a public record for everybody to see.
  If we have learned anything as a result of 9/11, it is that we must 
break out of this pre-9/11 mindset, which says that terrorism must be 
combated as a criminal law violation alone. It is true that terrorist 
activity could be a crime, but our main goal is to detect and disrupt 
terrorist activity before people in this country or our friends and 
allies across the globe are injured or killed. So the fundamental goals 
of our national policy have to be to disrupt the information, discover 
it, disrupt these cells, and protect Americans in the process.
  So I wanted to come to the Chamber and say a few words about this 
issue because there have been some who have, in breathless tones, said 
that this is a great travesty, they cannot believe it has happened, and 
some have even gone so far as to suggest the President has acted 
illegally. I would say that, on balance, my conclusion is, based on 
historical precedent and based on the authorities that are invested 
with the power to render legal decisions on such matters, the President 
probably did act within his authority, but we should proceed to have 
hearings to further flesh that out so Congress can understand exactly 
what is going on.
  Finally, I wish to say a couple of words about the Senate's failure 
to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. I believe the PATRIOT Act has been one 
of those things that have made America safer and prevented terrorists 
from executing another attack on our own soil. If you look from 
September 11 up until this date, thank goodness, the United States of 
America has not suffered another attack on our own soil. We do know 
there have been terrorist attacks that have been disrupted but were 
planned in the style of 9/11 against American civilians by terrorists 
who care nothing about our laws or our way of life but care only for 
their misguided ideology and are willing to do anything, including kill 
innocent people, in order to accomplish their goals.
  It is only reasonable to assume that the PATRIOT Act has played an 
important part in our safety in the United States. The reason I say 
that is if you look out across the world, we have seen terrorist 
attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, and in other places around the world. 
I can only conclude that the PATRIOT Act has played an important role--
perhaps not the exclusive role but an important role in combating 
global terrorism and making sure they are not successful in attacking 
or killing or injuring Americans on our own soil.
  It is with that in mind that I am at a loss to explain how some of 
our colleagues could prevent a bipartisan majority in the Senate from 
voting on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. The fact is that some 
of them have said we didn't get everything we wanted in the 
negotiations. Well, the news is that nobody does. But the fact is the 
PATRIOT Act passed 98 to 1 roughly 6 weeks after the attacks of 
September 11. It was a bipartisan bill, obviously, because it enjoyed 
overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. There is literally 
nothing that has changed other than additional concessions being made 
to address the concerns of those who claim there are civil liberty 
concerns in the PATRIOT Act.
  Rather than allow us to have that vote, unfortunately, there is a 
minority in the Senate that is filibustering and preventing us from 
having an up-or-down vote. Ultimately, in the interest of the safety of 
the country, I ask my colleagues to reconsider their obstruction and 
denial of our ability to have that vote. We know that 16 provisions are 
going to expire December 31 unless we do.
  There are those who say that what we need is a 3-month extension. 
Well, that is a phony deal, Mr. President, I suggest. We have been 
debating this PATRIOT Act since it was originally passed in October 
2001. I think everybody has a pretty good idea where they stand. I 
believe every issue that could be debated has been debated, and every 
issue that could be negotiated has been negotiated. There has been an 
attempt to reach out and define common ground. Indeed, I believe the 
conference between the House and Senate did exactly that. It would be a 
terrible shame under the guise of, Well, we just need 3 more months to 
further dilute the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that have made America 
safer. Unfortunately, that is what I see happening with the 
unwillingness of the minority Senators to have that up-or-down vote and 
reauthorize the PATRIOT Act.
  So I implore them not to make these offers of just 3 more months 
because we know all they are trying to do is use that for additional 
leverage to water down the strong protections of the PATRIOT Act. What 
they ought to do is reconcile themselves to the fact that they are not 
going to get everything they want, just as I didn't get everything I 
wanted. I would like to strike all sunsets in the PATRIOT Act and make 
it permanent. I advocated for provisions for administrative subpoenas, 
and that didn't make it into the bill. There are other things I would 
have liked to see in the bill that are not in the bill, but in the 
interest of trying to find common ground and in the interest of trying 
to pass a bill that will keep America safe, I have been willing to make 
those concessions.
  I ask all of our colleagues, when it comes to passing this 
legislation, to try to find a way to allow us to have that up- or-down 
vote so we can reauthorize the PATRIOT Act and the American people will 
know we have done everything within our power to try to keep them safe, 
which is, in fact, the No. 1 obligation of the Federal Government--our 
national security.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from North Dakota 
is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent under our 
allocation of time to speak until 2:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Please repeat the request.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that under our allocation of time 
I be allowed to speak until 2:15 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is a lot happening in the final days 
of this Congress. One might ask, What on Earth are we doing here days 
before Christmas? We are doing the work that should have been done in 
March, April, May, June, July, and August, work that wasn't done then 
for a number of reasons. But now we come to a number of important 
issues and this is reconciliation, budget cuts, and we have a tax cut 
bill ricocheting around. We have the PATRIOT Act that my colleague just 
described. We have the Defense appropriations bill. That has now

[[Page S14102]]

been burdened with an amendment that calls for drilling in ANWR.
  It is an interesting time, but one that is frustrating for some of us 
in the Senate. I will give you a description of that frustration.
  On Sunday, we met at 12 o'clock--this past Sunday--on a conference, a 
very large conference dealing with the Defense appropriations bill. I 
was a conferee. We started at 12, and I left at 5 or 5:30 in the 
afternoon. We finished the work on that conference report. I opposed a 
number of things that happened on Sunday. The Defense appropriations 
bill was before us. They added drilling for oil in Alaska, the ANWR 
provision, having nothing to do with the bill. They added it because 
they thought they had the votes to add it.
  Well, we finished the conference, and I left here at 5:30 on Sunday, 
and I discovered they added another provision. There wasn't a 
conference still going on at that point. A bunch of folks got in a room 
and decided what they were going to stick in the conference report.
  I told my colleagues I grew up in a small town of about 350 people. 
When I was a kid, I used to go and watch the blacksmith. We had a 
blacksmith in my hometown. It was kind of fun to go and watch the 
blacksmith work. He would take a piece of metal, put it in a tong, 
stick it in heat, in hot coals until it turned white hot, and then he 
would put it on an anvil, take a big old hammer and beat it. That is 
how he shaped metal. Heat it and beat it with an old hammer. I watched 
that guy with dirty clothes, sweating all day long. He would heat that 
metal and beat that metal. Some people think apparently that is the way 
the Senate should work--heat it and beat it. Get hold of a big old 
hammer and pound ANWR through here. It doesn't matter the rules don't 
permit it; pound it through here. In fact, change the rules if they get 
in your way. It doesn't matter. Don't like the rules? Change them.
  I am usually an optimist. They say a pessimist is someone who smells 
flowers and looks around for a casket and a body, and an optimist is 
someone who sees a manure pile and looks for a pony. I am an optimist, 
usually, looking for good things in what we are doing and where we are 
heading. But this notion that we live in a special place on this Earth 
and somehow we don't have to care about nurturing it to make sure it 
remains special, that it will all work out is a notion devoid of 
leadership.
  The fact is, we are off track in this country. We are No. 1 in 
exports in waste paper. Did my colleagues know that? The largest volume 
of export in America is waste paper to China. Unbelievable. Yes, we are 
No. 1 in exporting waste paper.
  And, oh, by the way, in the last 4 years, we also sent about 3 to 4 
million jobs to Asia, mostly to China. We have the largest trade 
deficit in the history of humankind. This past year on the budget 
deficit, we will borrow $550-plus billion, nearly $570 billion. So we 
have a budget deficit that is way out of control, a trade deficit that 
is way off the charts, and we are shipping jobs overseas. Our No. 1 
export now is waste paper, and you think things are going great. Suck 
it up, they say, it is a great place, things are going fine.
  I don't think things are going fine. The question is where is the 
leadership here? David McCullough wrote a book about Adams. It is a 
wonderful book. He is a great historian. He wrote this book about 
Adams. I have told this story before. In this book, he described John 
Adams as representing this country's interests in Europe. Adams would 
write back to his wife Abigail as they were trying to put this new 
country together, and he would say: Where will the leadership emerge to 
help frame and start this new country of ours? Then he would say: There 
is really only us. There is me and there is Thomas Jefferson and there 
is George Washington and there is Ben Franklin and there is Madison and 
there is Mason. There is only us.
  Now, of course, we know in the rearview mirror of history that the 
``only us'' is some of the greatest human talent ever assembled, and 
they built a very extraordinary place, a very special country, with a 
Constitution that says ``We the People.'' The first 3 words, we the 
people.
  But the current leadership in the White House and Congress says we 
don't have to worry too much about deficits. We are going to cut some 
spending but, oh, by the way, even though we are up to our neck in 
deficits, we want to cut taxes, and, oh, by the way, we still want to 
cut taxes mostly for upper income people. The second part of this 
reconciliation document is still in the House of Representatives, the 
tax side. It is very important to say that capital gains and dividends, 
normally called unearned income, capital and dividends--be given 
preferential tax rates. That is the most important thing. Warren 
Buffett, the world's second richest man, said when all this is phased 
in, he will pay a lower tax rate than his receptionist in his office. 
Tax work, they say, tax work but exempt investment. That is the mantra 
around here.
  What is the most important thing? Drive down the taxes on dividends 
and capital gains; drive them down. It doesn't matter, we don't need 
the revenue. Deficits don't matter, Vice President Cheney said. 
Deficits don't matter.
  They now come to the floor of the Senate with a proposal that says, 
by the way, let's cut some spending. Guess whose spending is going to 
get cut. Is it a surprise that the most vulnerable among us get cut? Is 
it a surprise the proposal is to decide there should not be enough 
money in Medicaid, that which delivers health care to America's poor, 
to provide the kind of funding that is necessary in Medicaid?
  It is said by some, and I believe it, that budgets are moral 
documents as well. Someone once asked the question: If you were 
required to write an obituary for someone you had never met and the 
only information you had was that person's check register, what would 
it tell you about the obituary you would write?
  What if all you knew about this country was its Federal budget and 
that is all the information you had as a moral document, but what was 
important? What mattered to this country? What did this country believe 
represented the most important areas of investment, expenditure to 
build on the successes of this country? Would it be, for example, that 
you decided tax cuts for wealthy Americans are the most important?
  Let me show you a picture. I showed it yesterday, but I think it is 
important. This is a picture of a five-story building on Church Street 
in the Cayman Islands. Some people would just as soon you didn't this 
picture. But On Church Street in the Cayman Islands, there is a five-
story building called the Ugland House. Do you know what is inside this 
building? This building is the official address for 12,748 
corporations. Impossible, you say? No, it is not impossible. It is not 
impossible. We are running an economy now and, by the way, with the 
advice and consent of those in the Congress and in the Senate who voted 
for it--we are running one that says to businesses: Go ahead, get rid 
of your American jobs, move them to China, ship the products back to 
this country to sell them, and run your business through a mailbox in 
the Grand Cayman Islands so you don't have to pay taxes. That is what 
this building is about. And, oh, by the way, many of the companies that 
have this building as their address in the Cayman Islands to avoid 
paying U.S. taxes got a gift from this Congress--not with my vote--that 
is the equivalent of a $60 billion tax break--a $60 billion tax break.
  In the past year and a half, a bill was passed called the JOBS Act to 
create new jobs. Of course, it didn't. It cost jobs. It gave a very fat 
tax break to the largest corporations in our country that do business 
here and overseas. It said, if you repatriate your income from 
overseas, because some day you are going to and when you do, you have 
to pay the 35-percent corporate rate, if you do it now, we will give 
you a special deal that we won't give to any other Americans: You pay a 
5.25-percent tax rate. There is not one American living in Ohio, North 
Dakota, Oklahoma, or any other State represented in this Chamber who is 
told in law that they get to pay an income tax of 5.25 percent.
  This Congress told the largest companies in this country, we will 
give you a 5.25-percent tax rate. That was a priority. My colleague who 
sat in this desk behind me, Senator Fritz Hollings, offered the 
amendment to strip it. I voted for it. I spoke for it. But, no, we 
could not strip that out because too

[[Page S14103]]

many Members of this Congress believed it was important, a priority, to 
provide a big fat $60 billion tax break to the largest corporations in 
this country, with a 5.25-percent tax rate.
  Compare that to the proposition we are offered today by people who 
come to the floor breathlessly saying we have to cut spending to reduce 
the deficit. Did they care about reducing the deficit when they gift-
wrapped a $60 billion tax cut package for the biggest companies by 
giving them a 5.25-percent tax rate? No. It did not matter. It did not 
matter then. They just promised that it would create new jobs.
  Interestingly enough, the very companies repatriating income to take 
advantage of this bargain basement tax rate are cutting jobs. This is 
not just me saying it. This is from the Wall Street Journal and other 
newspapers that describe exactly what is happening.
  So today we have the breathless chant about let us cut funds for the 
Child Support Enforcement Program, which, it is estimated by the 
Congressional Budget Office, will result in $2.9 billion in child 
support going uncollected. Let us cut funding $12.7 billion for the 
student loan programs. Let us cut funding from family farmers--by the 
way, many of whom faced some disaster this year; the worst drought 
since 1895 in Illinois, Missouri, Iowa. One million acres could not be 
planted in North Dakota.
  Those farmers are not going to get disaster help, but the leadership 
had no reservations about allowing a situation where 12,748 
corporations establish their address in one five-story building in the 
Cayman Islands, for the purpose of not paying taxes in this country. It 
is all perfectly legal because this Congress believes it ought to 
continue to happen.
  We have had vote after vote on my amendment to try to shut this down. 
Cannot do it. So in terms of priorities I think it is important to ask 
the question, on whose behalf are we legislating? I happen to believe 
we ought to cut the deficit. In fact, in January and February I am 
going to be offering a very specific set of plans on how you cut 
spending in a real way. We have very large agencies in our Government, 
and unlike businesses that have overhead expenditures and then direct 
expenditures there is no distinction between our overhead expenditures. 
In fact, they cannot even separate out overhead expenditures.
  The first thing one should cut back on is overhead and travel and 
those kinds of things, but it cannot even be separated out in these 
agencies. We ought to take a whack at that. I am going to propose that.
  I support some of these issues, but let me mention a number of issues 
that are attendant to this as well. There is a provision buried in this 
huge reconciliation bill, as is always the case in these things that 
come to our desk--my colleagues can see the size of this legislation. 
There is a provision repealing something called the Byrd law that I 
want to talk about just for a moment.
  When American enterprises, American companies, are the victims of 
unfair trade--and there is a lot of it--our government sometimes 
imposes antidumping and countervailing duties. The Byrd amendment, 
which I supported, says that U.S. producers who have been injured by 
unfair trade should receive those duty revenues.
  But the WTO stepped in and said: Well, it is not right that you would 
recompense your victims of trade who have been injured by unfair trade. 
So the WTO ruled against us, and we have our colleagues in the Senate 
and in the House who have been very anxious to overturn the Byrd rule. 
Sure enough, they do it in this bill.
  They cannot run to the bank fast enough, in my judgment. Those who 
want to do this sort of damage to us cannot run to the bank fast enough 
to deal with all of these issues. We have the biggest trade deficit in 
history. We have jobs flowing out of this country. We have a country 
that does not have the spine, the backbone, the will to stand up for 
our producers on unfair trade. Those who have been victimized, those 
who have been hurt by unfair trade, ought to receive the benefits of 
the tariffs. Now the majority says that is not true; we are going to 
take it away.
  I do not understand that. I do not have the foggiest idea where the 
Senate's priorities are.
  We are right at the end of the session, a couple of days left, and 
the Defense appropriations bill was not passed this year. Now it is 
about to be passed, except they load on one of the most controversial 
issues called drilling for oil in ANWR. Under any other circumstance, 
one would be laughed out of the Chamber for that. Yet we have people 
come here--I heard a colleague of mine yesterday say: Well, let us all 
be bipartisan.
  I am all for being bipartisan. Let us also be fair and let us 
legislate the right way. Let us not stick these unrelated issues on 
this legislation and then say: By the way, it does violate the rules, 
but we will change the rules and we will change it only for this 
purpose and change it right back, and never mind.
  Do they think that we cannot see, hear, or think? Is that what this 
arrogance is born of? I do not understand it. We are close enough to 
the end of this session, and this country is in deep enough trouble 
with trade and budget deficits and a range of other issues that we 
ought to find a way to work together.
  This is not about bending steel. This is about compromise, working 
together to do the right thing for this country. There is no Republican 
or Democrat way to go off track on trade or on the budget. It just 
hurts our country. Together, we ought to be able to do better for 
America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from North Dakota has risen and spoken, 
obviously, with enthusiasm and energy about his position. But I think 
that there are a couple of points which need to be made.
  First of all, on this Byrd issue, the Byrd trade rule issue, let us 
talk about what that really is. Where did it come from to begin with? 
It came in the middle of the night. It was put in an appropriations 
bill a few years ago. Who does it benefit? It benefits a very few 
specific industries in this country that get the windfall from an 
unfair trade practice. In other words, what happens under this rule is 
that $3.2 billion is paid to a few specific industries. In fact, one 
specific company got 39 percent of the funds up until this year. Who 
would get it if it were not in place? The American taxpayer would get 
that money. That money would go to the Treasury.
  It is not about cutting that money out of the budget; it is about 
having that money flow to the Treasury so the American taxpayer has the 
right to that money so it can be used either to reduce the debt or it 
can be used for programmatic activity that is necessary, such as 
national defense, instead of having it be a special interest event 
which goes to benefit very few industries in this country and a very 
specific number of companies within those industries. Quite honestly, I 
would not be surprised if some of those companies did not have some 
sort of headquarters in this building right here that get that $3 
billion.
  In addition to that, this $3.2 billion, because of the insistence of 
a couple of Members in this Senate, has been kept in, so it is still 
flowing to those specific companies. So the taxpayer is still not 
getting the benefit of that money that the taxpayer should get.
  Prospectively, the rule has been changed, as it should be changed. 
Why should it be changed? Well, the Senator from North Dakota sort of 
passed over this a little quickly. The WTO ruled against us. It said: 
You cannot give that money to specific industries and specific 
companies. It said: You cannot do that.
  Maybe the Senator from North Dakota does not want us to be a member 
of the WTO, but we are a member of the WTO. We use the WTO aggressively 
to try to defend our trade interests around the globe. They are the 
arbiter. They are the ones we go to when something goes wrong and our 
companies get maltreated. So it is a little hard to say to the WTO: We 
want to use you to enforce a dumping procedure against Japan, China or 
Singapore, but when you find that we have violated the World Trade 
Organization's laws because we are giving money specifically to one or 
two companies in this country in violation of those laws, well, you

[[Page S14104]]

cannot do that. You cannot tell us how to do things.
  So what does the WTO do? The WTO now assesses fines against other 
American companies--I think it totals to something over $100 million 
annually--which American products, produced in this country, are now 
having to pay, which make those products less competitive, because we 
continue to violate the WTO and give this money, instead of to the 
taxpayers of America, instead of putting it in the Treasury where it 
should be, thus reducing the debt, to a couple of companies that have 
the influence to get it across this floor.
  I do not find a whole lot of persuasiveness in the argument of the 
Senator from North Dakota on this point, but he won. The $3.2 billion 
is going to flow out of the door to specific companies, in violation of 
WTO rules, will stay in place, and other American manufacturers will be 
prejudiced because they will be hit with a fine by the WTO, which is a 
legitimate fine.
  The second point the Senator makes is, he says, Oh, we are cutting 
the subsidies to students. I think he said $12 billion. That also is 
inaccurate. There is no reduction of subsidies to students. In fact, we 
expand the programs, the Pell grant program, and we create a new 
program for math and science. What we do is what we should do, and we 
need to do it before the end of the year, and that is we reduce the 
windfall that is coming to lenders because of the way the rules are 
presently set up. That is $12 billion.
  Again, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of those lender 
companies had clearinghouses down in the Cayman Islands that he is 
complaining about. But he is defending them now because he is saying we 
should not make that change.
  If, by the end of this year, we do not change the rules as to how we 
calculate the lender activity to students in this country, lenders will 
get I think it is a $7 billion windfall. It might be more, actually. It 
does not go to the students. It will not help the students. All it does 
is help a group of lenders because the law is structured in a way which 
basically benefits them. We tried to change it. We were not able to 
permanently change it last year, but we now do have the permanent 
change in this bill. And, by the way, it was bipartisan. That proposal, 
because it is so obviously fair and the right thing to do, was reported 
out of the HELP Committee unanimously. This alleged $12 billion event 
that the Senator from North Dakota has decided to highlight as a 
corporate subsidy to the disadvantage of students is just the opposite. 
We are cutting a corporate subsidy to advantage students. The only 
debate between myself and Senator Kennedy, who was actually supportive 
to the policy relative to the reduction of the subsidy to the lenders, 
is how the money that is raised from that subsidy should be spent. We 
believe it should go to debt reduction, and we believe it should go to 
the expansion of student loans. He wants more money to student loans. 
We want to have a balance and we have a balance.
  On both those policy points, the Senator from North Dakota, in my 
humble opinion, has misrepresented the character of the bill--$3.2 
billion is flowing to special corporations for a special interest 
benefit under this bill. It should be going to the taxpayers. But the 
policy which energized that is at least being changed so at least 
prospectively that is not going to happen, and other companies in this 
country that are being fined by the WTO because of violations of the 
WTO standard will actually have that relief in the outyears. And the 
subsidies which, if we do not act before the end of this year, are 
flowing to corporate lenders are going to be moved over to students, to 
benefit students, or to deficit reduction.
  I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Oklahoma if he 
would mind if I take a minute and half off our side to respond, at 
which point the Senator from Oklahoma will be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me say my colleague from New 
Hampshire, while interesting and articulate, stops a couple of pages 
short of good research. First, my colleague talks at length about the 
WTO. I am not sure which direction we would be required to bow to the 
WTO. Is it the east or the west? The WTO, of course, does not run or 
manage American public policy and trade.
  But I do want to say this with respect to the Byrd law. My colleague 
said ``just a few companies'' benefit from it. The fact is, well over 
700 companies benefit from it. So, when one talks about 
misrepresentation, I will ascribe that, I guess, to a mistake.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. No, I only have a minute and a half. Several hundred 
companies have benefited, not just a few.
  If one wants to run America's trade policy exclusively through the 
sieve of the World Trade Organization, I will say get a big armchair, 
sit back, have a good time, and say: Whatever you want, WTO.
  That is not my belief. My belief is we ought to invest in this 
country's strength. When American companies are victimized by unfair 
trade, we ought to in my judgment have the good sense, as we have in 
this legislation we call the Byrd law, to use the tariff to recompense 
them.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, 39 percent of this benefit went to 1 
company, 39 percent; and $2 billion of the $3 billion that is going to 
go out of this is going to go to a small group of companies that deal 
in lumber. Those dollars belong to the American taxpayer. They should 
be in the Federal Government's Treasury. They should be used for 
deficit reduction. They should be used for initiatives here at the 
Federal level that are important.
  The WTO ruled against us, and if the Senator doesn't like the WTO and 
doesn't want to be part of the World Trade Organization--we are. It is 
called a treaty. We have to live by treaties. It is called the rule of 
law.
  Mr. DORGAN. It is not a treaty.
  Mr. GREGG. And the treaty says we submit issues to the WTO, we debate 
them. We win sometimes; we lose sometimes. On this issue, the WTO ruled 
that because we specifically send this money out to specific 
corporations--and there is only one that got 39 percent. I don't care 
if there are 700 that maybe got a dollar, there is one that got 39 
percent of the benefit--then you are violating the rules of the WTO, 
and then they assessed us with a fine and our companies now pay that 
fine and make our goods less competitive.
  So not only are our taxpayers losing out because of this language, 
but the companies that have to compete in the world are losing out. The 
attack of the Senator from North Dakota on the bill on that point 
doesn't hold water.
  I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma such time as he needs.
  Mr. COBURN. It is my understanding I am allotted 30 minutes. I would 
appreciate it if the Chair will let me know when I have 10 minutes 
left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will notify the Senator.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I come to the floor first to meet those 
two who were just debating to wish them a Merry Christmas and a happy 
holiday season. This is a season, a time about giving. When you give 
something, most often it costs you. It is called sacrifice. It is what 
our Nation was built on. It is the very heritage that we have as a 
nation, that we sacrifice to do what is in the best long-term interests 
of our country.
  The chairman outlined the unfunded liability that is facing this 
Nation between now and 2070. He gave a figure of $51 trillion. That is 
an underestimate of what the true unfunded liability is for our 
country. We just added $8.7 trillion with the Medicare Part D Program. 
But it is such a large number we have a hard time getting our hands on 
it.
  One of the ways to get our hands on it is to think about what it 
means per individual, and $51 trillion in unfunded liabilities means 
every man, woman, and child in this country today is responsible for 
$171,000. Think about that. That is more than the net worth of the 
country.
  Why do I raise that? Because the debate we are having about this bill 
and movement forward and the comments about how you judge whether 
somebody is compassionate is based on how you treat those less than you 
and those who are going to follow you. I believe everybody in the 
Senate would agree

[[Page S14105]]

that leaving $171,000 worth of obligation for every man, woman, and 
child in this country is inappropriate. It belies the heritage of this 
country.
  If you think about the great generations that have come before us--
the greatest generation, the World War II generation--those who have 
sacrificed in this country and those who are sacrificing today in the 
war on terrorism, it is inconceivable to me that we will not start 
doing some of the small things we can do, with the bills that are going 
to be before us today and tomorrow, to assure a Christmas gift to every 
American.
  Some say, How can you do that and still be compassionate? My argument 
is, if we don't start doing it, we are not going to be able to be 
compassionate at all.
  I would like to put up a couple of charts.
  The first is from the Government Accountability Office. It shows 
where we are going if we freeze discretionary spending in this country. 
If we absolutely freeze discretionary spending, what will happen is 
between now and 2040, there is no increase in any discretionary 
spending whatsoever. You did see how our growth and expenditures take 
place. You can see that the vast majority of that is Medicare, 
Medicaid, Social Security, and all other spending, of which the largest 
proportion in 2040 won't be on any program but will be interest on the 
national debt.
  I am also struck by the inconsistency that I hear in this body when 
one group of Senators has offered over $400 billion in new spending 
this year--$400 billion in new spending proposals this year.
  If you think about why this is important, this line is represented as 
a percentage of our gross domestic product. All we have to do is look 
at the country of Germany today to see where we are going and what is 
going to happen to us. They have unemployment of 13 percent. Their 
growth is minimal in terms of their gross domestic product. Why? 
Because 40 percent of their gross domestic product is taken up by the 
Government. This only goes to 2040.
  At 2050 and 2075, we are at 40 percent of our gross domestic product. 
That means money that could be invested in new jobs, in capital, in 
future opportunities for our children, won't be there because we will 
be consuming.
  Now let's look at if we just have the Government grow at the rate of 
inflation. What do we see? By 2040, we are above 40 percent.
  So the questions before this body and the criticisms of the bills on 
the floor don't make any sense if we are going to give a Christmas gift 
of a future to our children. This is unsustainable. The Government 
Accountability Office has said we are on an unsustainable course. It is 
impossible.
  The Senator from North Dakota earlier said he is going to bring a 
spending reduction bill to the floor. I embrace that. There is no 
question that I am known in this body to try to restrain our spending. 
But if we don't, we belie the very heritage this country has stood for 
since its inception; that is, one generation sacrificing for the next 
so opportunities and a bright future will be there.
  How have we done that? Because we are more interested in the next 
election than the next generation. We are more interested in making the 
easy choice, the expedient choice, rather than the difficult choice.
  The choice is this. The way things are set up now, there is no way we 
can keep our obligations to you if you are dependent on the Federal 
Government. What is compassionate about that? What message do we send 
to those who truly are dependent upon us if we will not make the hard 
choices to make sure anybody is in a position to help them in the 
future?
  I will talk about some specific things.
  This reconciliation bill didn't go nearly far enough in terms of 
reducing spending. Let me give you a couple of examples.
  The Federal Financial Oversight Subcommittee which I chair had a 
hearing on inappropriate payments. There is an Improper Payment Act 
which is law that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has 
failed to enforce on Medicaid alone. But let us talk about Medicare, 
and then we will talk about Medicaid.
  In Medicare alone, it is estimated that over 10 percent of the 
payments that are made by Medicare are inappropriate. Of that, 90 
percent are overpayments. What do I mean, overpayments? I mean fraud, I 
mean abuse, I mean cheating the Federal Government. And as a physician, 
I am talking about some of my peers and others in the health care 
industry, whether they are in durable medical equipment, in the 
pharmaceutical industry, or others who are taking advantage of the 
bureaucracy of the program. But this bill saves a small amount of money 
over the next 5 years. The total is under 8-point-some billion dollars. 
Less than half of that comes from Medicare and Medicaid. Think about 90 
percent of $21.7 billion. That is $19 billion a year in Medicare fraud, 
and $19 billion a year times 5 years comes up to $95 billion. This bill 
doesn't even save $40 billion over the next 5 years.
  If we want to be serious about giving a Christmas gift of opportunity 
and future and making the sacrifices, it starts in this Chamber. That 
sacrifice is, there is no excuse for us not to rid Medicare of the 
fraud that is in it today, an estimated $19 billion a year. If, in 
fact, we rid Medicare of the $19 billion and we rid Medicaid, which is 
$18 billion worth of fraud--that is estimated because they have not 
followed the law and reported improper payments.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from 
New York Times that outlines some of the Medicare fraud issues in New 
York State.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, July 19, 2005]

              As Medicaid Balloons, Watchdog Force Shrinks

                 (By Michael Luo and Clifford J. Levy)

       New York's Medicaid program pays more than a million claims 
     a day, feeding a $44.5 billion river of checks to 
     radiologists and ambulance drivers, brain surgeons and 
     orderlies, medical centers and corner pharmacies. Many who 
     get those checks pocket more money than they deserve, and 
     millions of taxpayer dollars are believed to be lost every 
     day to theft and waste.
       Yet the state, charged with protecting those dollars, has 
     done little to stop them from draining away.
       A yearlong New York Times investigation found only a thin, 
     overburdened security force standing between this enormous 
     program and the unending attempts to steal from it. Even as 
     spending by New York Medicaid has more than tripled since the 
     late 1980's, the number of fraud investigators who guard its 
     cash register has fallen by half, and several of their 
     leaders have quit or retired in disillusionment.
       Of the 400 million claims that Medicaid paid last year, 
     Health Department regulators uncovered just 37 cases of 
     suspected fraud, far fewer than their counterparts in any 
     other large state, even though New York's Medicaid budget is 
     by far the largest in the nation. Many experts say that it is 
     likely that at least 10 percent and probably more of New York 
     Medicaid dollars are stolen or wasted.
       In dozens of interviews, prosecutors, lawmakers and former 
     regulators said the program paid for almost everything and 
     scrutinized almost nothing, in large part because its primary 
     mission has been to ensure that there are enough health care 
     providers in the system to address the needs of the poor. It 
     often appears that the Health Department is barely even 
     looking: There are more than 140,000 hospitals, nursing 
     homes, doctors and other health care providers in the system, 
     but the department visited just 95 in the 2004 fiscal year to 
     audit their billings.
       Analyzing Medicaid data obtained under the state's Freedom 
     of Information Law, The New York Times identified scores of 
     instances in which the claims of health care providers jumped 
     markedly in a single year. These spikes are a classic 
     indication of possible improper billing, yet few of those 
     providers had even part of their billings audited by the 
     department, state records show. New York's Medicaid program, 
     once the pride of the Great Society era, has become a 
     system ``that almost begs people to steal,'' said Michael 
     A. Zegarelli, a senior New York Medicaid regulator until 
     2003 and a past president of the national association of 
     Medicaid oversight officials.
       Meanwhile, other states, including California and Texas, 
     have increased their antifraud efforts and discovered what 
     seems a simple truth: The effort to seek out theft and 
     unnecessary spending can more than pay for itself, just as a 
     parking violations bureau brings in revenue. Workers assigned 
     to Medicaid fraud prosecution units around the nation help 
     bring in an average of $200,000 each in recoveries, according 
     to federal statistics.
       Twenty-five years ago, New York was in the vanguard of 
     fraud prevention. But over the decades it has failed to 
     maintain the investment in employees necessary to close the 
     door on thievery and abuse. Repeated delays stretched the 
     replacement of a 1970's-era computer system that could barely 
     detect fraud into a seven-year ordeal, allowing billions to 
     slip by with little scrutiny.

[[Page S14106]]

       As dozens of former employees describe it, the state's 
     antifraud effort has been plagued by the same gridlock that 
     has stifled innovation in Albany for years: bureaucratic 
     infighting, allegiance to campaign contributors from the 
     health care field, reliance on public indifference.
       In an interview, Dennis P. Whalen, executive deputy 
     commissioner of the Health Department, said combating fraud 
     remained a major goal. He denied that the department had been 
     lax in policing Medicaid and excluding providers who had 
     cheated the program, saying that new computer systems have 
     improved the state's detection efforts.
       But State Senator Kemp Hannon, a Nassau County Republican 
     who is chairman of the Senate Health Committee, called The 
     Times's findings deeply troubling, and said they showed that 
     the Medicaid fraud detection system was broken. Mr. Hannon 
     said the Health Department, run by a fellow Republican, Gov. 
     George E. Pataki, was failing to oversee the system.
       ``This is a red flag for them,'' Mr. Hannon said. ``I have 
     not seen anything that would indicate that there has been any 
     sort of focus at all from the department.''
       New York's failures have come at a high price, according to 
     advocates for the program's recipients.
       ``There is all this money that is being drained away and 
     not being spent on care for the poor people who need it,'' 
     said Elisabeth Benjamin, who spent eight years as a lawyer at 
     the Legal Aid Society specializing in Medicaid. ``It's 
     analogous to the $5,000 toilet seat in the military.''

                       Investigation Staff Is Cut

       More than a dozen years ago, in the heyday of the unit 
     charged with fighting Medicaid fraud and abuse in New York 
     City, dozens of state employees would troop out to locations 
     throughout the city for a regular ritual. With reporters in 
     tow, they would serve papers on scores of shady doctors 
     operating low-quality, high-volume clinics known as 
     ``Medicaid mills,'' said James Mehmet, who retired from the 
     State Health Department in 2001. Mr. Mehmet was the unit's 
     chief of investigators in New York City.
       Most days, more than a dozen investigators went undercover 
     as patients to see how they were treated by a doctor or a 
     pharmacist, and then how their visit was billed. In the 
     office, they worked alongside auditors and lawyers, as well 
     as nurses, dentists and doctors--a full medical review staff.
       But the energy and ambition of the office have dissipated 
     along with the staff, Mr. Mehmet said. By the time he 
     retired, he said, the 15 lawyers in the office had been 
     reduced to one. The medical review staff was gone. And with 
     the Medicaid budget growing rapidly, it was not the fraud 
     that had diminished, he said, but the will to pursue it.
       ``The volume of work was so much different,'' Mr. Mehmet 
     said, recalling earlier days. ``The caliber of work was so 
     much different. There was much more emphasis on going after 
     people that were committing fraud and abuse.''
       Mr. Mehmet and other frustrated former regulators say the 
     drop in the New York City office mirrors the statewide 
     decline in staffing over the last decade, at a time when 
     thieves have become more sophisticated.
       In the late 1980's, more than 200 people in the New York 
     Medicaid bureaucracy were devoted to fighting fraud and 
     abuse, said Philip J. Natcharian, who directed those efforts 
     until 1990. Now only 50 people, including clerical staff, 
     have that job, along with a few dozen outside contractors, 
     said Mr. Zegarelli, who worked at the Health Department's 
     headquarters in Albany until his retirement. He said that was 
     far too few to be effective, an assessment echoed by four 
     other former senior department officials.
       The former officials said reducing the fraud force made 
     little sense to them, given the huge increase in Medicaid 
     spending in recent years, which has brought the program to 
     more than 40 percent of the state budget.
       ``How do you not increase the staff to monitor the largest 
     expenditure in New York State?'' said Mark J. Ives, who 
     directed the state's fraud and abuse efforts until he retired 
     in 1998.
       One likely result of the staffing decline is that since 
     2000, the amount of money the Health Department has recovered 
     from fraud investigations has fallen by 70 percent, according 
     to data compiled by federal regulators.
       At the same time, the state has virtually stopped excluding 
     doctors from Medicaid for violating its rules, excluding only 
     eight out of the 43,000 doctors enrolled in the program last 
     year, a Times analysis shows.
       ``I think the department's reached the point of Smokey the 
     Bear with a shovel,'' Mr. Zegarelli said. ``They're just 
     running around putting out fires.''
       The former regulators said they did not believe there had 
     been a deliberate decision in Albany to loosen enforcement. 
     Instead, they described a gradual move away from regulation 
     as Albany focused on expanding and plugging holes in the 
     program.
       ``They want recipients to get medical care,'' said Michael 
     P. Sofarelli, who retired as a Medicaid prosecutor in the 
     attorney general's office in 2003 after handling some of the 
     state's biggest Medicaid fraud cases. ``Investigating is a 
     small part of the job.''
       The Health Department reports to Governor Pataki, and in 
     recent years, his budget aides have actually reduced goals 
     for recouping money from Medicaid providers for improper 
     billing.
       The decline of fraud control in New York contrasts sharply 
     with the situation in other states. In 1998, California, 
     which had several high-profile Medicaid fraud cases in the 
     1990's, added about 400 employees to an existing staff of 
     about 40 charged with rooting out abuse. The number of fraud 
     cases referred to prosecutors has since doubled.
       Officials in Illinois and Ohio, where the Medicaid budgets 
     are roughly a quarter the size of New York's, visited more 
     than three times as many health care providers in the 2004 
     fiscal year to audit their billings.
       Mr. Whalen, the executive deputy commissioner of the Health 
     Department, said it frequently stopped Medicaid payments it 
     considered questionable. He acknowledged that the staffing 
     for fraud prevention had dropped, but described the change as 
     insignificant, saying the state employed roughly 400 workers 
     whose jobs involve fighting Medicaid fraud and abuse, 
     supplemented by 200 outside contractors.
       ``The number, in terms of a pure number, has declined, but 
     I would say that it has not been a huge decline,'' he said.
       ``Every agency, I am sure, would love to have more staff, 
     and we are no different,'' he said. ``But we are also 
     realistic about the state's fiscal situation.''
       But former senior department officials said most of the 
     workers cited by Mr. Whalen are not actually investigating 
     fraud. They are accountants, nurses, computer analysts, 
     clerks and others doing administrative jobs, making sure 
     basic regulations are followed, leaving only about 50 state 
     employees dedicated to fraud work.
       Mr. Whalen and his aides said new computers and software 
     were helping the department shift its focus from reviewing 
     Medicaid claims already paid to preventing questionable 
     claims from being paid in the first place.
       But state statistics show that the department rejected a 
     much smaller percentage of claims in the 2004 fiscal year 
     than its counterparts in California, Florida or Pennsylvania.
       Asked to list cases that they developed that led to arrests 
     and prosecutions, Health Department officials could point to 
     only a handful in the last two years.
       The result of the cuts is evident in case after case that 
     the state simply missed. The billings of a Queens pharmacist, 
     Newton Igbinaduwa, rose to more than $1.4 million in 2002 
     from $78,000 in 1998, according to billing records analyzed 
     by The Times. But the department never referred the case to 
     the state attorney general's office.
       It was only when prosecutors in the attorney general's 
     office got a tip through another case that they found out 
     about Mr. Igbinaduwa, who pleaded guilty last year to grand 
     larceny after billing for drugs he never dispensed.

                        Prosecution Unit Shrinks

       The Health Department is only half of the dwindling 
     security force posted outside Medicaid's gate. The 
     responsibility for prosecuting Medicaid fraud lies with the 
     state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, who runs the Medicaid 
     Fraud Control Unit. And in the attorney general's office, 
     too, Medicaid abuse has had a reduced priority for more than 
     15 years, with far fewer prosecutors than it had in the days 
     when Medicaid was a much leaner program.
       Though New York has the largest Medicaid fraud prosecution 
     staff in the country, several other states have fraud offices 
     that are larger in proportion to the size of their Medicaid 
     budgets, and they recover a larger percentage from fraud 
     prosecutions. As a percentage of the overall Medicaid budget, 
     New York's 301 employees won less than half as much as those 
     in Texas, Florida and New Jersey, according to statistics 
     compiled by the federal government for its 2003 fiscal year.
       Mr. Spitzer's office said New York used a more conservative 
     method of calculating recoveries than other states, but even 
     using that method, New York still fails to make the nation's 
     top 15 states in the amount recovered as a percentage of the 
     overall Medicaid budget, going back as far as 1999.
       Mr. Spitzer's zeal in fighting corporate abuses has not 
     been matched by his efforts in fighting Medicaid fraud, 
     former employees say.
       ``I didn't think there was that much focus at the main 
     office,'' said John M. Meekins, who retired in 2003 as the 
     director of the Albany regional office of the Medicaid Fraud 
     Control Unit. Referring to Mr. Spitzer, he added: ``I'm not 
     faulting the man. His focus was on Wall Street.''
       Mr. Spitzer said his office had made strides, especially in 
     investigating the abuse of nursing home residents. The fraud 
     unit's prosecutors have made a philosophical shift, he said, 
     cutting back on the number of inquiries to concentrate on 
     what they consider cases with bigger impact, which could lead 
     to industrywide changes.
       ``The strategies that we have pursued have made sense and 
     have been successful,'' Mr. Spitzer said.
       However, the attorney general's office has had few such 
     breakthroughs. None have shaken the health care industry in 
     the manner of his successes on Wall Street and in the 
     insurance industry, or the inquiries into nursing homes 
     conducted by his predecessors in the 1970's.
       The relatively low profile given to antifraud efforts dates 
     to before Mr. Spitzer's term in office. The size of the fraud 
     control unit dropped by more than 40 percent between 1979 and 
     the early 1990's. Even after

[[Page S14107]]

     Mr. Spitzer became attorney general in 1999, the size of the 
     fraud unit remained about 300 workers, the same as in the 
     early 1990's. Back then, though, Medicaid cost about $14 
     billion a year, and its cost has since more than tripled.
       The state could have a much larger prosecution force with a 
     relatively small investment, because the federal government 
     has made a standing offer to pay three-fourths of the cost, 
     and New York's current allotment is well under the maximum. 
     If the state spent an additional $24 million on its fraud 
     prosecution unit, the unit's current budget of $45.7 million 
     would more than triple to $148 million, mostly from the 
     federal match.
       Mr. Spitzer said state budget officials had repeatedly 
     demanded hiring freezes for his office.
       ``The possibility of increasing simply has not been 
     presented by the Department of Budget,'' he said, emphasizing 
     that he believed that hiring more staff members made sense.
       Last year, Mr. Spitzer said, the fraud unit recovered a 
     record amount in overpayments: $62.5 million, up from $40 
     million in 2003. But the higher figure includes $30.8 million 
     that was New York's share of a major nationwide settlement 
     with two pharmaceutical companies over drug pricing. That 
     case was spearheaded by federal prosecutors, not New York 
     officials.

                    Behind the Scenes, Turf Battles

       The Health Department and the attorney general's office 
     must contend not only with growing fraud and depleted 
     resources but also with another opposing force: each other. 
     Over the years, they have accused each other of foot-
     dragging, incompetence, or resistance to change. Their mutual 
     animosity and suspicion have come at the expense of the 
     battle against fraud.
       By law, it is the Health Department, not the attorney 
     general's office, that is primarily responsible for 
     identifying fraud. But the department's principal task is to 
     keep the huge flow of payments moving swiftly, and at this 
     point, with its shrunken enforcement bureau, the department 
     sends very few cases to prosecutors.
       Former officials of both departments say their different 
     missions have left them clashing instead of cooperating.
       Former prosecutors complained that Medicaid regulators 
     often crippled their criminal cases by suing those they 
     suspected of overbilling in civil court, hoping to get some 
     money back to the system before the attorney general filed 
     criminal charges. In those cases, prosecutors said, the state 
     would often settle a case quickly for only a fraction of the 
     amount overbilled.
       Mr. Spitzer, a Democratic candidate for governor, said his 
     prosecutors could not depend on the Health Department.
       ``They are just not a useful resource for us in the sense 
     of providing us with ideas, places to look, referrals,'' he 
     said.
       Asked about Mr. Spitzer's criticism, a department 
     spokesman, William C. Van Slyke, said, ``We believe that his 
     political ambitions are the motivation for his comments, as 
     opposed to the facts.''
       Former Health Department officials said that when they 
     turned over evidence of fraud to the attorney general's 
     office, the prosecutors often took months or even years to 
     piece together a case, all while the fraudulent activity 
     continued to siphon money from the system. Medicaid officials 
     said they preferred a civil case to stop the fraud 
     immediately.
       ``They were malingerers,'' said Mr. Ives, former director 
     of the department's fraud section. ``They would take forever 
     and ever to process a case.''
       Mr. Van Slyke said 70 percent of the cases the department 
     referred to the attorney general's office since 2000 were 
     still open. The office responded that many of those cases 
     were fully investigated but just not technically closed.
       Whatever the cause of the tensions, the department refers 
     far fewer cases to prosecutors than its counterparts in other 
     large states. Texas referred nearly seven times as many cases 
     to its Medicaid prosecutors as New York did in the last 
     fiscal year. California referred nearly four times as many, 
     and Ohio more than three times as many.

                            Resisting Reform

       In the fight against fraud, New York's inadequate arsenal 
     is not an accident. In Albany, reformers have repeatedly been 
     outspent and outmaneuvered by the health care industry.
       Several large states, including California, Florida and 
     Illinois, have laws that encourage whistleblowers to come 
     forward with information about fraud schemes, offering them a 
     portion of any money recovered. There is a similar federal 
     law to fight fraud in Medicare, the program for the elderly 
     and disabled.
       But when Mr. Spitzer has had this type of bill, called a 
     false claims act, introduced in New York, it has died. The 
     bill was denounced by the Healthcare Association of New York 
     State, which represents hospitals, nursing homes and other 
     providers, as well as the State Medical Society, which 
     represents doctors. The groups, which spend millions annually 
     on lobbying and campaign contributions, predicted that the 
     bill would lead to an epidemic of frivolous allegations.
       ``New York State's health care provider community has faced 
     unprecedented, overzealous investigations by regulators and 
     law enforcement officials,'' the association said in a memo.
       Daniel Sisto, president of the association, said that its 
     members believed that federal officials had used 
     inappropriate tactics to crack down on fraud, and that they 
     had fought the whistleblower law out of fear that the state 
     would follow suit. He said the group's members faced a raft 
     of different requirements from Medicaid, Medicare and 
     numerous private insurance companies, and as a result made 
     billing mistakes that were wrongly criminalized.
       ``What concerns me from our past experiences is that there 
     is overzealousness in the interpretations of any overpayments 
     as fraud and abuse,'' Mr. Sisto said.
       In May, the Republican-controlled State Senate approved 
     legislation, sponsored by Senator Dean G. Skelos of Nassau 
     County, that would create an independent Medicaid inspector 
     general. The measure would take away some of the 
     responsibility for combating fraud from the Health Department 
     and the attorney general's office and give it to the new 
     agency and to local prosecutors.
       Mr. Pataki and Mr. Spitzer opposed the measure, as did the 
     Democratic majority in the State Assembly, which has long 
     allied itself with large health care lobbies and unions. 
     Assemblyman Richard N. Gottfried, a Manhattan Democrat who is 
     chairman of the Health Committee, said he did not believe 
     that the system needed to be changed.
       Asked whether the Democrats would take any action on the 
     issue, Mr. Gottfried said, ``Maybe that would be a good one 
     for us to hold hearings on in the fall.''

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, it is estimated that the fraud in New York 
State is $14 billion a year in Medicaid alone, of which the Federal 
Government pays two-thirds. In 5 years, solving the Medicaid fraud in 
New York would pay for every savings we have claimed in this whole bill 
for the next 5 years.
  Examples: St. Barnabas Health Care System agreed to settle $3.9 
million in claims it overcharged Medicare; the Premium Health Care 
Group, $1.6 million for fraudulent wound-care claims; Michael Clemens, 
FBI special agent--$1 billion in Medicare fraud in south Florida alone.
  If you add up what is going on in Medicare and Medicaid, $37.5 
billion a year at a minimum is fraud and yet we are trying to save a 
measly two-tenths of 1 percent in terms of slowing the growth.
  We haven't gone far enough. For somebody to reject this bill on the 
fact that we might not meet our obligations on Medicare and Medicaid--
the obligation isn't being met in terms of the oversight of these 
programs.
  I wish to spend a few moments talking about Medicaid fraud because it 
is important for people to know what a poor job we are doing in terms 
of oversight.
  Investigators estimate that as much as $18 billion worth of fraud 
occurs every year in New York alone on Medicaid. That is 5 percent of 
the total national spending on Medicaid in one State. One New York 
dentist, Dr. Dolly Rosen, claimed to have performed 991 procedures a 
day in 2003--991 procedures a day. The New York Medicaid Program 
consumes $44.5 billion. It is the most costly and generous in the 
Nation. In the article that I mentioned, James Mehmet, the retired 
chief investigator of Medicaid fraud in New York City, says that at 
least 10 percent of that was spent on fraudulent claims.
  We can, if we will do the oversight, accomplish what we need to in 
terms of doing the hard work, and the reductions in the expenditures 
won't have any impact on those who are truly needy for Medicare and 
Medicaid. What they will have an impact on is the criminals who are 
defrauding the American taxpayers by billing for services they have not 
performed.
  Other examples: Schering-Plough agreed to pay $335.5 million back to 
Medicaid this last year on the basis of fraud and an elevated billing 
process.
  The other thing estimated in New York, to build the case a little 
further, this same James Mehmet estimates as much as 30 percent of the 
budget--10 percent of it is fraud; 30 percent of it is abuse. If only 
half of that is inappropriate payments, we are up to 25 percent or up 
to $12 billion a year. Again, that is in one State. If we did the 
oversight, changed the rules, increased the punishment, held people 
accountable, every bit of savings in this bill could be paid for by 
Medicaid fraud in New York State alone.
  The question is, are we going to do what we need to do as a Senate, 
in the future? This bill is a first good step. It does a lot of things 
in terms of Medicaid, of creating a new Medicaid task force to go after 
fraud.

[[Page S14108]]

  We can do much more. To do less says we do not have the Christmas 
spirit, the spirit of giving, the spirit of sacrifice.
  I close on this one note. Most everyone listening out there has 
children and grandchildren. When you think about your grandchildren, 
what do you think? What is it you desire for them? What is it you want 
for them? When we hear the rhetoric--whether it is from the AARP or 
other groups--discounting the fact that we are going to slow down the 
growth in Medicare and Medicaid, and doing it not by taking away 
benefits for those who are truly needy but by doing the job we should 
be doing, when we do that, we give a gift to our children and to our 
grandchildren.
  I want opportunity for my grandchildren. I don't want them to be 
given anything. I want them to be given the gift of having an 
opportunity to attain it. I want to create an economic environment in 
the future that is sustainable. We are not sustainable today. I want 
every grandparent out there to think, do they want something for 
themselves today that is going to be paid for by their grandchildren 20 
years from now?
  That is the real issue. That is the whole center of the entire debate 
in Congress today as we debate these contentious issues on how we spend 
or do not spend money. It is a simple question. Take now and charge it 
to your grandchildren. Take now and take away their opportunity for 
homeownership. Don't do anything now because it might not be 
politically popular, but undermine any future your children and 
grandchildren have. That is described as selfishness. That is the exact 
opposite of the spirit of giving.
  America is better than that. America's heritage is better than that. 
The American people are better than that. The problem is, we do not 
understand what is before the Senate, the obligations and the great 
responsibilities before us. We were sent here to make the hard choices. 
If you are listening today, listen to the rumble, the rumble that is 
out there in the American public. They want us to do the hard work of 
trimming the waste, of trimming the fraud, of trimming the abuse. They 
want us to eliminate our political earmarks to pay for the things that 
are necessary for this country--not pay for the things that get us 
reelected. There is a rumble. The rumble is real. The American people 
are paying attention that we should be doing the hard and heavy lifting 
of making the tough choices.
  This bill is a start. It should go much further. It should be $100 to 
$200 billion of reduced spending through fraud. If there is truly $35 
billion a year in wasteful, fraudulent, improper payments for Medicare 
and Medicaid, that is $18 billion for Medicaid, $19 billion for 
Medicare. That is $37 billion a year. In 10 years we can save $370 
billion. This chart I had up will show a better future for our children 
and our grandchildren.
  I ask the Members of the Senate to make sure we pass this bill. This 
is a start. It does not have anything to do with the tax cut. There is 
not going to be any tax cut unless we get spending under control. To 
not want to get spending under control means Members do not want to 
give an opportunity for advancement in the future for our children and 
grandchildren.
  Grandparents, this is about our grandkids. I have four grandchildren. 
I wish I had 20. But more than that, I wish for them the same 
opportunities that have been there for us, the same opportunities that 
the great generation fought for and gave us such wonderful blessings. 
The same opportunities for every veteran we have had who has fought and 
died and been injured and the sacrifices they have made--are they in 
vain if we do not have the same type of courage, the same type of 
commitment that those who serve our country in our armed services have?
  We can do no less than to start down the hard road of making 
difficult choices. This is the first one. They are going to get harder 
as we face the economic perils in front of us and the commitments we 
have made that right now we cannot keep. We either change them or the 
American people are going to change us.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. I applaud the Senator from Oklahoma for not only his 
statement but also for his continued commitment to fiscal discipline 
here and in trying to identify much of the wasteful and unnecessary 
spending.
  I wonder if the Senator from Oklahoma has had a chance to look at the 
Defense appropriations bill we are going to consider tomorrow and see 
some examples of the interesting earmarks out of a conference report. 
Is the Senator aware of $500,000 to teach science to grade school 
students in Pennsylvania or $3.85 million for the Intrepid Sea-Air-
Space Foundation or $4.4 million for a Technology Center in Missouri or 
$1 million to a Civil War Center in Richmond, VA, or $850,000 for an 
education center and public park in Des Moines, Iowa, or $2 million for 
a public park in San Francisco or $500,000 for the Arctic Winter Games, 
an international athletic competition held this year in Alaska?
  Museums are popular this year, including $1.5 million for an aviation 
museum in Seattle, $1.35 million for an aviation museum in Hawaii, $1 
million for a museum in Pennsylvania, $3 million for a museum in Fort 
Belvoir.
  There are more, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, and we are at war. 
I wonder how many MREs, flak vests, or bullets we could buy with all 
this money.
  I appreciate the Senator's support for this budgetary measure, but 
how do we tell people we are going to cut food stamps and reduce 
eligibility for welfare while we are taking the money that is for 
defense, in the tens of millions of dollars on this Defense 
appropriations bill, put in a conference report that none of us ever 
saw or read until right now, I ask the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I am happy to respond. As the Senator knows, on the 
conference report I am unable to offer amendments to eliminate those 
things. As the Senator well knows, also, I have started down a track 
where I am going to confront earmarks in the Senate or we are going to 
change that.
  With that, I offered on almost every appropriations bill what was 
called a sunshine amendment. That will be offered again in the House 
next year, and when we come to conferences, the ability to put in 
extraneous earmarks has got to be limited.
  I would, however, answer the Senator. Having had an oversight hearing 
on food stamps, we spend $1.6 billion in giving food stamps to people 
who do not qualify, who have more than the capability to take care of 
themselves. That is at a rate of 6.9 percent of every person who comes 
to attest for food stamps.
  So I believe the same thing can be said for the Food Stamp Program 
that we can say about Medicare and Medicaid, that we need to run a 
bill. We need to have better oversight. We need to check it so the 
fraud and abuse is out of it.
  As the Senator knows, I do not like earmarks because I believe they 
compromise the operation of good government. I think they buy votes 
when votes would not be there. I think the Government has grown because 
of the force of earmarks.
  So I am not aware of those specific things. I have not looked at it, 
to answer the Senator's question. But I am not happy they are there.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for one more question?
  Mr. COBURN. I will.
  Mr. McCAIN. Not only do we have the earmarks in outrageous and 
disgraceful pork-barreling on this bill--again, that none of us ever 
saw until my staff went through this bill--but there is also a great 
deal of legislation. Remember, this is the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill. So it is not just the money, it is also policies 
and major policy decisions.
  There are avian flu vaccine limitation of liability provisions. I 
tell the Senator from Oklahoma, I do not know if that is worthwhile or 
not, but it has been jammed into a Department of Defense appropriations 
bill.
  There is funding for farm conservation. There is a provision 
protecting jobs in--guess where--Hawaii and Alaska. And there is a 
provision that transfers, as a direct lump-sum payment to the 
University of Alaska, the unobligated and unexpended balances 
appropriated to the United States-Canada Railroad Commission.
  Does the Senator from Oklahoma have a clue what that is all about?
  Mr. COBURN. No, I do not.

[[Page S14109]]

  Mr. McCAIN. Here we are again, I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, 
when everybody wants to get out of town examining bils that have all 
kinds of things in them that we never saw or heard of.
  In the Statement of Managers, there is $1.6 million for the Lewis and 
Clark bicentennial activities. The list goes on. There is $7 million 
for the Alaska Land Mobile Radio.
  I ask my friend from Oklahoma, don't you think the American people 
are fed up with this kind of stuff? And don't you think it is time a 
group of us, who have been meeting and talking about eliminating some 
of these practices, get together and make things tough on the floor of 
this Senate next year to reign in this out-of-control, disgraceful, 
obscene conduct that goes on on these appropriation bills?
  Mr. COBURN. As the Senator knows, I believe we do a disservice to our 
country in the way we manipulate appropriations. I have been very vocal 
on that. But I also know it requires courage to stand up. And the 
American people are expecting that. They are going to see that this 
next year on the floor of the Senate. They are going to see a process 
by which every earmark is challenged in the bills that come before us 
and in the bills that come out of conference.
  What I do know--and I will finish my statement with this--is every 
economist and every elected official in this country, in this body, 
knows we are on an unsustainable course. Everybody knows that. 
Everybody is aware of that. Slowing the rate of growth of programs is 
compassionate. It is not lacking in compassion. If you do not slow the 
rate of growth, the very people you want to help will not be helped in 
the future. It is compassionate to keep your obligations. The way to 
keep your obligations is to change the programs so we pay for them out 
of the waste, fraud, and abuse that is involved.
  Most people who oppose this bill do not have a good alternative. They 
do not have a good alternative. The plan of never-ending expansion, 
unsustainable commitments, is the surest way to deny benefits and 
coverage to the very people we want to help in the long run. It is the 
only way we are going to be able to do it. We cannot continue to avoid 
the tough choices, and we cannot continue to avoid prioritizing and to 
grow government as we like. We cannot do what we have done in the past. 
The economic conditions will not allow it. The American people are not 
going to allow it.
  It is time, and it starts January first--it starts here with this 
bill, but it starts in the next session of Congress. It is going to be 
different. It is going to be difficult. But we are going to make the 
tough choices.
  With that, I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I just want to note that the exchange, 
which was very informative, between the Senator from Arizona and the 
Senator from Oklahoma was in relationship to the Defense bill, and we 
are on the deficit reduction bill. Those items which the Senator from 
Arizona raised--he certainly has a legitimate right to raise them--are 
not applicable to this bill but applicable to the Defense 
appropriations conference report. This bill actually reduces the 
deficit by $40 billion, which is a very positive event.
  Mr. McCAIN. If I may continue, Mr. President, America is at war. We 
all know that, and that is why the measure we are debating today, the 
conference report to H.R. 2863, the 2006 Defense appropriations bill, 
is so very important. This conference report provides critical 
financing for our fighting men and women, the brave individuals we sent 
to fight in our name. We must support them, and, for that reason, I 
will vote in favor of its passage. But I do so under protest.
  The conference report appropriates nearly $408 billion, plus an 
additional $50 billion in emergency funding for operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The non-emergency portion is approximately $4.5 billion 
under the administration's request, but is several billions higher than 
the Senate bill. As is the case with so many of the appropriations 
bills that come to the floor, this conference report and the joint 
explanatory statement contain earmarks and pork projects that were 
neither requested nor authorized.
  War means sacrifice--any student of history knows that--and Americans 
have sacrificed throughout our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our 
soldiers and their families have sacrificed, and this year other costs 
have spread throughout the Nation. Whether it is the victims of 
Hurricane Katrina, or those that have come to their aid or simply all 
those Americans who are paying higher gasoline prices, we see 
sacrifices of many kinds. And so in these difficult times, the American 
people are right to expect their elected leaders to sacrifice as well.
  But then we see a bill like the one on the floor today, and I am sure 
many Americans wonder if the spirit of sacrifice stops on the steps of 
the U.S. Capitol. During a war, in a measure designed to give our 
fighting men and women the funds they need, the Congress has given in 
to its worst pork-barrel instincts.
  Let's take a look at some of the earmarks that are in this Defense 
appropriations conference report: $500,000 to teach science to grade 
school students in Pennsylvania; $3.85 million for the Intrepid Sea-
Air-Space Foundation; $4.4 million for a technology center in Missouri; 
$1 million to an Civil War center in Richmond, VA; $850,000 for an 
education center and public park in Des Moines, IA; $2 million for a 
public park in San Francisco; and $500,000 for the Arctic Winter Games, 
an international athletic competition held this year in Alaska. And 
museums are popular this year. There is $1.5 million for an aviation 
museum in Seattle, $1.35 million for an aviation museum in Hawaii, $1 
million for a museum in Pennsylvania, and $3 million for the museum at 
Fort Belvoir. There is also $1.5 million for restoring the battleship 
Texas.

  We are at war. How many MREs, flak-vests, or bullets could we buy 
with all this money? How many dollars could we return to the taxpayers? 
I would note that these are just a small sampling of the many, many 
unrequested earmarks that fill this bill.
  But perhaps we are being too hard on ourselves. After all, the 
conference report includes a number of provisions that will rescind 
unobligated balances in Federal accounts, so we are offsetting a small 
portion of some of these needless costs. But wait a minute. There is 
always a catch. While the conference report rescinds $10 million from 
the Natural Resources Conservation Service Operations account, it also 
includes language to prevent any cuts to the projects and activities 
identified on pages 84 to 87 of the House report that accompanies the 
Agriculture appropriations bill. And if you review that report, you 
will find 108 earmarked projects totaling more than $103 million. A few 
examples of the projects that the appropriators are committed to 
protecting from any reductions, even for the sake of fiscal 
responsibility, include:
  $242,000 for a wildlife habitat education program in conjunction with 
the National Wild Turkey Federation in Illinois, which is dedicated to 
conserving wild turkeys and preserving our Nation's hunting heritage.
  $100,000 for the Trees Forever Program in Iowa--an organization with 
a laudable mission statement--it claims to be an organization that not 
only plants and cares for trees, but also addresses the challenges 
facing our communities and the environment--but hardly one that should 
be funded in a Defense appropriations bill.
  $400,000 for dairy waste remediation in Louisiana.
  $600,000 for conservation related to cranberry production in 
Massachusetts and Wisconsin. Conservation related to cranberry 
production. Remarkable.
  $200,000 for Weed It Now--Taconic Mountains--MA/NY/CT. Weed It Now, I 
am told, is an effort to remove invasive plants from the forest habitat 
of the Berkshire Taconic plateau. I am a strong supporter of the global 
war on weeds, Mr. President, but this earmark does not belong in this 
bill.

  Clearly, such projects should not be asked to spare a dime.
  Beyond the earmarks, Mr. President, it is a violation of Senate rules 
to legislate on an appropriation bill, unless, as is the case with 
several sections of the detainee provisions in title 10, they are added 
pursuant to a rule 16 defense of germaneness. And yet this rule is 
flouted far too often. This bill not only

[[Page S14110]]

contains numerous authorizing provisions, but it also features dozens 
of provisions, both authorizing and appropriating, that are wholly 
outside of the scope of defense policy. Some of these are included to 
pursue laudable policy objectives; some are not. A sampling of the non-
germane provisions includes: the hurricane supplemental: $29 billion 
for hurricane victims; the Gulf Coast Recovery Fund; avian flu vaccine 
limitation of liability provisions; a provision that directs funds from 
the Digital Transition and Public Safety Fund that are in excess of $12 
billion to be spent on, among other things, the Tucson, Arizona Border 
Patrol sector, $30 million, the San Diego sector fence, $20 million, 
and to carry out the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, $50 
million; 1.5 billion for home heating energy assistance; funding for 
farm conservation; a provision protecting jobs in Hawaii and Alaska; a 
provision transferring as a direct lump sum payment to the University 
of Alaska the unobligated and unexpended balances appropriated to the 
United States-Canada Railroad Commission; and, of course, the ANWR 
provisions, which I will discuss in a moment.
  Mr. President, some of these provisions are very important. Others 
clearly are not. But whether or not they are important, we should 
follow the standing rules of the Senate. We should debate these 
provisions and have the opportunity to offer amendments.
  Division C of this conference report authorizes the exploration, 
leasing, development, production, and transportation of oil and gas in 
and from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. This provision does 
not belong in an appropriations bill to fund our troops who are 
fighting the war on terror.
  Drilling in ANWR is, of course, the reason we are here today. When 
conferees tried to add these provisions to the reconciliation measure, 
they could not get the votes to include it in the final agreement 
without putting passage of the whole package in jeopardy. So instead 
the conference managers have circumvented Senate rules and added this 
unrelated and controversial measure to the Defense conference report.
  Thanks to this additional language, enactment of the Defense funding 
bill has been needlessly delayed and continues at this moment to be the 
target of a filibuster. I strongly oppose this inclusion of this 
language in the DOD appropriations conference report, and I am appalled 
by the tactics that have been used to arm-twist and pressure Senators 
to choose between a drilling provision that they know is wrong and 
providing desperately needed funding for our Nation's troops.
  And the ANWR provisions didn't come free, of course. The proponents 
had to come up with a slew of sweeteners in an effort to win support 
for drilling in the Arctic. Let's look at a few of these.
  Division D directs an additional $1.5 billion, designated as 
emergency spending, for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance. The same 
division establishes a Gulf Coast Recovery and Disaster Prevention and 
Assistance Fund, which would be funded largely through ANWR oil and gas 
revenues. Another set of provisions addresses the Digital Transition 
and Public Safety Fund, established by the budget reconciliation 
conference report. The CBO estimates that this ``spectrum fund'' will 
generate $10 billion, but the conference report we are debating today 
figures out how to spend revenues in excess of $10 billion. After $10 
billion, the next $2 billion will be directed to the Gulf Coast Fund. 
Already planning how to spend money that exceeds the level the CBO 
projects we will have. Sound familiar, Mr. President?
  So CBO says we can plan on $10 billion from the spectrum fund. If we 
somehow get to $12 billion in revenue, the excess goes to the Gulf 
Coast. So you think we would stop there. But, no, we go further, 
planning how to spend the next $4 billion on the chance that the 
spectrum fund generates still more money. The conference report directs 
that distributions over $12 billion be earmarked as: $900 million for 
conservation programs through the Department of Agriculture; $50 
million to carry out the North American Wetlands Conservation Act; $50 
million to protect grassland and wetland habitats; $1 billion for 
Interoperable Communications Equipment to assist State and local 
government preparation for a natural disaster or terrorist attack; $1 
billion to assist State and local government preparation for a natural 
disaster or terrorist attack; $80 million to the Department of Homeland 
Security to replace and upgrade law enforcement communications; $30 
million to replace Border Patrol vehicles; $490 million for Air and 
Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance and Procurement to replace 
air assets, including $40 million for helicopter replacement; $372 
million for Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance and 
Procurement to construct and renovate air facilities; $30 million for 
Tucson, AZ Border Patrol sector for tactical infrastructure; $20 
million for San Diego, CA Border Patrol sector for the sector 
conference; $30 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to 
replace detention and removal vehicles; and $17.9 million for Federal 
Law Enforcement Training Center for construction of a language training 
facility.

  While the border security projects I have just mentioned are 
important, will they come to fruition? Not until the spectrum revenues 
exceed the CBO's estimate--first by $2 billion, and then by $4 billion 
on top of that. So only when the fund hits $16 billion would all these 
funds actually be distributed. This entire scheme reminds me of the 
saying by Wimpy, the hamburger-obsessed character from the Popeye 
comic, ``I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.''
  In addition to everything I have described in the conference report, 
the statement of managers that accompanies it also includes hundreds of 
earmarks and questionable projects. Here are just a few examples: $1.6 
million for Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Activities; $30 million for 
continued development of the Joint Common Missile--a program that DOD 
cancelled this year; $10 million to restructure the Advanced SEAL 
Delivery System--over half a billion dollars has been spent over the 
last 9 years, with no deployable vehicles yet fielded, U.S. Special 
Operations Command has cancelled plans for future boats; $3.2 million 
for Handheld High Intensity Searchlights; and $7 million for the Alaska 
Land Mobile Radio.
  Mr. President, despite high gas prices, despite a swelling budget 
deficit, despite our military operations overseas, and despite our 
domestic emergencies, pork continues to thrive in good times and bad. 
The cumulative effect of these earmarks is the erosion of the integrity 
of the appropriations process, and by extension, our responsibility to 
the taxpayer. We must do better, for our soldiers and for the American 
people.
  We have to fix this system, Mr. President. Our system is broken if we 
cannot pass a Defense bill in wartime without billions of dollars in 
pork. Our system is broken if we cannot fund our troops without tacking 
on legislation that opens ANWR to drilling. Our system is broken if our 
national security is at stake and we carry on spending for the special 
interests as if nothing were wrong. But there is something wrong, 
something very wrong. We want to have it all without making any 
sacrifices, so we simply borrow the money, pushing off the obligations 
to our children and our grandchildren. ANWR is a perfect example of 
that. We drill today in the false hope that doing so will solve our 
energy problems, but in doing so we leave future generations with a 
degraded environment and the same dependence on oil that we have today.
  In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower reflected on 
the spending he believed to be excessive. His words then are all the 
more powerful in today's out of control environment: ``As we peer into 
society's future,'' he said, ``we--you and I, and our government--must 
avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease 
and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage 
the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also 
of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive 
for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of 
tomorrow.''
  And yet, I say to my colleagues, if we cannot change, if we will not 
change, we risk precisely that--becoming the insolvent phantom of 
tomorrow. I wonder what President Eisenhower would think of this mess. 
But, then, perhaps

[[Page S14111]]

others have contemplated the same question. After all, this bill 
includes a $1.7 million earmark for a memorial on the National Mall 
that would honor none other than Dwight D. Eisenhower.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are going back and forth. And I think 
there was a tacit understanding Senator Salazar would be next.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado yield me 30 
seconds after he is recognized?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from 
Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Senator 
from Colorado to yield me 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has yielded you 30 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have brought it up, I say to my friend 
from New Hampshire, because you cannot take away with one hand and give 
with the other. What we are doing in this very vital Defense 
appropriations bill, again, is larded down with unnecessary, unwanted, 
unessential, disgraceful spending that I find unacceptable. As the 
Senator from Oklahoma said, we are going to start doing something about 
it, and the sooner the better.
  I thank my friend from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, let me at the outset say to my friend 
from Arizona and my friend from Oklahoma that I think in the years 
ahead, hopefully, we can embark on programs such as pay-go to make sure 
that both on the revenue side and the expenditure side of the program 
we are able to bring our budget into balance. I look forward to working 
with them on those issues in the future.
  Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak briefly, first, about 
the spending reconciliation conference report. The spending 
reconciliation conference report, from my point of view, falls short of 
making sure we are funding the most significant priorities of the 
American people.
  Now, today, there will be debate about many of the points over which 
there is disagreement. I wish to focus, very briefly, on two things 
that, to me, are very essential in terms of what we prioritize and fund 
in this Government for the American people.
  First, with respect to the forgotten America--with respect to 
agriculture, with respect to those counties and communities that are 
out there in every one of our States all across this great land of 
America, those communities that are mostly dependent on agriculture, 
where rural economic development means one job at a time and sometimes 
losing one or two jobs at a time, those communities that are withering 
on the vine--when I look at this reconciliation measure, what we have 
here is a $934 million cut for Conservation Programs. I do not think 
that is standing up for the farmers who are so dependent on these very 
important programs across America.
  Secondly, we have a cut of roughly $400 million for rural 
development. We think about counties such as some counties in my State. 
In fact, my native county has an unemployment rate of close to 12 
percent. We look at creating economic opportunities for those 
communities. It is, from my point of view, a step in the wrong 
direction to be taking money from rural development.
  I think we, as a Senate, as a Congress, and the President of the 
United States, should be putting more of a focus on these communities 
that have been forgotten decade after decade. My hope is we are able to 
change course on the future agenda for rural America.
  Secondly, I wish to briefly comment on student programs. Student 
programs in this budget we have before us are going to be cut $12 
billion. Some of us understand the importance of what student programs 
have done for all of us. I come from a family where we have eight 
first-generation college graduates. Born, like some other Members of 
this Chamber, into humble circumstances, we did not have electricity 
and we did not have telephones when we were growing up. But we had 
parents who strongly believed in education, and we had an America that 
said: There is an America of opportunity for everyone regardless of 
your background. The result of that was that all eight of us became 
first-generation college graduates.
  Yet when you look at this budget that is before us today, it will cut 
$12 billion from student programs. To me, that is a disinvestment in 
America's future. It is something that causes me to say I will vote 
against this reconciliation measure that is before us today.
  Mr. President, in the time remaining, many comments have been made on 
the PATRIOT Act. I will make a few brief comments on that this 
afternoon. I see my great friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, 
who has labored on this matter for a long time.
  I step aside to no one in my own desire to fight the terrorist threat 
that we face in America and in my support for giving my brothers and 
sisters in law enforcement and our Federal agencies, including the FBI, 
all the authority they must have in order to keep America safe. We need 
to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. That is my goal. I believe that is our 
responsibility as a Congress.
  Mr. President, I believe that the political games surrounding the 
debate over the last several weeks are not worthy of this body, not 
worthy of America. Instead of a reasonable debate between patriots on 
how best to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, we get political threats and 
our patriotism is questioned. The President of the United States says 
that Senators wanting to protect the Constitution are acting 
irresponsibly. These assertions, in my view, are wrong. The 
Constitution still matters today. Our liberties still matter. If 
someone does not believe these things, I believe they are wrong. There 
can be no greater patriot than the Republicans and Democrats who come 
together to fight for upholding principles of our Constitution and 
giving law enforcement the tools they need to protect our homeland.
  Senator Gregg, one of the fiercest defenders of the second amendment 
in this Senate is a true patriot. Senator Hagel, one of this body's 
distinguished military veterans, is a true patriot and I am proud of 
him. Senators Murkowski, Sununu, Feingold, and Durbin are all good 
patriots. All of my colleagues who have been working to try to come to 
some resolution, I believe, are doing the right thing because they are 
standing up to protect America's freedoms as enshrined in our 
Constitution.
  Mr. President, I believe we can do what is the responsible thing, and 
with the potential expiration of the PATRIOT Act at the end of 2005 
under current law, the responsibility lays with the White House and 
with this body to make sure we extend the PATRIOT Act so we can 
continue to come to a conclusion with respect to a PATRIOT Act that 
both protects the civil liberties of Americans and at the same time 
gives law enforcement the tools they need.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 7 minutes. The 
Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Let me point to two provisions that have been debated 
widely in this body on the PATRIOT Act. The first is section 215 of the 
PATRIOT Act, which deals with firearms, business records, and medical 
records. The conference report that came out basically set a standard 
that says it is the relevance. My view and legal reading of that 
provision of the statute is that it would allow for fishing expeditions 
into your private records, into your business records, into the records 
of gun owners and gunshops.
  For example, in my State, I think about a business named The Rocky 
Mountain Gun and Ammo Shop. Well, if you have a business record by 
having conducted some transaction with that particular shop, then those 
business records become available to the Federal Government without you 
ever having any knowledge that in fact the Federal Government has gone 
after those records. In addition to that, besides having the 
opportunity to access those records----
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from Colorado yield for a question?
  Mr. SALAZAR. I only have 2 minutes left. Through the Chair, I will 
make my 2 remaining points and I will yield for a question.
  That Rocky Mountain gun shop business would also be subjected to a 
permanent gag order, and there is jurisprudence in our case law that 
says that

[[Page S14112]]

those permanent gag orders in fact are violative of the first 
amendment.
  I believe in the Senate legislation that we approved unanimously with 
100 Senators, Republicans and Democrats, that moved those issues 
forward in a manner that would have protected the civil liberties of 
Americans under the section 215 provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
  With respect to national security letters, I have the same concerns, 
and that is with respect to the 30,000 national security letters that 
go out--the question and the reality that there is currently no court 
review of those national security letters. Second of all, there is no 
avenue for relief with a permanent gag order that applies to the 
recipients of the permanent gag order.
  With that, I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be 
permitted to speak for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me say, reserving the right to object, 
we had made a commitment to other Senators in terms of an order here. 
The next Senator to be recognized is Senator Byrd on our side. I am 
informed that he is on his way here. I would be constrained to object. 
I would be happy to work with the leader on that side to work out an 
order.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak until 
Senator Byrd arrives.
  Mr. CONRAD. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had sought to discuss with the Senator 
from Colorado some of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. In view of the 
limited time, I will make a few comments.
  It is my hope that we can yet pass the conference report and the 
PATRIOT Act. When cloture was turned down on Friday, I reached out on 
Saturday to see if we could find some way to come to some 
agreements while the House was in town where we could have gotten some 
modifications on the conference report. That is not possible now; the 
House is out of session. There was no one in the House to have an 
extension of time. Senator Frist has said publicly, again, within the 
hour, that he is not going to agree to an extension of time. The 
President said he is not going to sign an extension of time. So I think 
what we are faced with at the moment is that we can either sign the 
conference report, pass the conference report or the act is going to 
expire.

  That is not my wish. I have made every effort to turn, twist, and go 
sideways and backward and forward to get it worked out. I think where 
we are now is that it is going to take this conference report or it is 
going to expire.
  I talked to the majority leader about having another cloture vote. If 
there would be 7 more Senators who would join the 53 who voted for 
cloture, we could get it done. I don't disagree with the Senator from 
Colorado who says that what has gone on here is, in some respect, 
unworthy of the Senate. The matter has spiraled out of control to where 
we are.
  I came to the Chamber to quote from Benjamin Franklin when he 
addressed the Constitutional Convention in 1787. We are about to have 
the 300th anniversary of his birth. America is very proud of Ben 
Franklin--Philadelphia especially. He came from Boston to Philadelphia. 
I came from Russell, Kansas, to Philadelphia. That is where the 
similarities end. We are both carpetbaggers who came to Philadelphia. 
Franklin had a message for the delegates to the Constitutional 
Convention, and I am going to read only part of it because I know 
Senator Byrd is on his way, and I am constrained to stop when he 
arrives.
  This is what Benjamin Franklin said to the delegates at the 
Constitutional Convention, and it applies to the PATRIOT Act. His 
message is that it is not perfect, it hasn't satisfied everybody, but 
it is the best we can do, so let's do it. This is what he said:

       Mr. President, I confess that there are several parts of 
     this Constitution which I do not at present approve. But I am 
     not sure I shall never approve them; for having lived long, I 
     have experienced many instances of being obliged by better 
     information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even 
     on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found 
     to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the 
     more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more 
     respect to the judgment of others.

  Franklin goes on to say:

       I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may 
     be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble 
     the number of men to have the advantage of their joint 
     wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their 
     prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their 
     local interests, their selfish views. From such an assembly 
     can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes 
     me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to 
     perfection as it does;

  Then he concludes with this paragraph:

       On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that 
     every member of the Convention who may still have objections 
     to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his 
     own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put 
     his name to this instrument.

  It is not exactly the same. The Senator from Minnesota, who is 
presiding, is not George Washington, and I am not Benjamin Franklin. 
But these are very wise words. I would ask if there are any of our 
colleagues who are listening or any of our staff members of our 
colleagues who are listening who would be willing to take up the 
question of changing a vote. They might have to eat a little crow. They 
might have to lose a little face. Maybe it is worth it for the welfare 
of the country.
  There can always be amendments to the act. I am not making any 
commitments to any changes, but the Judiciary Committee will consider 
them. This act will not be engraved in granite. There will be an 
opportunity for changes to be made--again, no commitments--but when we 
are faced with the alternative of either having the conference report 
or no act, I think it is pretty clear what the conclusion ought to be. 
I have talked to some of my colleagues earlier today who don't like 
where we stand now, who don't want the responsibility for not having an 
act. So it takes seven. I will be around all day, all day tomorrow. We 
could vote, as the majority leader has said, on a motion for 
reconsideration if the body is inclined to do so, if there is some 
opportunity to adopt the conference report.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of 
Franklin's statement be printed in the Record.

             Benjamin Franklin: On the Constitution (1787)

       Mr. President: I confess that there are several parts of 
     this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am 
     not sure I shall never approve them; for having lived long, I 
     have experienced many instances of being obliged by better 
     information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even 
     on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found 
     to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the 
     more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more 
     respect to the judgment of others.
       Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think 
     themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever 
     others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a 
     Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only 
     difference between our Churches in their opinions of the 
     certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is 
     infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. 
     But though many private persons think almost as highly of 
     their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express 
     it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a dispute 
     with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister 
     but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the 
     right. ``Je ne trouve que moi qui aie toujours raison.''
       In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with 
     all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general 
     Government necessary for us, and there is no form of 
     Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well 
     administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be 
     well administered for a course of years, and can only end in 
     Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the 
     people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic 
     Government, being incapable of any other.
       (I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, 
     may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you 
     assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint 
     wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their 
     prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their 
     local interests, and their selfish views. From such an 
     assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore 
     astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near 
     to perfection as it does;) and I think it will astonish our 
     enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our 
     councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; 
     and that our States are on the point of separation, only to 
     meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's 
     throats.

[[Page S14113]]

       Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect 
     no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the 
     best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to 
     the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them 
     abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they 
     shall die. If every one of us in returning to our 
     Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, 
     and endeavor to gain partisans in support of them, we might 
     prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all 
     the salutary effects and great advantages resulting naturally 
     in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among 
     ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity.
       Much of the strength and efficiency of any Government in 
     procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on 
     opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the 
     Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its 
     Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part 
     of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act 
     heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution 
     (if approved by Congress and confirmed by the Conventions) 
     wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future 
     thoughts and endeavors to the means of having it well 
     administered.
       On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that 
     every member of the Convention who may still have objections 
     to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his 
     own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put 
     his name to this instrument.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I see Senator Byrd entering the Chamber, 
so I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for regular order, that we return to 
the bill. As I understand it, Senator Specter was speaking in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time was charged from the majority's time on 
the bill. There was no consent request to do otherwise.
  Mr. GREGG. My understanding is that Senator Specter asked to speak as 
in morning business; am I incorrect in that?
  Mr. SPECTER. That was my intention, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator asked to speak until Senator Byrd 
arrived.
  Mr. SPECTER. I did ask to speak, and it was my intention to have it 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
time is charged in morning business.
  Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding that we are now going to Senator 
Byrd, then Senator Ensign, and then going back to the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for the interest of colleagues, Senator 
Byrd will be speaking for 15 minutes. Then we will go back to the 
majority side. Then we will come back to this side with Senator 
Lautenberg for 10 minutes, and then Senator Clinton for 10 minutes, and 
then Senator Talent. This is not, I want to make clear, a unanimous 
consent request. This is an advisory to our colleagues so that we can 
manage this time efficiently.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the time, if the Chair will advise 
the majority and the minority?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 1 hour 21 minutes remaining. 
The minority has 1 hour 33 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week, I was pleased to join a strong 
bipartisan majority of the Senate in support of a motion that 
instructed budget conferees to strike an ill-conceived House provision 
from the budget reconciliation bill. That provision sought to repeal 
the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also known as CDSOA. Last 
Thursday, the Senate voted overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly--by a vote of 
71 to 20 to strike any repeal of CDSOA from the budget reconciliation 
bill.
  The Senate supported CDSOA. Why? Because the Senate recognized that 
any repeal or attempt to abandon this trade law would be a travesty--a 
travesty--on justice. The House agreed, and last Friday the House 
passed a similar motion to instruct which contained, among other 
things, language to strike repeal of CDSOA from the House-passed bill.
  The vote on that successful House motion to instruct was 246 to 175. 
What could be clearer than that? The House vote on that motion was 246 
to 175. And yet--get this, hear me now--over the weekend--yes, over the 
weekend literally in the dead of night when all was still, nothing was 
stirring, in the dead of night--a small number of misguided House and 
Senate conferees decided to turn their backs--turn their backs, on the 
American worker.
  Hear me out there, the American workers all over this country. Hear 
me, hear me out there on the Great Plains. Hear me out there in the 
river valleys. Hear me out there in the mountains of West Virginia. 
Hear me out there in the great Rocky Mountains. Hear me out there on 
the west coast, the American workers, the American workers.
  So this small group decided to ignore the will--hear me--ignore the 
will of both Houses of Congress. That was blatant, was it not? They 
decided to repeal CDSOA after 2 years. What arrogance, what sheer, 
unmitigated, raw arrogance. Fie on you. Shame, shame, shame. CDSOA was 
enacted to save American manufacturing and our agricultural producers 
from wave after wave after wave of unfairly traded foreign imports. Let 
me say that again. Hear it again. Hear me again. CDSOA was enacted. 
Why? To save American manufacturing and American agricultural producers 
from wave after wave after wave of unfairly traded foreign imports. It 
is one of the most successful trade programs ever enacted. Alleluia. It 
enables small and medium-sized businesses and family-owned businesses 
to invest in their futures.
  This law preserves an increasingly rare commodity in these United 
States, a vanishing breed, the American worker. Five years ago, a 
bipartisan majority of the Senate approved this provision to reimburse 
U.S. companies injured by unfair foreign trade. Let me say that again. 
Five years ago, a bipartisan majority, Republican and Democrat, of the 
Senate approved this provision to reimburse U.S. companies injured by 
unfair foreign trade.
  Under the law, each year Customs distributes duties collected from 
unfair imports to American companies, to American workers, who can 
prove they have been materially injured by unfair trade. What could be 
better than that? What could be more fair? What could be more just than 
that? Under the law, each year Customs distributes duties collected 
from unfair imports to American companies and workers who can prove 
that they--these American companies and workers--have been materially 
injured by unfair trade.
  CDSOA was enacted to restore conditions of fair trade so that jobs 
that should stay in the United States are not destroyed by unfair 
foreign competition. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with that? 
Hear me.
  While the amounts distributed under the program are not large, from a 
budget perspective, approximately $226 million for fiscal year 2005, 
the law has been critically important--hear me--the law has been 
critically important to American companies and American workers hurt by 
dumped and unfairly subsidized imports. I am speaking on behalf of 
American companies and American workers who have been injured by these 
unfair imports, these subsidized imports.
  To receive reimbursement under the law, companies certify in writing 
that they have made qualifying expenditures in support of their workers 
and their facilities. The law reimburses them only for those 
expenditures. I will say that again. The law reimburses them only for 
those expenditures in support of their workers and facilities. The 
Customs Service verifies any claims submitted to make certain that 
requests for reimbursement are valid. Consequently, there are stringent 
safeguards in place under the law to make certain that funds are 
distributed under the law legally, honestly, and fairly.
  Critics of the law--yes, listen to them, critics of the law--argue 
that the WTO has ruled against it so we should abandon it. Shame. But 
the WTO had no legal authority to rule against this law.
  This means that the WTO's ruling was beyond the scope of its legal 
mandate, and to this day, Tuesday, the 20th day of December in the year 
of our Lord 2005, the WTO has never articulated a legitimate argument 
justifying any need for the United States to repeal this law. They have 
not done it. They cannot do it. They cannot do it. They have not done 
it.

[[Page S14114]]

  Nearly 800 American companies and workers in nearly every State of 
the Nation--not just in West Virginia, not just in the steel trade in 
West Virginia or Pennsylvania or Kentucky or Ohio, workers in nearly 
every State of the Nation receive distributions under this law's 
provisions. It is critical to family-owned businesses such as Warwood 
Tools in Wheeling, WV, and to Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel and to Weirton, 
WV. It is equally important to the thousands of steelworkers in 
Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Michigan, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South 
Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and elsewhere across the 
Nation. They, and all hard-working Americans, deserve to continue to 
receive these funds so long as foreign traders keep on dumping 
illegally. Illegally. If our trading partners do not like this trade 
law, the solution is easy. The solution is not to repeal the law. If 
our trading partners are offended by the law, I have only two words for 
them. Hear me, only two words for them: Stop dumping. It is that 
simple: two little words: Stop dumping. If you, our trading partners, 
are offended by the law, bless your hearts, I have two words for you, 
our trading partners that are dumping: Stop dumping.

  The United States is working to complete negotiations in the Doha 
Round of trade talks. What kind of leverage can we maintain over other 
countries in those talks if we meekly agree unilaterally to disarm, to 
repeal one of the strongest and most successful trade remedy laws ever 
enacted in the United States? What a foolhardy, what a simple-minded 
stunt.
  Why don't we hand them a sharp stick to poke our eyes out?
  That would make about as much sense as repealing our trade laws. Now 
is the time to hold foreign unfair traders more accountable, not less--
more accountable, not less.
  I urge my fellow Senators, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join 
me in voting against this budget bill which contains language that 
would repeal this critical trade law.
  While the drafters of the repeal of this law argue that it will 
permit certain duty distributions to continue--at least for the next 2 
years--the text is not exactly clear on this point. So I ask my 
colleagues: Why tamper with a law that works? There is no reason to 
undermine the statute as it is now written. There is no need to repeal 
the law today. There is no need to repeal the law 2 years from now, or 
ever.
  Therefore, with all my heart, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting against the budget reconciliation bill, to make certain that one 
of America's most successful trade laws stays on the books as it is 
currently written.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the deficit 
reduction bill that we have before us after many hours of people 
working together, compromising. You could go through the bill and pick 
out parts that you like and you don't like, so I want to put this in a 
bigger picture. I want to step back and look at what we are dealing 
with as a country.
  Over the next 5 years, we were slated to spend, before this bill, and 
if this bill does not go into effect, we will spend $13.8 trillion. If 
we pass this bill, this deficit reduction bill, we will still spend 
$13.76 trillion. Those numbers are impossible to understand. 
Impossible. They are too big. Let's try to get our arms around a little 
bit of a number.
  I always like to talk about $1 trillion with high school kids so they 
can understand it. I always ask them: Do you think a million dollars is 
a lot of money? And of course a lot of us think a million dollars is a 
lot of money. I ask them: If you spent a million dollars a day, do you 
think you would be spending a lot of money? And the unanimous answer of 
high school kids is: Of course that is a lot of money. I tell them that 
to get to $1 trillion, not $13.76 trillion but just $1 trillion, you 
would have to start spending a million dollars a day, start at the time 
Jesus was born, go until today and you still would not be at $1 
trillion.
  What we are trying to do is to shave and slow the rate of growth of 
spending a tiny bit. It is almost insignificant.
  But what is significant in the bill is that we are starting to take 
on entitlement spending. Entitlement spending now is two-thirds of the 
Federal budget, and it is slated to grow into an ever-increasing share 
of the Federal budget in the future. We all know that. Republicans, 
Democrats, it doesn't matter who looks at the numbers, entitlements 
will gobble up the entire Federal budget.
  If you study democratic forms of government--and I know Senator Byrd, 
who has spoken, has done a lot of this--if you study democratic forms 
of government, they always collapse due to two reasons, and they happen 
in a particular order. The first thing that happens is there is a moral 
collapse in the country, and it is always followed by an economic 
collapse.
  If you think about it, it makes sense that it happens in that order. 
You see, if you have people who are not moral enough to think about the 
next generation, what they do is they elect people to office who will 
give them what they want by borrowing from the Treasury; in other 
words, borrowing from the next generations. When the debt gets too 
large, this debt gets so large the economy cannot handle it and you end 
up with all kinds of economic problems and finally an economic 
collapse.
  We are headed for that if we do not get entitlements under control. 
That is why this bill, even though it is a small amount of money--if 
you listen to the other side, you would think the sky is falling, as 
far as spending is concerned.
  This is a tiny, insignificant almost, amount of money. But it is 
significant in that we are finally starting to tackle entitlement 
spending. That is why this bill is so important.
  So when we hear the debate on both sides, boil it down to this very 
simple thing. Are we going to care enough about the next generation to 
finally start saying no to some of this big Federal Government 
spending? I believe it is time this body stands up. Instead of being 
selfish, instead of giving our voters what they want so they keep 
sending us back here, let's stand up and do what is right and think 
about future generations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, 
Senator Wyden is next. We have been told he is on his way. We hope he 
will appear shortly. Then we will have Senator Grassley at 
approximately 4 o'clock. He will go for 20 or 30 minutes, or something 
like that.
  At this point, maybe it is an appropriate time to try to sum up some 
of the arguments we have tried to make with respect to this budget.
  The matter before us reduces spending by $40 billion over a 5-year 
period. During that period, we will be spending $14.3 trillion.
  In the first year, this package saves $5 billion. The tax cuts the 
House wants to apply in that same period are $21 billion. That doesn't 
reduce the deficit. It increases the deficit.
  The thing that is I think most disturbing about this budget plan is, 
according to its advocates, the debt of the country increases by $600 
billion or $700 billion a year, each and every year of the 5 years of 
this budget. That is unsustainable. We are not making any serious 
progress. In fact, this package makes things worse.
  I see Senator Wyden is here.
  I yield up to 15 minutes to Senator Wyden.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota.
  I have come to the floor this afternoon to bring to the Senate's 
attention a new development with respect to the Arctic Refuge--a 
development that has taken place in the last 24 hours that I think has 
great implications for the budget work the Senate is doing here this 
week. It also speaks volumes about the lack of consumer protection we 
are seeing in our country generally.
  We have heard a lot in the past few days----
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? I 
want the body to know, to the extent people are listening outside, the 
ANWR language is not in this bill. The Senator is speaking to another 
bill which will follow. Is that correct?
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire is correct in a technical sense.

[[Page S14115]]

But I am going to discuss something that will have, in my view, great 
ramifications for the Federal budget generally, and I am going to 
outline that briefly this afternoon.
  We have heard a lot during the past few days about the rights of 
Alaskans as an argument to justify drilling for oil in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. But yesterday, the Alaska Gasline Port 
Authority, an Alaska state-chartered agency, charged two of the 
companies that have drilling rights in the Arctic Refuge with 
conspiring to manipulate the State of Alaska's energy market. The 
Alaska Gasline lawsuit charges that ExxonMobil and BP withheld supplies 
of natural gas to gain market power over supply. This is a very 
significant development with, in my view, great implications for Arctic 
oil drilling.
  If these allegations are correct--that ExxonMobil and BP withheld 
Alaskan gas supplies from the market--what would stop these companies 
from withholding oil from Arctic drilling from the market? If Alaskan 
oil supplies are withheld from the market, that does nothing to reduce 
our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. It also produces no revenue to 
the Federal Treasury that supporters of Arctic oil drilling claim fund 
hurricane relief and other programs.
  These serious charges about oil company manipulation of Alaska's 
energy supplies are not made by some leftwing group but by an agency 
chartered by the State of Alaska.
  An article in today's Wall Street Journal quotes Walter Hickel, a 
former Republican Governor of Alaska, as saying the lawsuit against 
these major oil companies ``reveals a story of extreme corporate greed 
that has abused Alaska and punished the American consumer.''
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this article be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       An Alaska state authority charged that BP PLC and Exxon 
     Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil 
     companies, are conspiring to withhold natural gas from U.S. 
     markets and reinforce their market power over North Slope 
     supplies.
       In an antitrust suit filed late yesterday in federal court 
     in Fairbanks, the Alaska Gasline Port Authority alleged that 
     a series of illegal agreements and acquisitions by the 
     companies has choked the flow of the state's vast gas 
     reserves. It seeks to stop the companies' alleged collusion 
     through a court injunction and unspecified damages.
       Exxon and BP spokesman both denied the accusations that the 
     companies were trying to delay exports of gas from Alaska. 
     ``This is another sobering reminder of our litigation-crazed 
     society. This suit is frivolous and it's totally without 
     merit,'' says Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts.
       The lawsuit is the latest twist in a 30-year effort to move 
     the estimated 37 trillion cubic feet of natural gas within 
     Alaska's sprawling oil field, enough to satisfy two year's 
     worth of U.S. demand. There is currently no significant 
     natural-gas production in the North Slope; gas now produced 
     by oil wells is injected into underground reservoirs. The 
     dispute comes at a time when U.S. natural-gas prices are 
     soaring.
       The port authority, created in 1999 to build a gas 
     pipeline, says it has $18 billion in federal guarantees and 
     the permits to build a pipeline from the North Slope to 
     Valdez in the southern part of the state, where gas would be 
     liquefied and loaded onto tankers. But BP and Exxon favor an 
     alternative, longer pipeline through Canada, a pipeline over 
     which they would have more control, the authority charges.
       Talks between the state and producers on building the 
     longer pipeline have stalled. BP and Exxon Mobil, which 
     produced a combined 1.7 trillion cubic feet of gas last year 
     in the U.S., about 9% of the domestic total, have balked at 
     the state's terms; a third producer ConocoPhillips, agreed to 
     the state's basic terms in October. The natural-gas pipeline 
     disputes aren't related to the battle in Congress over 
     opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas 
     exploration.
       The Alaska Gasline Port Authority said that BP's refusal to 
     agree to ship its natural gas and Exxon Mobil's failure to 
     develop its huge fields amounts to ``warehousing'' a 
     desperately needed resource in an effort to drive up prices. 
     ``Gas prices are at record highs, and big oil companies still 
     won't move the gas to market,'' authority Chairman Jim 
     Whitaker said in a statement.
       BP and Exxon Mobil argue a pipeline through Canada to the 
     Midwest would increase the value of the gas by delivering it 
     directly to gas-hungry markets. They say that the 
     alternative, shorter route to Valdez--which allows for a spur 
     to send gas through Canada--would generate less revenue and 
     expose the $20 billion project to greater risk. BP and Exxon 
     also expect to have a bigger financial stake in the longer 
     pipeline than the one favored by the Alaska Gasline Port 
     Authority.
       BP spokesman David MacDowell said, ``We are working as fast 
     as we can to get a clear and durable fiscal contract with the 
     state of Alaska so that this natural-gas project can move 
     forward to the next stage.'' As for the Valdez option, he 
     said, ``we've spent millions of dollars over the years trying 
     to make an Alaskan LNG [liquefied natural gas] project work, 
     but it doesn't work.''
       He defended producers' ownership of pipelines, saying that 
     ``no one else is as motivated as the resource owners to build 
     the lowest cost, most efficient transportation system 
     possible.''
       Exxon says negotiations have been continuing for months and 
     are in an advanced stage. ``This is one of the largest, most 
     complex industrial projects ever considered by any 
     industry,'' says Mr. Roberts, the Exxon spokesman, and 
     negotiations over the voluminous details should run their 
     course, rather than be litigated in the courts.
       The delays in exploiting Alaska's natural gas have become a 
     political issue from Alaska to Washington. Walter Hickel, a 
     former Republican governor of Alaska and former U.S. 
     Secretary of the Interior, said the authority's suit 
     ``reveals a story of extreme corporate greed that has abused 
     Alaska and punished the American consumer.''
       Mr. Hickel, a longtime supporter of Alaska gas development, 
     said that ``the producers have conspired for years to delay 
     the export of Alaska liquefied natural gas.''
       House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said he expected energy 
     companies to ``do their part to help ease the pain'' of high 
     oil and gas prices, and specifically cited BP and Exxon 
     Mobil's failure to come to terms with Alaska over the 
     proposed pipeline.
       The authority's legal team includes David Boies, of Boies 
     Schiller & Flexner in New York, and Charles Cole of 
     Fairbanks, the former Alaska attorney general.
       In a news conference last night, Mr. Boies said the two 
     companies had illegally conspired to refuse to deal with the 
     authority, as part of a broad effort ``to preserve the 
     scarcity that has driven natural-gas prices to historic 
     highs.''

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the legislative rider attached to the 
Defense appropriations conference report that would open the Arctic 
Wildlife Refuge to drilling gives the same two companies the Alaska 
Gasline Port Authority charges with colluding to withhold Alaskan gas 
supplies a tremendous sweetheart economic deal.
  In addition to being an abuse of the legislative process, attaching 
this rider to the Defense appropriations bill, in my view, is bad 
environmental policy, bad budget policy, and most particularly bad 
energy policy. As a result of this rider, the Defense spending bill, 
which contains money critical for our troops, is getting held hostage 
for special interest legislation for the oil industry. The rider that 
was grafted onto the Defense bill provides unprecedented waivers for 
Federal environmental and other laws, including the National Wildlife 
Refuge Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Federal 
Mineral Leasing Act.
  The Arctic drilling legislation also overrides current law to reduce 
the State of Alaska's share of the revenue produced by Arctic oil 
drilling.
  Under current law, 90 percent of those receipts would be paid to the 
State of Alaska and the remaining 10 percent to the U.S. Treasury.
  The rider that was plucked from the budget reconciliation spending 
bill and grafted onto the Defense appropriations conference report 
changes the allocation in current law to permit the Federal Government 
to retain 50 percent of the receipts. The State of Alaska has 
threatened to sue to get the full 90 percent of the revenues. If that 
lawsuit succeeds, then 40 percent of the revenues that the Defense 
spending bill assumes will be available for hurricane recovery, LIHEAP, 
and other purposes will not be there at all. If the State loses, then 
its rights will have successfully been overridden. One way or another, 
either the State of Alaska or the Federal taxpayer is going to end up 
getting shortchanged.

  Most importantly, if the charges we have heard in the last 24 hours 
of withholding gas supply are true, there would be nothing to stop the 
same oil companies the Alaska Gasline Port Authority is charging with 
gas market manipulation from manipulating Alaskan oil markets. Nothing 
in the rider on the Defense bill would in any way prevent the companies 
from engaging in the same conduct they have been charged with by an 
Alaska-chartered agency with respect to oil drilling in the Arctic.
  The actions of the Alaska Gasline Port Authority this week against 
ExxonMobil and BP, in my view, raise a host of fundamental questions. 
First, whose rights is the Arctic drilling rider

[[Page S14116]]

supposed to uphold? The State of Alaska? Or the major oil companies? 
How will drilling in the Arctic truly affect our Nation's energy 
security? What are the real budget revenues that Arctic drilling will 
produce?
  The Congressional Budget Office's revenue estimates for Arctic oil 
drilling assume that the oil companies will move quickly to develop 
oilfields in the Arctic Refuge. These assumptions do not factor in the 
prospect of oil companies choking off the flow of oil, as the Alaska 
Gasline Port Authority alleged is being done by ExxonMobil and BP now 
with Alaskan gas supplies.
  The other question that begs to be asked about the Alaska Gasline 
lawsuit is where in the world was the Federal Government, particularly 
the consumer protection regulators, who are supposed to be policing the 
kind of collusion that is alleged in the lawsuit of the Alaska Gasline 
Port Authority this week? What has the Federal Trade Commission, the 
so-called consumer watchdog agency, done to stop what former Alaska 
Governor Hickel has called ``extreme corporate greed that has abused 
Alaska and punished the American consumer.''
  The response is, unfortunately, the same as what we have seen from 
the Federal Trade Commission over the last few years when it comes to 
oil company mega mergers, price gouging at the gas pump and other 
anticompetitive practices. The consumer watchdog seems to be taking a 
long winter nap when it comes to energy. This is yet another example of 
the Federal Trade Commission's perpetual hibernation when it comes to 
protecting the consumer who is getting clobbered by escalating energy 
costs.
  If an agency of the State of Alaska, with no more than a handful of 
lawyers, is able to take action against collusion by the world's 
largest oil companies, why isn't the Federal Government's premier 
consumer protection agency, with scores of lawyers, able to protect 
consumers?
  Last week I spoke at length on this issue. In fact, the distinguished 
Presiding Officer of the Senate was in the chair at that time. He is 
very much aware I intend to continue to raise my concerns about why the 
Federal Trade Commission keeps ducking this critical consumer 
protection issue.
  This latest news about the Alaska Gasline Port Authority bringing an 
antitrust action against major oil company collusion in energy markets, 
in my view, is especially troubling. It calls out for further 
investigation by both the Congress and the Federal Trade Commission. In 
my view, it is the Congress's job to investigate whether the claims 
made by the advocates of Arctic oil drilling hold up, given what the 
Alaska Gasline Port Authority is alleging this week about two of the 
oil companies that hold Arctic drilling rights.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume but not more than 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I comment on the Senate Committee 
on Finance portion of the Deficit Reduction Act, I will go over some 
ground that has been covered by other Members on our side of the aisle 
through this chart or similar charts, to point out how three 
entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--as a 
percentage of the gross domestic product are going to continue to grow 
and grow and grow until reaching a point where it squeezes out almost 
everything else in the Federal budget.
  This is already legislated. The red on the chart, if we do nothing, 
is where we end up.
  This bill is doing something about that problem. But we ought to be 
doing a lot more.
  I start out by saying what we are doing in this entire deficit 
reduction package is reducing expenditures of the Federal Government 
over the next 5 years. Five years is the length of the budget 
reconciliation changes that we are making. During that 5-year period of 
time, the Federal Government will spend about $12.5 trillion. We are 
cutting out of that $12.5 trillion, a 5-year figure, about $10 billion 
as shown in the red part of the chart.
  The reason I try to put that in perspective, one-quarter of 1 percent 
is at $40 billion, compared to the $12.5 trillion. That is a spit in 
the ocean compared to what the problem is.
  I point out two things. We will hear from Members of this Senate, 
mostly from the other side of the aisle, that it is catastrophic we are 
making changes to one-quarter of 1 percent in all the money the Federal 
Government is going to spend over the next 5 years. It is catastrophic. 
The world is coming to an end, we will hear.
  Then, from the other point of view, considering what these problems 
are that we know we face today--and no Republican or Democrat disagrees 
with that--for what we are doing we ought to be somewhat ashamed we 
cannot do more than one-quarter of 1 percent of all the money the 
Federal Government is going to spend in the next 5 years.
  For the average American who votes and thinks that Washington, DC, is 
on some other land from the standpoint of what we do in the Congress, 
they would say to both sides of the argument that the world is coming 
to an end, that we are going to eliminate or reduce one-quarter of 1 
percent or to those that are bragging--I will be in that category of 
bragging--about doing something about one-quarter of 1 percent, they 
are going to say, you guys have to be crazy if you cannot find in all 
the money that the Federal Government spends, some way of saving more 
than one-quarter of 1 percent of the $12.5 trillion that will be spent 
over the next 5 years. They would probably say you ought to go out and 
find some other work where you can accomplish something.
  Those are the extreme points of view. That is what I think the public 
is probably going to say to us at our town meetings when we go back 
home if we are going to brag about this, or maybe to the people that 
are going to complain about it, asking if we are really doing much. It 
is similar to all the labor that an elephant will go through to give 
birth and then give birth to a mouse. That is what we have here, a 
mouse compared to the elephant of a problem.
  I take an opportunity to explain what is in the Senate Committee on 
Finance portion of this bill. Senator Gregg needs to be complimented 
for getting us where we are today on this conference agreement. What I 
described, one-quarter of 1 percent of all money over the next 5 years, 
$12.5 trillion worth, this is the first time we have gone through this 
process in almost 10 years.
  So we do not do this every year. And the public watching would say: 
Why don't you do it every year? I wish I had a responsible answer for 
that. But I think we ought to recognize Senator Gregg's involvement and 
the involvement of all the chairmen of the committees in putting 
together, over several months, this budget reconciliation package for 
spending to achieve this goal, and achieving this goal regardless of 
how small it might be.
  It is important for the reason I have given you, that by all 
accounts, the growth in entitlement spending has monumental 
implications for our Nation's economic and financial strength.
  The chart I just spoke about shows the Congressional Budget Office's 
projections for mandatory spending, including Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid. According to this chart, by 2050 mandatory 
spending will approach 30 percent of the Nation's gross domestic 
product. That is 30 percent by 2050. This would push Federal spending 
well above the levels that it has been throughout much of the post-
World War II period, as evidenced by that straight line that goes 
across that chart.
  This might be, hopefully, a worst case scenario, but it is a 
plausible scenario. The agreement that we are going to be voting on, 
called the budget reconciliation package, begins to get at this 
situation--the red on this chart--by achieving nearly $40 billion in 
savings over the next 5 years. That includes $6.4 billion in net 
Medicare savings and $4.7 billion in net Medicaid savings.
  I actually hesitate to mention those amounts because for many of our 
constituents it is hard to get past the numbers. To them, any 
reduction--any reduction--even if it is only one-fourth of 1 percent, 
is a bad reduction. But the policy--and we ought to be making decisions 
in this body based upon sound

[[Page S14117]]

policy--the policy behind these reductions is sound, just as the policy 
behind the numerous spending provisions in this entire package is 
sound.
  Throughout this process I have sought to reduce wasteful spending, 
eliminate loopholes, and pay providers more accurately. I have sought 
to advance policies that will ensure the availability of important 
health care and social services, to update these programs to reflect 
our Nation's changing needs, and also to promote the delivery of high-
quality health care services.
  The agreement makes some important improvements in the Medicare 
Program, not the least of which is addressing a scheduled reduction in 
payments to physicians, which could have led to access problems for 
beneficiaries. The agreement builds on progress made 3 years ago that 
linked increases in Medicare payments to hospitals to the reporting of 
quality data.
  I actually would have preferred to do more in the area of pay for 
performance, and I will continue to push further for changes because we 
just cannot sit back on this issue, as the private sector is moving 
much faster than Government, particularly the major corporations of 
America, in making sure they do their health care business with people 
in the health care profession and institutions in the health care 
profession that are going to deliver quality care. We have to be more 
concerned about this than we have in the past in the Federal 
Government.
  Medicare is the single largest payer of health care in the Nation. 
Taxpayers and beneficiaries deserve to get the highest value for every 
Medicare dollar spent. Unfortunately, there is no question that today 
we are not getting the most value for the taxpayer dollar.
  The bill also takes steps to ensure access to quality care in rural 
communities. It does this by reinstating special payment programs, such 
as a 5-percent add-on for rural home health providers, the Medicare 
dependent hospital program, and the hold-harmless payments for small 
rural hospitals.
  The conference agreement also includes coverage of valuable 
preventive benefits not covered by Medicare. These preventive benefits 
are important to prevent illnesses and to keep beneficiaries healthy.
  This bill also saves beneficiaries and Medicare money by changing the 
payment structure for durable medical equipment.
  Now Medicare will only pay for DME services that are needed; that is, 
after we get this passed.
  I would like to look at Medicaid changes.
  In our efforts to reform the Medicaid Program, we take some very 
important steps, many of them recommended by a bipartisan group of our 
Nation's Governors. Eventually, all 50 Governors made suggestions to us 
in a unanimous agreement.
  Let's just look at long-term care. In the very near future, a lot of 
older people are going to need long-term care. Right now, Medicaid is a 
primary payer for long-term care services. The Deficit Reduction Act 
expands the Long-Term Care Partnership Program and will promote 
awareness about long-term care insurance.
  We combine that with a policy to tighten restrictions on seniors' 
ability to transfer or hide assets with the intention of qualifying for 
Medicaid. These policies protect the integrity of Medicaid and create 
an incentive for seniors to explore new long-term care options.
  The agreement will ensure accurate payments to pharmacies for the 
cost of drugs, and it has little effect on the market.
  We give States the ability to offer Medicaid beneficiaries coverage 
more consistent with coverage typically offered by employers, while at 
the same time guaranteeing that children do not lose any benefits 
currently provided under Medicaid.
  We include protections for preventive services and treatment for 
children. This bill continues to require States which cover early, 
periodic, screening, diagnosis, and treatment services to continue to 
do that. The language of the bill is very clear.
  Mr. President, on that very point, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record a statement by Dr. McClellan, Administrator of 
CMS, supporting our interpretation of the provisions.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Statement by Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Ph.D, Administrator, Centers for 
                      Medicare & Medicaid Services

       Questions have been raised about the new section 1937 of 
     the Social Security Act (SSA) (as added by the Deficit 
     Reduction Act of 2005) that permits states to provide 
     Medicaid benefits to children through benchmark coverage or 
     benchmark equivalent coverage. If a state chooses to exercise 
     this option, the specific issue has been raised as to whether 
     children under 19 will still be entitled to receive EPSDT 
     benefits in addition to the benefits provided by the 
     benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent coverage. The 
     short answer is; children under 19 will receive EPSDT 
     benefits.
       After a careful review, including consultation with the 
     Office of General Counsel, CMS has determined that children 
     under 19 will still be entitled to receive EPSDT benefits if 
     enrolled in benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent 
     coverage under the new section 1937. CMS will review each 
     State plan amendment (SPA) submitted under the new section 
     1937 and will not approve any SPA that does not include the 
     provision of EPSDT services for children under 19 as defined 
     in section 1905(r) of the SSA.
       In the case of children under the age of 19, new section 
     1937 (a)(1) is clear that a state may exercise the option to 
     provide Medicaid benefits through enrollment in coverage that 
     at a minimum has two parts. The first part of the coverage 
     will be benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent coverage, 
     as required by subsection (a)(1)(A)(i), and the second part 
     of the coverage will be wrap-around coverage of EPDST 
     services as defined in section 1905(r) of the SSA, as 
     required by subsection (a)(1)(A)(ii). A State cannot exercise 
     the option under section 1937 with respect to children under 
     19 if EPSDT services are not included in the total coverage 
     provided to such children.
       Subparagraph (C) of section 1937 (a)(1) permits states to 
     also add wrap-around or additional benefits. In the case of 
     children under 19, wrap-around or additional benefits that a 
     state could choose to provide under subparagraph (C) must be 
     a benefit in addition to the benchmark coverage or benchmark 
     equivalent coverage and the EPSDT services that the state is 
     already required to provide under subparagraph (A) of that 
     section. Subparagraph (C) does not in any way give a state 
     the flexibility to fail to provide the EPSDT services 
     required by subparagraph (A)(ii) of section I 937(a)(1).

  Mr. GRASSLEY. We also include policies that give States the option of 
asking for a limited set of Medicaid beneficiaries to share in the cost 
of their care.
  The cost-sharing policy excludes anyone under the Federal poverty 
level, mandatory children, adoption or foster care children, 
preventative care and immunizations for all children, pregnancy-related 
services, hospice residents, and women who qualify for Medicaid under 
the breast and cervical cancer eligibility group.
  It is a reasonable, responsible policy that I encourage my colleagues 
to support. These are all modifications of what the House of 
Representatives did in their provisions in this area.
  These are important, measured first steps that our Governors, in this 
communication to the Congress to which I previously referred, have 
asked for, on a bipartisan basis, to reform the Medicaid Program.
  Now, the Medicaid Program is a Federal-State program. It is a big 
cost to the Governors. If we have Governors, 50 of them, of both 
political parties, coming to us and saying: We can tell you how to 
spend your taxpayers' dollars more wisely, and we will save some money 
at the State level, and we will be able to serve more people--they came 
to us and said that to us. And this document responds to that.
  I don't know how 100 Senators can put their judgment--just in case 
they disagree with what we are trying to do. I suppose if they agree, 
this doesn't apply to them. I don't know how those Senators who 
disagree with what we are doing on a Federal-State program can put 
their judgment above that of 50 Governors who are almost equally 
divided between Republicans and Democrats.
  This bill also dramatically increases funding to protect Medicaid 
from fraud and abuse. It does so by creating a Medicaid integrity 
program that mirrors a similar program already in place in the sister 
program of Medicare.
  The agreement incorporates the Family Opportunity Act. This is a 
major improvement in Medicaid. This is a program that Senator Kennedy 
and I have been working on for 7 years. These provisions will help 
families meet the needs of their children with disabilities. Right now, 
these parents,

[[Page S14118]]

if they have a child with disabilities, face difficult decisions. I can 
document this among my own constituents in Iowa, that time and time 
again, many parents of disabled children tell me of their struggles 
getting health care for their children with costly special needs.
  Many parents have been effectively forced to quit their jobs, to take 
low-paying jobs so this child with costly medical care can qualify for 
Medicaid. Why? Because the services their child needs are not available 
with private health insurance. So they need the assistance of Medicaid.
  This policy we presently have in place and in the Family Opportunity 
Act turns by 180 degrees; it is totally backward.
  This agreement allows States to give these parents in this situation 
the option to buy into Medicaid while continuing to work and probably 
in most cases continuing to pay taxes. These are folks who want to work 
and can work, and we should not have a disincentive to productive 
employment in America just because some family has a child with special 
very expensive health needs.
  Moving on, the agreement also fills shortfalls in funding of their 
State children's health insurance programs that States would have 
experienced just next year.
  We also include $2 billion to assist Louisiana, Alabama, and 
Mississippi, as well as other States to meet health care needs of 
people whose lives were devastated by Katrina. It extends TANF Programs 
with a few minor improvements. It closes several loopholes in TANF and 
in child support, while providing funding for childcare, child welfare, 
and allowing more child support to go directly to families.
  For nearly 4 years, I have tried to reauthorize TANF in the regular 
order. Without any help from Democrats, I reported a bill out of the 
last Congress on a partisan basis. That year, Senator Frist devoted a 
week for the consideration of welfare. The first floor amendment 
offered on behalf of Senator Snowe would have increased childcare 
spending by $6 billion--I voted for it--bringing the total childcare 
money to $7 billion. That passed with 78 votes. Unfortunately, even 
with that victory which they won, Democrats blocked it.
  I kept trying, and this year I worked out a bipartisan bill with 
Senator Baucus that the committee reported out on a voice vote. But 
again, efforts to reauthorize welfare in regular order have stalled. If 
we don't pass the Deficit Reduction Act, we will have to extend TANF 
for a 12th time. That is an unconscionable way to legislate. States 
cannot continue operating their welfare programs unsure of what the 
next reauthorization will bring.

  Advocates complain that the $1 billion is not enough childcare money. 
But I say to them, where were you over the past year when there was $6 
billion on the table and I was committed to bringing that $6 billion 
out of conference or we would not have had a conference report on TANF?
  There has never been enough childcare money to satisfy those on the 
far left--$5.5 billion wasn't enough; $7 billion wasn't enough. I don't 
even know if $20 billion would have been enough. The fact remains that 
there hasn't been an increase in childcare for 4 years, and if we 
persist in passing extension after extension, there won't be any new 
childcare money at all.
  As I said in the beginning, it is difficult for many folks to get 
beyond the numbers. But as I laid out here, this agreement includes 
many provisions to provide services that better meet people's needs, 
and it does so by getting rid of waste and abuse in the programs.
  These are dollars that right now we are simply throwing away. They 
get taxpayers and beneficiaries nothing. Without some changes, these 
important programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and TANF will be driven into 
the ground. That some folks don't support these changes--well, to me, I 
believe they cannot see the forest for the trees.
  The agreement before us includes sound policies. It achieves savings 
by reducing wasteful spending, closing loopholes, and taking steps to 
pay providers more accurately. It improves oversight of Medicaid to 
crack down on fraud and wasteful spending. It establishes policies to 
help families and beneficiaries and to ensure long-term viability of 
these programs. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time for Senator 
Gregg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, last week, I came to the floor to speak 
against the proposed reconciliation bill, and I used the analogy of the 
Grinch who stole Christmas. At that time, we did not have a conference 
report yet before us, and I hoped that we might make some significant 
changes in what would be sent to us after the House acted.
  Unfortunately, although there were some changes, the overall impact 
of what has been sent to the Senate for action is disappointing and 
deeply disturbing. While the Grinch stole the gifts, the decorations, 
and even the Christmas tree, this budget slashes hope. It slashes 
opportunity. It slashes support that the least among us need in order 
to be as productive and healthy as possible. This Republican budget 
slashes child support enforcement, Medicaid benefits, student loans, 
and so much else.
  Now, the story of the Grinch who stole Christmas actually has a happy 
ending, because the Grinch, seeing the error of his ways, returned what 
he had taken. Unfortunately, I fear the budget before the Senate today 
does not have a happy ending. It represents a monumental failure by the 
Republicans in Congress to recognize the real priorities that the 
people of America--working families, students, seniors, and 
particularly children--need.
  The Republican priorities are crystal clear in this bill. The 
Republican majority chose $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil 
companies. I don't know how that is a priority. I don't even know how 
that is understandable. The oil companies could not be doing any better 
than they are doing, and we are still giving them more tax breaks from 
hard-working American taxes. We still prohibit the Government from 
negotiating for prescription drugs to lower the cost to Medicare 
beneficiaries, which could save $100 billion for taxpayers. The 
Republicans decided not to eliminate the $5.4 billion Medicare 
insurance company slush fund and, instead, chose to cut home health 
care, hospital quality improvements, imaging services, medical 
equipment, and hospital payments. And as usual, with the Republican 
majority, they decided against cracking down on abusive corporate tax 
shelters such as mailbox headquarters and other loopholes.
  We have heard a lot of this from the eloquent, persuasive 
argumentation by the Democratic ranking member on the Budget Committee, 
the Senator from North Dakota. We have heard from others of our 
colleagues raising the alarm about this ill-conceived budget. But one 
issue that has not yet been raised that I would like to highlight is 
that I think this bill may very well increase the number of unintended 
pregnancies and abortions in our country.
  Why, you might ask? Today contraception and other family planning 
services are provided as a matter of course under Medicaid. We do this 
because it is good for women to have access to such treatments and 
medications. It also prevents unintended pregnancies and, therefore, 
prevents abortions and, therefore, saves money. For every dollar 
Medicaid spends on family planning, the Government saves $3. But this 
bill eliminates the guarantee.
  I don't understand this. We obviously have very strong opinions and 
deeply held convictions about abortion, but are we also divided about 
contraception and family planning? Are we not in this body committed to 
reducing the number of abortions?
  Apparently, we are not because the provision in this reconciliation 
budget that eliminates family planning for Medicaid recipients makes it 
very clear that the majority opposes contraception and family planning, 
which reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
  It makes no sense to me. I thought we were working toward a 
bipartisan agreement that we would try to prevent unwanted pregnancies 
and, therefore, reduce the need for abortion. I sadly predict that if 
this measure stays in the bill, which apparently it is going to because 
we expect to vote on it in the next several hours, the number of 
abortions will go up, the human and financial costs will go up, and 
many women will really be out of luck.

[[Page S14119]]

  The other piece that is so troubling to me is young people aging out 
of foster care. These are young people for whom we try to provide some 
support services by continuing their access to Medicaid. They, too, 
will not have access to family planning.
  This is all about misplaced priorities, choices that do not serve our 
Nation's future and puts the burden of balancing the budget on the 
backs of working families, college students, seniors, single moms, and 
the middle class.
  Consider who is bearing the costs because we know there are winners 
and there are losers. Certainly, the winners will be oil companies, 
drug companies, corporate freeloaders, and deadbeat parents. That is a 
wonderful list of whom we are helping in this Christmas season.
  Despite rising medical expenses that burden middle-class and low-
income Americans, this bill cuts $6.9 billion from Medicaid by slashing 
benefits and increasing costs to beneficiaries. We know there is a 
considerable body of research from RAND to the Urban Institute and many 
others that have found if you increase copays and premium costs, 
beneficiaries will skip needed care and may lose coverage entirely.
  This bill also, for some reason, has it out for college students, the 
very people we should encourage to get their education, to become 
productive citizens, to have competitive jobs in a global economy. The 
bill cuts over $12.7 billion from student loan programs, resulting in 
higher payments for 472,000 New Yorkers today and millions more in the 
years to come.
  The bill also undermines the Direct Loan Program which has been shown 
by every independent analysis to cost as much as 12 times less than the 
private loan program. So I guess we should put the banks on the list of 
winners along with the corporate freeloaders and the deadbeat parents 
and the oil companies.
  As millions of seniors struggle with medical bills, this bill slashes 
$6.4 billion from Medicare over the next 5 years, including a $1.6 
billion increase in Medicare Part B premiums, making it more expensive 
for their seniors to visit their doctor this year instead of last.
  The thing I am still totally amazed by is cutting $4.9 billion in 
child enforcement, eliminating $343 million from foster care programs, 
undermining childcare for working families and TANF that rewards and 
enables work.
  I don't know, Mr. President, I guess there are different priorities 
between us in this Chamber, and I am disappointed in that. Given that 
1.1 million more Americans fell into poverty last year, and over 37 
million Americans, including 13 million children, live in poverty 
today, we are headed in the wrong direction.
  I guess the Republican majority can brag about $2.6 billion in new 
tax cuts for oil companies, $6.9 billion in Medicaid cuts, and cuts to 
foster children, the most vulnerable of all of our citizens. Corporate 
welfare was saved. Student loans were cut. I don't know how you can, 
with a straight face, say that is the kind of priorities we should be 
having at any time but particularly in the Christmas season. But I 
suppose the folks who find these great big tax breaks under their tree 
are going to be grateful.

  The ultimate irony is that this bill is being called deficit 
reduction. We know how to do deficit reduction. We did it in the 1990s. 
We did it by making hard choices. We did it by making it clear that 
nobody was going to get off scot-free, that everybody would have to pay 
their fair share. Tough decisions would be made on both the revenue and 
the spending side.
  This bill doesn't reduce the deficit at all. In fact, it worsens the 
deficit outlook by at least $30 billion. That is going to become even 
more clear when we come back after the first of the year and the 
Republicans give us $70 billion in additional tax cuts. Let's tell 
everybody those tax cuts are, once again, going to help people who have 
been helped already, quite substantially, over the last 5 years.
  It is not doing much for the average American, it is not doing 
anything for some of the poorest of Americans, other than telling them 
they are on their own.
  In a time of war, with the third largest budget shortfall in our 
Nation's history, when we have rising poverty again, the call for 
financial sacrifice by the White House and the Republican Congress 
falls only on families struggling to make ends meet. It falls on our 
children particularly, the poorest of our children, foster care 
children, children whose parents are not providing support for them. It 
doesn't fall on oil companies reaping record profits, not on the drug 
companies, not on the corporate freeloaders, not on the deadbeat 
parents.
  This bill is not in keeping with the spirit of this season or the 
priorities of the American people. I hope that we will do better next 
year. I hope that people will realize, as the Grinch did, that we don't 
need to act in a way that is playing to the lowest common denominator, 
that takes care of the privileged at the expense of everybody else. I 
do think it is fair to say that this bill is unprecedented. Never has 
so much been done for so few who need it so little.
  This is a very sad day in the Senate. I hope we can do better in the 
future on a bipartisan basis, and I hope that the real values of 
America once again are put into action in the Congress.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I understand that we would go to Senator Rockefeller next, 
but in an aside, I simply want to address one or two of the points made 
by the Senator from New York, who always makes excellent points and is 
a very constructive member of the HELP Committee. When I was chairman, 
I enjoyed working with her and I have enjoyed working with her ever 
since. In fact, as I recall, she actually voted for the language which 
was reported from the HELP Committee which essentially accomplished 
what it appears she is concerned about now, which was to take the 
corporate subsidy that lenders get today under the student loan program 
and reduce it.
  As I have discussed before and discussed with Senator Kennedy, and I 
think he appreciates this issue, and some of the other folks who 
brought this issue up, there is no student loan reduction in this bill. 
Student loans are expanded. We create a whole new program for low-
income students who are interested in math and science and we expand 
the money going into Pell grants. Where there is a reduction in this 
bill is in the corporate subsidy area for lenders. If we do not pass 
this bill, as I said earlier, there would be a windfall to corporate 
lenders of about $7 billion. That is why I said my staff corrected me. 
They estimate the windfall to lenders would be closer to $18 billion if 
we do not pass this bill this year and that is a function of the fact 
that the lenders are getting an artificially high interest rate. We are 
taking that down. With the money we receive from that--and it comes out 
of the corporate lenders, not out of the students--we are taking part 
of this and we are putting it into helping more students, especially 
low-income students, be able to go to college.
  If a teacher teaches special needs kids under IDEA, they can have 
$17,500 of their loans forgiven under this bill--$17,500 will be 
forgiven if they go into teaching special needs students because we 
think that is important. If one is a low-income individual who has done 
well in high school in math and science and they decide when they go to 
college that they want to pursue math and science on top of their Pell 
grant, on top of their student loans, they are going to get a $4,000-a-
year grant for the last 2 years they are in college, a big boost for 
low-income students who pursue math and science. That is where the 
money has been directed. I think it is the right priority. I suspect 
that is why the Senator from New York voted for the bill when it passed 
out of the committee.
  What is the order now? Do we go to Senator Talent and then Senator 
Rockefeller, or Senator Rockefeller and then Senator Talent?
  Mr. CONRAD. Senator Talent is up.
  Mr. GREGG. If Senator Rockefeller is ready, why not have the Senator 
proceed and then we will go to the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized on Democratic 
time.

[[Page S14120]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota will yield time 
on his side to the Senator from West Virginia when he is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. If we could have Mr. Talent go first, we have a bit of a 
logjam we need to work out on this side. I ask Senator Rockefeller to 
withhold for one moment. The problem is there are multiple Members who 
wish to speak on a matter unrelated to the budget at this moment on 
this side. We have to work that out, so it will take a moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Missouri 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, as we debate the very important issue of 
deficit reduction, I want to take a few minutes to discuss a provision 
included in the Deficit Reduction Act. It is an issue of great 
importance and one that many Senators have been working on for more 
than 3 years, the reauthorization of TANF, the Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families Program.
  As a freshman Member of the House, I introduced the welfare reform 
legislation that subsequently became the basis for the historic 
bipartisan welfare reform bill, the Personal Responsibility Act of 
1996. Since that time I have viewed welfare reform as a priority issue, 
an issue of great significance to millions of Americans.
  Welfare reform has been one of the most successful social policy 
reforms in U.S. history. The 1996 welfare reform legislation made 
remarkable headway in helping welfare dependents move toward self-
sufficiency. It dramatically reduced State welfare case1oads and child 
poverty, and it increased welfare recipient employment.
  Welfare reform is based on the understanding that the two best anti-
poverty programs are work and marriage. The old welfare system seduced 
millions of people into poverty by offering assistance on the condition 
that they not get a job, not get married, and have children anyway. It 
measured success by how many people it was able to get on welfare. The 
new system measures success by how many people get off welfare, or 
never have to go on welfare.
  The welfare reform bill has been an astounding success. Since 1996, 
cash welfare caseloads have fallen by more than 50 percent nationwide. 
The caseload in the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children 
program, AFDC, now TANF, has fallen from 4.3 million families in August 
1996 to fewer than 2 million in March 2005.
  States have overhauled their welfare programs to stress work, as 
required by the reform, and as a result the percentage of working 
welfare recipients has more than doubled since 1996. The poorest 20 
percent of single mother families reported a 67 percent increase in 
their earnings between 1995 and 2002, after adjusting for inflation, 
and the next quintile of single mothers saw their average earnings grow 
by more than $4,000 between 1995 and 2002. The Urban Institute reported 
earlier this year that single mothers' real wages continued to increase 
during the 2000-2004 period despite the 2001 recession and terrorist 
attacks. It is better from every perspective for able bodied people to 
bring home a paycheck rather than a welfare check.
  If we fail to pass welfare reauthorization and are forced to extend 
the 1996 law for the 12th time, millions of families will remain on the 
welfare rolls rather than engaged in productive and self-sufficient 
jobs. Because most States have met the targets of the 1996 law, they 
now have no incentive to extend the benefits of work to able bodied 
people still on the rolls. This reauthorization increases the effective 
welfare work rate target from zero percent to 50 percent in fiscal year 
2007 through fiscal year 2010. It achieves this by rebasing the 
caseload reduction credit to provide credit only for future caseload 
declines.
  The reauthorization also contains important provisions encouraging 
health marriages. Marriage is the cornerstone of the family. The 
decline of marriage since the 1960's has been accompanied by a rise in 
a number of serious social problems. Children born out-of-wedlock are 
more likely to experience poverty, abuse, and behavioral and emotional 
problems, to have lower academic achievement, and to use drugs more 
often. Single mother are much more likely to be victims of domestic 
violence. On the other hand, children whose parents choose marriage, 
and learn how to form and sustain healthy marriages, are less likely to 
be depressed, repeat a grade in school, and have fewer developmental 
problems. Not only are healthy marriages good for the family, they are 
good for society and our economy.
  Supporting healthy marriage is essential to continuing the success of 
the original welfare reform. This reauthorization provides $500 million 
for healthy marriage promotion over the next 5 years. These dollars 
will be used to fund community-based programs to counsel young women 
about the benefits of healthy marriage and help them and their 
children's father build relationship, parenting and communications 
skills. This program will not just seek to increase marriage rates 
among target couples, but also will provide ongoing support to help at-
risk couples maintain healthy marriages over time and reduce the 
likelihood of divorce.
  Although the welfare reauthorization included in the Deficit 
Reduction Act does not include every provision I had hoped would be 
included in the reauthorization of the 1996 law, it has a number of 
important provisions. Welfare reauthorization has been a long time 
coming. We are rapidly approaching the end of the eleventh extension to 
the welfare bill on December 31, 2005, and will need to pass a twelfth 
extension before we leave for the year if we fail to pass the Deficit 
Reduction Act. This reauthorization contains many of the provisions I 
included in S. 105, the sonal Responsibility, Work, and Family 
Promotion Act of 2005. Most importantly it strengthens the work and 
marriage provisions, the two best anti-poverty programs. I hope my 
colleagues will support this measure which will provide many Americans 
with the resources they need to go from welfare dependency to self-
sufficiency.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, is the time running against both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If time is not yielded, it will be charged 
equally against both sides.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, are we in a quorum call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at the moment.
  Mr. GREGG. I make a point of order a quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Chair inform us, before we go into the quorum 
call, how much time is left on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls 46 minutes and the 
minority 49 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask during the quorum call the time be 
equally charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we permit the 
Senator from West Virginia to speak as if in morning business for a 
period not to exceed 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. At the end of that time, I further ask unanimous consent 
that the Senator from West Virginia offer a quorum call to be equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, time 
will be equally divided.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota.


          Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have asked to address the Senate on 
a national security matter of great concern to me. I call my 
colleagues' attention to the Senate's inexplicable failure to pass the 
fiscal year 2006 Intelligence authorization bill.

[[Page S14121]]

  The bill was approved and reported by the Intelligence Committee on 
September 29, and it has been available for Senate action since 
November 16. This legislation is too important to be allowed to 
languish in legislative limbo. That is where it is. I am at a loss to 
understand why the Senate cannot complete action before we adjourn on a 
matter of national security that is this important.
  As I understand the current parliamentary situation, the Intelligence 
authorization bill cannot be brought up or be passed under unanimous 
consent because of Republican objection, and the majority leader has 
decided that it does not merit the minimal amount of floor time needed 
to approve the bill, which would pass quickly.

  I am informed that one or more Republican Senators object to the 
inclusion of amendments offered by Democratic Senators even though 
Chairman Roberts has accepted those amendments--and those amendments 
were agreed to by the full committee. If there is opposition to these 
provisions, I urge the majority leader to allow us to bring up the 
bill, debate, and vote on the amendments. Our side is willing to agree 
to very short time agreements to each of the three amendments.
  The unwillingness to consider this bill is more puzzling because of 
the bipartisan effort that has gone into the development of this bill.
  The Republican objection is preventing us from considering this 
critical national security legislation. The Intelligence Committee is, 
after all, an exceedingly important committee which is burdened with 
heavy responsibilities and which needs to have an authorizing piece of 
legislation underneath it. I hope, whatever the objection is, the 
majority leader and Senator Roberts can find a way to overcome it 
before we finish our business for this session.
  The recent revelations related to surveillance and intelligence 
collection within the United States and the lack of effective 
congressional oversight of that program make passage of this 
legislation even more critical. One of the important themes of the bill 
is the improvement of oversight, both within the intelligence community 
and by Congress itself. That would include the Intelligence Committee, 
which needs to be having intelligence oversight hearings on a number of 
matters, which it is not now doing. This theme is embodied in several 
sections of the legislation--in the classified annex and specifically 
amendments offered specifically by Senators Kennedy and Kerry.
  In both the public text of our bill and the associated classified 
annex, the committee also has included language requiring the provision 
of information to the Intelligence Committees, specifically about 
something called detention and interrogation, which has a fair share of 
public attention. Additionally, the amendments offered by Senators 
Kennedy and Kerry, each of which has been agreed to, as I have 
indicated, by Chairman Roberts and the full committee, also will 
require additional information Congress needs in order to oversee 
detention and interrogation programs, something the Intelligence 
Committee should be doing.
  The Kerry amendment, my colleagues will recall, was added to the 
Defense authorization bill without objection, only to be dropped in 
conference.
  Finally, an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy and accepted by 
Chairman Roberts will require the Director of National Intelligence to 
provide the congressional Intelligence Committee all Presidential daily 
briefs, or portions of them, from the beginning of President Clinton's 
second term in January of 1997 until March 19, 2003, when our troops 
actually crossed into Iraq on that day, which refer to Iraq or 
otherwise address Iraq in any way, shape, or form. This information 
will fill an important gap in the Intelligence Committee's access to 
all intelligence available prior to the war in Iraq.
  If we do not act on this legislation, it will be an unprecedented 
failure.
  Since the Intelligence Committee was created, we have had an 
unblemished record of 27 years of completing work with this critical 
authorizing legislation. Never once have we failed. The annual 
Intelligence authorization bill has rightly been considered ``must 
pass'' legislation. That is exactly how we should view it.
  I call upon the President to weigh in and break this impasse. The 
President has been critical of bipartisan concerns voiced about the 
PATRIOT Act conference report but has been curiously silent about the 
Republican roadblocks preventing passage of this critical piece of 
national security legislation.
  If the Republican objection to the unanimous consent agreement cannot 
be overcome, I hope the majority leader will change his mind and allow 
the Senate to consider the bill under a short time agreement with votes 
on any issues in contention.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, many of us had hoped the Senate would 
take up the Intelligence authorization bill and allow us to offer an 
amendment to require the Director of National Intelligence to make the 
presidential daily briefs on Iraq available to the Intelligence 
Committees of the Senate and House, beginning with the last term of the 
Clinton administration and ending on the first day of the war in Iraq 
in 2003.
  Unfortunately, an unidentified Republican has a hold on the bill to 
prevent Senate action unless the amendment is withdrawn along with two 
other amendments on secret detention facilities.
  It is obvious that some of our Republican colleagues are bent on 
avoiding the truth about the war. To prevent debate on this all-
important issue, the Republican majority is apparently willing to let 
the whole intelligence bill fail. I don't agree with that tactic. It is 
a blatant coverup.
  President Bush has repeatedly claimed in recent weeks that Congress 
had access to the same intelligence he did in deciding to go to war in 
Iraq. As President Bush specifically stated in his Veterans Day address 
in Pennsylvania last month, ``. . . more than a hundred Democrats in 
the House and Senate--who had access to the same intelligence--voted to 
support removing Saddam Hussein from power.''
  He repeated the claim on November 14, November 17, and again in his 
December 14 address to the Nation on the war in Iraq. In fact, he had 
made the same statement 98 times between March and October 2004, when 
his decision to go to war was under serious challenge in the 
presidential election that year. It is hardly surprising, therefore, 
that the President is now dusting off the same talking points today, 
when his decision to go to war is again under serious challenge.
  Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor Hadley have made 
similar claims.
  How they could all make such an obvious false claim is beyond belief. 
It is bad enough that they distorted the intelligence on the need for 
the war. Now they are blatantly distorting the facts about how much 
access Congress had to the intelligence.
  Someone on the White House staff obviously needs to correct the 
President's talking points before he parrots them in another speech.
  President Bush should have taken a close and comprehensive look at 
the intelligence, rather than building a case for war based on cherry-
picked intelligence It is not enough to recognize now that the 
intelligence was not accurate. Whatever flaws existed in the 
intelligence were far outweighed by the devious way the administration 
manipulated the intelligence to support its preconceived desire for war 
and ignored the serious doubts that we now know undermined the 
intelligence.
  The administration claims the intelligence wasn't deliberately 
distorted to justify the war. But how can they possibly pretend that 
Congress had access to that intelligence?
  The White House has access to thousands of intelligence documents 
that Congress never sees. According to a December 14 report by the 
Congressional Research Service, ``The President, and a small number of 
presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice 
President--in contrast to Members of Congress--have access to a far 
greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive 
intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence 
sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the 
authority to more extensively task the intelligence community, and its 
extensive cadre of analysts for follow-up information.''

[[Page S14122]]

  But, the principal document that Congress doesn't see is the 
presidential daily brief, the so-called PDB, which is prepared 
specifically for the President. It contains very important classified 
intelligence, and equally important information about the credibility 
of the intelligence. It is therefore an extremely valuable document.
  President Bush receives the PDB every morning and is given an oral 
briefing on it by top intelligence officials. The practice began in the 
Johnson administration and is intended to give each President a 
detailed overall view of national security concerns, including 
terrorist threats against the United States.
  As the administration well knows, Members of Congress certainly do 
not receive this daily briefing document. In fact, when Congress has 
sought copies of PDBs, the requests have been denied.
  In the case of Iraq, as part of its investigation of the pre-war 
intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee specifically asked to 
review the PDBs relevant to the key issues of Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction and Saddam Hussein's links to terrorists. The White House 
flatly denied the request.
  The committee is now working on the second phase of its 
investigation, which is whether the administration distorted the 
intelligence on Iraq in order to strengthen the case for war.
  So far, however, instead of providing the PDBs as part of an effort 
to find the truth, the White House continues to hide behind a veil of 
secrecy by refusing to disclose these briefs. It is difficult to 
believe that there is any sound national security reason for the 
administration to continue stonewalling Congress by denying access to 
these PDBs. The obvious explanation is coverup.
  Members of the Silberman-Robb Commission appointed by the President 
to examine pre-war intelligence were given access to articles within 
PDBs on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. Four of the 10 
members of the 9-11 Commission were given PDB articles they requested. 
If these commissioners were given access, Congress should have been 
given access as well for its own investigation of the all-important 
questions about why we went to war and the way we went to war.
  The administration's drumbeat for war in Iraq began at the end of the 
summer in 2002. It was carefully staged. As White House Chief of Staff 
Andrew Card said on September that year about the plan for war, ``From 
a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in 
August.''
  Hardly by coincidence, the timing of the war also coincided with the 
final phase of the congressional election campaigns that year.
  One further point deserves mention. Initially, in the run-up to the 
war in 2002, the Administration did not produce and give Congress a 
National Intelligence Estimate--a document summarizing the collective 
expert wisdom of the intelligence community--to support its claims 
about Iraq's involvement with al-Qaida and its development of nuclear, 
chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction. When Democrats on 
the Senate Intelligence Committee insisted that an estimate be 
produced, it was finally provided on October 1, 2002, 2 days before the 
congressional resolution authorizing the war was brought before the 
Senate for debate. The estimate itself buried important dissenting 
views in the footnotes.
  The Senate adopted the war resolution on October 11, the day after it 
passed the House of Representatives--and after 6 weeks of an aggressive 
White House campaign replete with images of mushroom clouds over 
America, in a brazen attempt to pressure Congress to give the President 
the blank check he wanted for the war, and to do so before adjourning 
for the November elections.
  As we now know all too well, Saddam had no weapons of mass 
destruction and no ties to al-Qaida; 150,000 American troops are bogged 
down in a quagmire in Iraq in a war that America never should have 
fought, that has seriously undermined our respect in the world, and 
that has made the real war on terrorism far harder to win.
  It is time for the administration to come clean and provide the PDBs 
to the Congress.
  This is not a meaningless debate about documents. The issue is the 
quality and quantity of intelligence the President was looking at when 
he made the decision to go to war.
  It's essential to get to the bottom of the rush to war--not only to 
get the truth, but also because there are other threats on the horizon 
as well--in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere. America must get it right 
next time, and access to the PDBs is an essential part of doing so.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate go into a quorum and that the time be equally divided between 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from 
Massachusetts be recognized as in morning business for up to 15 
minutes. I ask at the end of the Senator's remarks, a quorum call be 
put in, and the quorum call be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The quorum call will be charged equally.
  Mr. CONRAD. What would occur if there was an objection to the quorum 
call?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask to amend the unanimous consent 
request that Senator Stevens be allowed to proceed, as Senator Kerry, 
in morning business, and not charged to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, with the understanding 
then a quorum call be put in, and the quorum be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If a quorum call is entered, at that point it 
will be charged equally, without objection.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. We will proceed with Senator Kerry for 
up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair, and I thank the managers.


                     Clandestine Prison Facilities

  Mr. President, more than a month ago we learned of the possible 
existence of clandestine prison facilities operated around the world by 
the Central Intelligence Agency. This revelation caused serious 
problems with some of our most important allies in the war on terror, 
and it raised important questions about the Congress's ability and 
willingness to perform oversight.
  Before the Thanksgiving break, the Senate came together in a 
bipartisan fashion to pass an amendment to the Defense Authorization 
Act which would have required a report on alleged clandestine detention 
facilities operated by our own Government. I was glad to be able to 
work with Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller to craft language 
that would make it possible for Congress to do this job. It was a 
successful effort. It was a remarkably bipartisan effort.
  On November 10, 2005, the Senate voted 82 to 9 for the amendment we 
worked out. That amendment required the Director of National 
Intelligence to provide a classified report to the members of the 
Intelligence Committees of both the House and the Senate which would 
set forth basic information, including the location and size of such 
facilities, the number of detainees held, and the explanation of what 
we intend to do with those detainees. For example, will they face 
military tribunals? What will be the consequences and manner of their 
detention?
  Finally, consistent with the McCain antitorture amendment, my 
amendment would require a description of the interrogation procedures 
used on detainees in such facilities and a determination of whether 
those procedures were in compliance with America's obligations under 
the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. The House 
endorsed that amendment with a bipartisan vote just last week.
  Now, not surprisingly, given that this was an intelligence provision 
on a DOD bill, the amendment to the Defense authorization bill fell out 
in the conference--not on the merits, on procedure. We anticipated 
that, and we

[[Page S14123]]

worked with the Intelligence Committee in order to attach it to the 
intelligence authorization bill.
  Here we are, and the intelligence authorization bill is stalled in 
the Senate. This important amendment is in limbo because an extreme 
minority objects to an amendment with strong bipartisan support from 
Members in both Chambers of the Congress. More than 80 Senators voted 
for this amendment about a month ago. The chairman of the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence supports it. The vice chairman supports it. 
But the bill and this amendment will not move.
  All here believe in what we are trying to do to win the war on 
terror. Everyone here accepts this is a war we need to win. We do not 
underestimate, any of us, the depravity and viciousness of our enemies 
or of what is at stake. We have absolute confidence in the desire and 
the determination of the American people to join in doing anything 
necessary in order to win. But we also believe the informed consent of 
the American public is crucial to that success.
  As I said more than a month ago when we first debated this issue, in 
an issue as sensitive as this, one which challenges the basic value 
systems by which we operate, the informed consent that allows you to do 
what you need to do will only come through the Congress itself, through 
our active understanding and involvement in these issues. That requires 
information. It requires cooperation from the administration so we in 
Congress can provide effective and informed oversight.

  I find it very difficult to understand why anyone would hold up 
legislation as important as the Intelligence Authorization Act, to 
object to an amendment that has such strong bipartisan support in the 
Senate, to delay an amendment that does not pass any judgment on the 
merits or the value of those facilities but simply informs the Senate 
about where, what, and how those facilities may or may not be operated.
  To frustrate an effort that seeks only to help Congress have 
information with which to do its job seems to be an extreme position, 
indeed. In this case, our job is oversight. Our job is to make sure we 
are not violating laws. Our job is to make sure we are living up to our 
standards and our values.
  I thank Senator Roberts, and I thank Senator Rockefeller for their 
hard work and their diligence on this issue. I hope we can find a 
resolution and pass the Intelligence Authorization Act this week. This 
is an important bill. At a time when a lot of the debate in the Senate 
is involved with matters of urgency for troops and urgency for national 
security, and where the President is holding press conferences and 
attacking individual Senators for their interference in the war on 
terror, and so on and so forth, it seems to me to not move forward on 
the intelligence authorization bill is to, in a concrete way, be 
standing in the way of doing the very things the President is talking 
about. I hope we can find a way to move that.
  Under the rule, I see the Senator from Kansas wants to speak. But if 
I recall, there is an understanding that Senator Stevens was going to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KERRY. I don't yield the floor yet. I am happy to yield for a 
question.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could ask the Senator from Massachusetts a 
question, as I understand, under the previous agreement, Senator 
Stevens was to go next and is not ready. I ask if I could get the floor 
to ask unanimous consent to proceed ahead of Senator Stevens.
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, I will not object, 
providing that the same agreement stands with respect to the quorum 
call that the Senator from North Dakota put into place with respect to 
my agreement and the agreement for Senator Stevens.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, all we are trying to do is get people to 
have time to speak. Senator Brownback was to go next, and Senator 
Stevens, and when we go into a quorum call the time comes off the bill 
in an equal way, equal time. That is my understanding.
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, could I be advised of what 
the unanimous consent request was?
  Mr. GREGG. That Senator Brownback be allowed to speak.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I was requesting unanimous consent to be able to speak 
at this point in time on the discussion. As I understood, it was locked 
in for Senator Stevens to speak at this point. I was asking for that.
  Mr. CONRAD. How long will the Senator seek to speak?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I anticipate under 15 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. And Senator Stevens would like to go after that.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thought I had time, but I am happy to yield to anyone.
  Mr. CONRAD. We are happy to have you go, Senator. We are just trying 
to make certain we know the times.
  Could we modify the unanimous consent request in this respect: the 
Senator from Kansas be recognized for up to 15 minutes off the bill?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. On the bill.
  Mr. CONRAD. On the bill on the majority side.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator is going to speak as if in morning business, I 
believe, but on the bill.
  Mr. CONRAD. You would like him to speak in morning business rather 
than--all right. So the Senator will speak as in morning business for 
up to 15 minutes, and then the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, will 
be recognized for up to 15 minutes, again as in morning business, and 
then at that time a quorum call will be put in that is equally charged.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator cannot enter a quorum call at this 
time by unanimous consent. If a quorum call is later entered, it will 
be charged equally.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to further modify my request 
because I understand there are other Senators who also would like to 
speak as in morning business.
  I ask Senator Durbin, how much time would you like?
  Mr. DURBIN. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Fifteen minutes. I ask that Senator Durbin be recognized 
for 15 minutes as in morning business. And for Senator Boxer, how much 
time? She would like up to 30 minutes as in morning business. Could we 
get those agreed to as well, with the additional understanding that we 
go into a quorum call at that point and that it be equally charged.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would 
presume they would be speaking after Senator Stevens.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank very much the Chair. I thank also the chairman of 
the committee for continuing to work in this cooperative way to use the 
time efficiently. And we thank all of our colleagues for their 
patience.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank my 
colleagues for allowing me this opportunity to speak as if in morning 
business on the bill. I think it is important in morning business to be 
able to talk about the bill. This is an important bill, and it is a key 
piece of legislation. I think it is an important thing for us to move 
forward.
  On the basic facts on the federal budget, which have been covered a 
lot, we are hearing a lot about this across the country. We are 
spending too much money, and we are driving the deficit up too big. It 
is just the basic facts.
  We have a $319 billion budget deficit for fiscal year 2005. It is 
time--past time--that we start addressing this issue. I came to the 
House of Representatives with the class of 1994. The lead issue we were 
talking about at that point in time was balancing the budget. We had 
not had a balanced budget since Dwight Eisenhower was President of the 
United States in the 1950s. It was past time. We were in trillions of 
dollars of debt. Now we are at over $8 trillion of debt.
  So we pushed and we pushed and we pushed, and we, in that class, with 
many others working with us, got together to balance the budget. We did 
it with a simple formula. You have to get the economy growing rapidly. 
It has to be moving forward, churning out for the economy and churning 
out a number of tax receipts. Then you have to restrain your growth of 
Federal spending so your growth in the country and

[[Page S14124]]

its economy exceeds the growth rate of your Federal spending. That is 
how we got to a balanced budget for 3 years, for the first time since 
Eisenhower. It was a big push by that class, by many people at that 
point in time, to get us to a balanced budget. And we did it.
  And while the President--at that time President Clinton--may have 
taken a lot of credit for it, the credit belongs to the Congress. The 
Congress is the one that spends the money, the one that authorizes the 
spending of money. We are the ones who restrained that growth of 
Federal spending, where it was slower than the overall growth rate of 
the economy. That got us to a balance. We have to do the same now.
  The economy is growing. Last quarter, it grew at about a 4.4-percent 
annual growth rate. It was good, solid growth taking place. Now we have 
to restrain the growth of Federal spending so we can get to a balance. 
This effort, this reconciliation package, starts us down that road. We 
need to get to balance, I think, in 5 years. We need to have a balance 
in the budget in a 5-year time frame. This starts with us. It certainly 
does not get us there, but it does start us in the process of 
restraining that growth of Federal spending. It is absolutely essential 
that we do this.
  We have to reach across the board at all places of Federal spending 
to be able to get that sort of reduction to take place.
  I want to put forward, too, in front of my colleagues, a chart. I 
don't know if people follow these charts very well. The Government 
actually scores the effectiveness of Government spending. We look to 
see whether a program is meeting its targeted goals. These are scored 
by the Office of Management and Budget. It is a set review. It is an 
objective set of standards. Then the Department, the agency, the 
entity, or the particular program is actually given a letter grade 
score on its effectiveness for doing what it was targeted to do.
  I want to show my colleagues some of these program reviews that have 
taken place. Under the heading ``Department/Agency,'' Transportation 
gets the highest score for effectiveness in hitting the target of the 
program. I don't think anyone wants wasteful spending. They want the 
spending to be something that is going to real programs and helping 
real people. The Department of Transportation had 10 programs reviewed, 
had a median score of 78.1, and got a C+ grade average. Now, if my kids 
came home from school with a C+, I would say: Well, OK, you tried hard, 
but we need to get that up. We need to work harder to have a higher 
level of effectiveness score for you.

  The problem is, the Department of Transportation had the high score. 
That was the high score in the class. It was at a C+ level. You can 
look down here: The State Department had a C; a C- for Energy, 
Treasury; D+ for NASA, Commerce, Defense, USAID; D for the Small 
Business Administration. Then you go on down to a number of programs 
that actually received a failing score for effectiveness in hitting 
this objective set target.
  The reason I point this out is to say that we have to do more to 
review our agencies to make sure hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being 
well spent.
  One of the things we put forward that I think is needed is a systems 
change on how we spend money. We are making a cut here, a reduction in 
the growth rate, that is taking place overall. We are making that cut 
here. But what we need to do is go through the full set of Federal 
programs and ask: Which ones are effective and which ones are not? 
Which ones maybe have been effective in the past, but the programs have 
actually accomplished their mission? Which ones duplicate other 
programs that already exist in the Federal Government? Frankly, there 
are many. But we have not found ways or systems to change this, so we 
keep on spending. The spending continues to grow.
  So we put forward a bill called the Commission on the Accountability 
and Review of Federal Agencies, CARFA, on the process of a system-wide 
review of effectiveness and eliminating those programs that are not 
effective.
  We have 25 Senate cosponsors. The program roughly works similar to 
the BRAC commission, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. It 
works along the lines of saying: OK, let's look at all of Government, 
every bit of Government. If a program is duplicative, if a program has 
accomplished its purpose, if a program is scoring very low on its 
effectiveness, then it is put into a group of programs by the 
Commission. There could be 50--it might be 500--submitted to the 
President. He or she then either approves, disapproves, and sends it to 
the Congress. Then the Congress has to vote on whether to keep the 
whole package of programs or to eliminate the whole package of 
programs. It is a systems review, a process of pulling out programs, 
which we have not been able to find a way to do.
  This model is along what we do with base closings because we, prior 
to the base-closing commission process, did not have an effective base 
closing process and were not able to close a military base. Any time 
one would get challenged, Senators, Congressmen, Congresswomen in that 
particular State would defend that base, no matter how irrelevant it 
may have grown to the current mission of the military. They were 
defending it for their home team and home turf, and we could not 
eliminate a single program.
  Through BRAC we closed or realigned nearly 100 military bases. The 
rest of Government needs a ``BRAC.'' We need it desperately. I think we 
need it not only to control the spending but also to be able to put 
spending in higher priority areas: to reduce the deficit and to regain 
the credibility of the American people, showing that we are actually 
monitoring and working to make sure Federal spending is in priority 
areas and is not wasted.
  It drives people crazy that money is wasted in Federal programs. It 
drives me crazy. People tell me time and again: I am willing to spend 
the money, but don't waste it. Don't shoot it somewhere.
  That irritates people and it irritates me. Yet, we have not found an 
effective way to get at Government spending. Here is the process. It 
has been approved by Congress, used by Congress, and it has been 
effective in eliminating the marginal military bases. It needs to be 
employed for the rest of Government now.
  I put this forward here because we are talking now about trying to 
get Federal spending under control, to get back to a balanced budget, 
which we need to do. Let's change the system. At the end of the process 
here or next year, let's start changing the system so we can 
effectively get at this. We have to do this. It is inappropriate for us 
to leave these kinds of deficits for our children. It is wrong. I 
campaigned on this when I first came into the Congress, and I have 
consistently said we need to balance the budget. It is wrong to leave a 
bigger mortgage on the farm for your children than the one you had. 
That is philosophically wrong. That is putting your burden on future 
generations when you should have taken care of it yourself. We can do 
better, but the system has to change in the process.
  I am pleased we are moving forward on this particular bill. I 
strongly support it. I think it is important for the country, and I 
think it is an important statement. Having said that, I think this is a 
step in a process that we have got to use to get this spending under 
control. We can do better and we can have more effective Federal 
spending, and that will build support among people, not diminish it. 
When people see us actually prioritizing spending and eliminating 
wasteful spending taking place, it will build more confidence in the 
governmental system and the way things should be and the way things 
need to move on forward. I think that is important.
  On a separate issue that will come up shortly, I think it is very 
important for us to get our energy security needs addressed. We are not 
in an energy-secure position now. We are very dependent upon a number 
of places overseas that are volatile. We are dependent, as we have seen 
ourselves in places in our country where severe weather patterns could 
be harmful, such as the oil production shutdown during Katrina. A 
number of us are working on a bipartisan bill to get more and more of 
our fleet of cars off of gasoline, by using hybrids and plug-in 
technology to move our car fleet into electric. A fact a lot of people 
don't know about is that half of Americans actually drive about 20 
miles a day. If we can get those 20 miles from electric instead of 
gasoline, our demand and dependency on foreign oil plummets.

[[Page S14125]]

  This is a bipartisan bill. Senator Lieberman and I are leading on 
this. I hope we can move forward on this next year. In the meantime, we 
have to get more oil domestically, and the place for us to do that is 
ANWR. We can do it effectively and in an environmentally sound way. It 
is important that we do it for our own people and our own security. We 
cannot afford to continue this energy vulnerability that we have. I 
think our conscience and soul were shaken when we saw the prices get to 
where they did, at $3 a gallon and above--saying this situation is not 
sustainable. We need to address this. I know it is a difficult topic 
for a number of people, but we need to do this for our own energy 
security and for the security of this Nation. It is an important thing 
for us to do. That is why I strongly support the ANWR provision. Doing 
this in an environmentally sound fashion, yet reducing our dependency 
level and increasing our energy security in a minor way, but doing it 
and moving forward with that. I think it is important to do that.
  We are here late in the year and I think everybody would much rather 
be at home with family or doing things in other places than here. But 
these are important pieces of legislation. Balancing the budget is very 
important for our future and our children, and a good Christmas 
present. Energy security is important for our Nation and for our 
children, an important Christmas present we can give them as well--to 
build a more secure future for this Nation.
  I thank the Chair. With that, I yield the remainder of my time and 
yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that it be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have asked for this time to share with 
the Senate the letters of support I have received as chairman of the 
Defense Subcommittee in support of the Department of Defense 
appropriations conference report. These groups include public safety 
groups, including: Association of Public Safety Communications 
Officials International, called APCO; Congressional Fire Services 
Institute; International Association of Chiefs of Police; International 
Association of Fire Chiefs; Major Cities Chiefs Association; Major 
Counties Sheriffs' Association; National League of Cities; and National 
Association of Counties.
  In addition to that list, there are letters from labor: Veterans of 
Foreign War; Naval Reserve Association; American Legion; American 
Petroleum Institute; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Ducks Unlimited; 
National Association of Manufacturers; Campaign for Home Energy 
Assistance; National Defense Council; Edison Electric Institute; 
Reserve Officers Association; and Chamber of Commerce.
  Also in support are the Air Transport Association and the American 
Gas Association.
  Having read that list, I want to read from some of those letters, 
which I consider to be very significant. Before getting to that, 
however, I have just received an announcement from the chairman of the 
House Appropriations Committee that if this conference report is not 
approved, the House believes that a continuing resolution should fund 
the Government. I do believe we ought to listen to the voices from the 
House concerning what is going to happen if this conference report is 
not approved.
  The Association of Public Safety Communications Officials 
International, which includes all of these people I have talked about 
now, in terms of all of the associations with regard to public safety, 
has said they support this measure, that it can provide $1 billion for 
the Department of Homeland Security. There is $1 billion in State and 
local governments preparedness grants.
  I have the letter from American Legion which specifically points out 
that they have reviewed the conference report and support its 
enactment. It states specifically:

       The American Legion continues to support the further 
     development of domestic sources of energy to include 
     increasing petroleum exploration and production in an 
     environmentally sensible manner so as to reduce America's 
     reliance on foreign petroleum.

  That is a very positive statement concerning the ANWR provisions.
  Veterans of Foreign War have written to me saying they believe this 
conference report should be approved as quickly as possible. I will ask 
to have their letter printed in the Record.
  The Competitive Enterprise Institute says that, yes, there should be 
a vote now on this conference report. They specifically applaud the 
provision that will provide for initiating exploration and development 
of the Arctic plain and states that environmental groups have spread 
misinformation about ANWR for years. I will ask for that to be printed 
in the Record. It points out the legislation passed by the House will 
limit oil and gas drilling only to involve 2,000 acres of the 1.5 
million acres of the Coastal Plain and states there is strong support 
for this provision.

  I have a memo from Unions Responsible for ANWR Development. It 
specifically urges support of this legislation because ANWR will create 
thousands of jobs to the members of America's union organizations. It 
is signed by the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO; 
the Seafarers International Union, AFL-CIO; the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Change to Win Federation; the United 
Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters, AFL-CIO; Laborers' International 
Union of North America, AFL-CIO; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and 
Joiners of America, Change to Win Federation; and the Building & 
Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO.
  It specifically includes a letter from John Engler, who is the head 
of the Nation's largest industrial trade association representing large 
and small manufacturers in every industrial sector. It specifically 
says:

       We simply cannot afford to pass up this opportunity. The 
     NAM will consider as possible Key Manufacturing Votes in the 
     109th Congress NAM voting record all votes--including points 
     of order, cloture and/or other procedure votes--

on this bill.
  The Naval Reserve Association has written to me indicating that they, 
too, would like to have this spending bill to provide assistance for 
Guard and Reserve members passed as soon as possible.
  The American Legion, as I said, has indicated their support for this 
bill.
  Ducks Unlimited has sent out a release that indicates that $1 billion 
for conservation funding will be dedicated to voluntary, private, 
landowner-friendly programs administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and they ask for the immediate approval of this bill. They 
sent a similar release to the House of Representatives expressing their 
overwhelming support for this bill. I think this is one of the great 
organizations of the United States with over a million supporters that 
ought to be listened to.
  The Edison Electronic Institute also supports this bill. They state:

       [This] conference report that was approved in the House 
     earlier this week provides a total of $2.5 billion in base 
     funding and $1.7 billion in emergency assistance funding for 
     a total of $4.2 billion for the LIHEAP . . . double the 
     highest funding level ever achieved--

for this program, and it is due to the ever-increasing cost of energy. 
This assistance is necessary. Particularly, this assistance is 
necessary for the States and local governments affected by Hurricanes 
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.
  There is also a letter from the Campaign for Home Energy Assistance. 
This is really a copy of their release. It says:

       The Defense appropriations bill appears to be our best and 
     possibly last opportunity for an increase for this vital 
     program.

  They have issued a call to action.

       The Campaign for Home Energy Assistance urges you to call 
     your Senators today and ask them to vote for this Defense 
     appropriations bill. . . .

  The National Defense Council likewise has written to us urging that 
after decades of debate concerning energy resource issues, this bill be 
passed. They have a fairly long statement on their position. 
Unquestionably, this is very important support for the bill from the 
National Defense Council Foundation.

[[Page S14126]]

  The Reserve Officers Association of America issued a call to action 
asking for support for this bill, for passage of this conference 
report. I urge Members to consider their support.
  I have a letter from the American Gas Association written to us, sent 
out as a release urging support of this legislation to finally approve 
the provisions that have been passed not only by the House but by the 
Senate in this calendar year.
  There is almost an unlimited number of letters that have been coming 
into our office urging support. As I indicated in my opening comments, 
the Air Transport Association sent a letter also. They sent a copy of 
that letter to me urging that the enactment of this bill be swift. I 
think it is very interesting that the Air Transport Association, 
representing the U.S. airline industry which has taken such a hard hit 
on the increase in gas prices, should show overwhelming support for 
this bill.
  I have sent every Member a letter outlining what is coming with 
regard to the rule XXVIII point of order. I wish to put that letter in 
the Record so there is no mistake about what I have told the Members 
concerning our position on this potential rule XXVIII point of order.
  My chief of staff points out to me the items in Congressman Jerry 
Lewis's release. As I understand, it is not proper under the rules to 
announce the vote in the House; therefore, I will not disclose it. I am 
sure it is proper to say the House overwhelmingly passed this bill. It 
urges a vote now on the conference report and wants this conference 
report to be passed. It does not want to be forced to rely on a 
continuing resolution to support the Department of Defense.
  Mr. President, I have tried to outline some of these items. I will be 
bringing more before the Senate as they are received.
  I again repeat my request that the letters I read be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Veterans of Foreign Wars


                                         of the United States,

                                                December 20, 2005.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense,
     Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: On behalf of the men and women of the 
     Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., I would like to offer 
     our strong support for the Conference Agreement for the 
     Defense Appropriations Bill. The bill honors this Nation's 
     commitment to taking care of those in uniform, and greatly 
     improves the quality of life for our Nation's fighting 
     forces. We urge passage of this bill, and the pay and 
     benefits it bestows on our service members.
       The bill includes a 3.1% across-the-board pay increase and 
     helps to eliminate the out-of-pocket housing expense for 
     military personnel. It also provides increased funding for 
     body armor, personal protection equipment, as well as 
     increased armor for vehicles--all which greatly improve the 
     personal safety of those fighting in this Nation's vital yet 
     dangerous war on terrorism.
       This important legislation lets our brave men and women 
     know that this Nation will be there for them, giving them 
     every advantage they need to win the war and suffer as few 
     casualties as possible. These brave men and women have our 
     strong, undivided and unwavering support. It is for this 
     reason that we thank you for your efforts in shepherding the 
     legislation to this point, and we urge the entire Senate to 
     quickly approve this bill for the good of all who serve.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert E. Wallace,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____


                    Competitive Enterprise Institute


                          vote yes on anwr now

       As gas prices remain above two dollars a gallon and most 
     Americans are looking at sky-high heating bills this winter, 
     the Competitive Enterprise Institute urges the U.S. Senate to 
     pass legislation that would open a small portion of the 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska to oil and 
     gas exploration.
       ``The ANWR provision in the defense appropriations bill is 
     the only legislation currently before the Senate that would 
     address America's long-term energy needs. Authorization for 
     opening ANWR has already passed both the House and the Senate 
     this year,'' said Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming & 
     International Environmental Policy at CEI.
       ``Senate Majority Leader Frist should keep the Senate in 
     session as long as it takes to gain cloture on the defense 
     appropriations bill and enact the ANWR provision,'' Ebell 
     continued. ``If Senator Frist is unwilling to disrupt 
     Senators'' holiday plans, then President Bush should use his 
     constitutional authority to call them back into session.''
       ``The American people are looking for long-term policies 
     that will increase our energy supplies and make energy more 
     affordable,'' said Ebell. ``The Senate should stop listening 
     to an obstructionist minority who think that energy prices 
     are not high enough and vote to open ANWR now.''
       ``Environmental groups have spread misinformation about 
     ANWR for years. Their latest soundbite is to claim that this 
     is a payoff to big oil companies. That is the exact opposite 
     of the truth. Any oil produced will be subject to a 12\1/2\% 
     royalty paid to the federal Treasury and the State of 
     Alaska,'' Ebell continued. ``Compare those royalty payments 
     to the vast array of federal subsidies paid by tax dollars 
     for alternative energy sources favored by the environmental 
     movement.''
       The legislation already passed by the House will limit oil 
     and gas drilling to disturbing 2000 acres in the 1.5 million 
     acre Coastal Plain, which is not a Wilderness Area. No 
     drilling will be permitted in the vast areas of the 19 
     million acre refuge that have been designated as Wilderness 
     Areas. According to estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey, 
     the amount of economically recoverable oil in ANWR will 
     increase America's proven reserves by approximately fifty 
     percent, which is equivalent to thirty years of current 
     imports from Saudi Arabia, one of the nation's biggest 
     foreign suppliers.
       There is strong support among Alaskans for opening ANWR. 
     Polls consistently show three quarters of Alaskans in 
     support. The Inuit village of Kaktovik, in Alaska's Coastal 
     Plain, also officially supports oil and gas exploration. 
     ``Alaskans put a high value on protecting the natural 
     splendors of their State, and they support opening the 
     Coastal Plain because they know that the advanced technology 
     now being used to produce oil will not harm the caribou herds 
     or damage the environment. Oil has been pumped at Prudhoe Bay 
     west of ANWR for three decades using 1970s technology and the 
     caribou herd there has increased from 6,000 to 32,000,'' said 
     CEI Adjunct Scholar R.J. Smith.
                                  ____

         Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials--
           International, Congressional Fire Services Institute, 
           International Association of Chiefs of Police, 
           International Association of Fire Chiefs, Major Cities 
           Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs' Association, 
           National Sheriffs' Association, National League of 
           Cities, National Association of Counties,
                                                December 19, 2005.
     Re Support of Funding for Public Safety in Defense 
         Appropriation Conference Report

     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       We applaud you for including a measure in the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act of 2006 to fund state and local 
     government efforts to prepare for natural disaster and/or 
     terrorist attacks. The measure provides $1 billion to the 
     Department of Homeland Security's Office for Domestic 
     Preparedness to make grants to state and local governments 
     for interoperable communications equipment. The measure also 
     provides an additional $1 billion for state and local 
     government preparedness grants that can be used for training, 
     evacuation plans, and the acquisition of equipment and 
     medical supplies.
       State and local governments desperately need additional 
     funding to improve their radio communications equipment and 
     to plan, train and prepare for natural disasters and 
     terrorist attacks. Public safety fully supports these 
     measures.
                                  ____



          memo: unions supporting responsible anwr development

                                                December 17, 2005.
       Within the next few days, you will be asked to vote on 
     legislation making appropriations for the Department of 
     Defense and other vital government programs. One of these 
     important policies is the authority to develop vast oil 
     resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, popularly 
     known as ANWR. This is a jobs issue for our unions and our 
     members.
       On December 7, 2005 the Congressional Budget Office wrote 
     Senator Ted Stevens and responded to the Senator's inquiry 
     that ANWR bonus bid receipts ``might total at least $10 
     billion--roughly double CBO's official estimate.'' That means 
     it also increases the Federal revenue to a total of $5 
     billion, as the state of Alaska and the Federal Government 
     will share bonus bid receipts on a 50/50 basis. In the 
     Defense appropriations legislation, the conferees have 
     dedicated a significant portion of those additional revenues 
     for funding future Federal disaster relief programs. As we 
     understand it, these sums will also be used as collateral for 
     immediate relief for damage caused in the Katrina, Rita and 
     Wilma disaster areas.
       We also see all of this as an affirmation of the 
     progressive jobs policies generated by ANWR production.
       Again, we urge you to support this legislation, because 
     ANWR will create thousands of jobs for our members for many 
     years. The bill assures ANWR work is protected by a project 
     labor agreement. You will hear strident calls from opponents 
     who claim opening

[[Page S14127]]

     ANWR will degrade the environment. We have heard their 
     arguments, discussed them and made reasonable adjustments. 
     They remain unyielding. Their baseless slogans can no longer 
     be used as impediments to creating jobs or frustrating 
     reasonable energy development.
       When the question is called on the Defense Appropriations 
     bill, it will be framed as one of process--to invoke cloture 
     on the bill.
       For us, process is policy.
       The choice is clear. We can either continue to be hamstrung 
     by the exaggerations of obstructionists, or be guided by 
     policies that create jobs and assure a secure energy future.
       Please support the Conference Report and oppose procedural 
     devices that would delay this important legislation.
       Thank you for your consideration.
       International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO.
       Seafarers International Union, AFL-CIO.
       International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Change to Win 
     Federation.
       United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters, AFL-CIO.
       Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO.
       United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 
     Change to Win Federation.
       Building & Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO.

             Keep ANWR Provisions in Defense Spending Bill

                                                December 19, 2005.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Association of 
     Manufacturers (NAM), I urge you to support final passage of 
     the conference report to H.R. 2963, the Defense 
     appropriations bill, and oppose all efforts to remove 
     provisions related to oil and natural gas development in 
     ANWR. Our Nation's economic and national security depend, in 
     part, on adequate, affordable, and reliable energy supplies. 
     U.S. manufacturing--which uses one-third of our nation's 
     energy--is facing the most severe energy price spikes in 
     history due in large part to government policy decisions and 
     a fundamental imbalance in our domestic energy supply. This 
     is serious enough to have the potential to cause an economic 
     downturn and the loss of thousands of high-paying 
     manufacturing jobs.
       Opening such a small portion of ANWR would have a powerful 
     effect on our economy, creating thousands of new high-paying 
     jobs, preserving thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs and 
     reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources. Estimates 
     from both the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Energy 
     Information Administration state that ANWR development would 
     generate 70 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas and 
     roughly 10 billion barrels of oil or 1 million barrels of oil 
     per day for 30 years.
       We simply cannot afford to pass up this opportunity. The 
     NAM will consider as possible Key Manufacturing Votes in the 
     109th Congress NAM voting record all votes including points 
     of order, cloture and/or other procedural votes--that attempt 
     to weaken or delete provisions related to ANWR in the 
     conference report to H.R. 2863.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Engler,
     President.
                                  ____



                                     Naval Reserve Association

                                Alexandria, VA, December 20, 2005.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Defense Appropriations Committee,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Daniel Inouye,
     Defense Appropriations Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye: I am writing you 
     on behalf of the members of the Naval Reserve Association, 
     members of the Navy Reserve, their families, and survivors. 
     I'm writing to express our strongest support for passage of 
     the FY 2006 Defense Appropriations Bill as soon as possible.
       Members of the Guard and Reserve comprise over 45 percent 
     of all U.S. personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since 
     September 11, 2001, our nation has deployed over 500,000 
     Guard and Reserve members for operational missions all over 
     the world. Additionally, during any month, approximately 25 
     percent of the Navy Reserve force is doing some type of 
     operational support to the fleet for operational mission 
     requirements. Our nation is using our Guard and Reserve Force 
     at increasing rates.
       Unfortunately many of the Navy Reserve members have endured 
     a shrinking Naval Reserve Force over the last few years. 
     Nevertheless, our country owes it to those that serve to 
     provide them with the operational, training funds, and 
     benefits required to maintain them fully ready for our 
     national needs, including Guard and Reserve Equipment. We 
     urge you to fund Navy Reserve equipment in the same manner 
     that you fund other Reserve Components. This bill contains 
     critical funding for important issues for the Global War on 
     Terror, and our Naval Reserve members are fully engaged in 
     providing the support our nation needs at this time.
       Today's guardsmen and reservists are professionals. They 
     are the best that we have had and they are answering the call 
     on a routine basis not envisioned during the Cold War. We 
     need to ensure that political rhetoric does not get in their 
     way in fighting the war on terrorism and providing homeland 
     security. Passing the FY 2006 Defense Spending Bill will 
     provide Guard and Reserve members an important tool to 
     bolster recruitment, retention, family morale and overall 
     readiness. We urge you to pass this bill as soon as possible. 
     I look forward to working together in support of a strong and 
     viable Navy Reserve, Naval Reserve equipment, and all reserve 
     components. Thank you for all your hard work on their behalf.
           Respectfully,
                                                   Casey W. Coane,
     RADM USN (Ret), Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                          The American Legion,

                                 Washington DC, December 20, 2005.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 119 Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you and your colleagues debate final 
     passage of the Department of Defense (DoD) appropriations 
     bill for FY 2006, The American Legion continues its steadfast 
     commitment to assure a strong national defense as well as the 
     fulfillment of promises made to America's veterans on behalf 
     of a grateful Nation.
       The American Legion has reviewed the Conference Report and 
     supports its enactment. As a nation at war, it is imperative 
     that the men and women of the armed forces know defense 
     spending is indeed a national priority. This funding measure 
     provides $453.3 billion to meet the fundamental needs of DoD 
     its military components and several domestic needs outside 
     the scope of national defense, such as disaster recovery 
     efforts and avian flu protection.
       The American Legion continues to support the further 
     development of domestic sources of energy to include 
     increasing petroleum exploration and production in an 
     environmentally sensible manner so as to reduce America's 
     reliance on foreign petroleum. The nation's continued 
     reliance on foreign sources of energy places its national 
     security and economic well-being at risk during times of 
     crisis. The War on Terrorism and the continuing conflict in 
     the volatile Middle East has brought into sharp focus the 
     nation's heavy reliance on imported foreign oil that 
     necessitates a re-evaluation of current and long-range energy 
     policies.
       Thank you for your continued leadership and support of 
     America' s service members, veterans, and their families.
           Sincerely,
                                        Steve Robertson, Director,
     National Legislative Commission.
                                  ____



                                              Ducks Unlimited,

                                                      Memphis, TN.

     $1 Billion in Conservation Funding Approved by U.S. House of 
     Representatives Funding Bill Awaits a Vote in the U.S. Senate

       Washington, DC, Dec. 19, 2005.--The U.S. House of 
     Representatives overwhelmingly approved $1 billion for 
     conservation programs in the Defense Appropriations bill 
     today. A number of conservation provisions were added to the 
     bill. Ducks Unlimited (DU) worked with Congressional leaders 
     to include funding for several critical programs that benefit 
     waterfowl, other wildlife and people. A vote on the bill by 
     the U.S. Senate is expected soon.
       The $1 billion in conservation funding would be dedicated 
     to voluntary, private landowner friendly programs 
     administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
     U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The increased funding 
     for these programs is important for America's farmers, 
     ranchers, sportsmen and for waterfowl, wetlands and the 
     environment.
       ``Congress is right to recognize the value and importance 
     of results-oriented and cost effective conservation 
     programs,'' said DU's Director of Governmental Affairs Scott 
     Sutherland. ``This funding will help farmers and other 
     private landowners conserve wildlife habitat and improve 
     water quality and quantity while providing aesthetic, 
     recreational and other economic benefits to their local 
     communities.''
       Key agricultural conservation programs such as the 
     Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Wetlands Reserve 
     Program (WRP) will share $900 million. CRP is credited with 
     increasing waterfowl populations by 46 percent. It plays a 
     critical role in landscape level conservation of soil, water 
     and wildlife on marginal farmland while offering producers a 
     significant and stable source of income.
       WRP is the most successful USDA program for wetlands 
     conservation, providing a way for farmers and ranchers to 
     transition marginally productive or flood-prone lands into 
     more appropriate uses. WRP lands provide wintering habitat in 
     the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley for more than 5 million 
     ducks and geese annually.
       The Grassland Reserve Program, Environmental Quality 
     Incentives Program and Conservation Security Program will 
     also receive a share of the $900 million.
       The bill includes $50 million for the North American 
     Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). NAWCA fosters public-
     private partnerships to restore, conserve and protect 
     wetlands associated habitats for waterfowl and other 
     migratory birds. Another $50 million would go toward wetland 
     and grassland protection programs administered by the U.S. 
     Fish and Wildlife Service.
       Among many other provisions included in the legislation are 
     separate requirements that would provide heating assistance 
     to low income Americans and allow exploratory oil drilling in 
     a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

[[Page S14128]]

       With more than a million supporters, Ducks Unlimited is the 
     world's largest and most effective wetland and waterfowl 
     conservation organization. The United States alone has lost 
     more than half of its original wetlands--nature's most 
     productive ecosystem--and continues to lose more than 100,000 
     wetland acres each year.
                                  ____



                                    Edison Electric Institute,

                                Washington, DC, December 20, 2005.
       To Members of the United States Senate: On behalf of the 
     Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the association of United 
     States sbareholder-owned electric companies, international 
     affiliates, and industry associates worldwide, I urge you to 
     support the FY06 Defense Appropriations bill, which includes 
     several provisions that are of critical importance to our 
     members and their customers.
       Our U.S. members serve 97 percent of the ultimate customers 
     in the shareholder owned segment of the industry, and 71 
     percent of all electric utility ultimate customers in the 
     nation. They generate almost 60 percent of the electricity 
     produced by U.S. electric generators. Our member companies 
     are working closely with the states to help those who need 
     assistance with their energy bills this winter; however, even 
     with unprecedented private/public partnerships around the 
     country, the federally funded LIHEAP Program has been 
     inundated with requests for assistance. State energy 
     assistance directors are reporting that their funds for this 
     vital but under-funded program are likely to run out in 
     February. At a time when applications for assistance have 
     increased up to 40 percent in many states, thousands of 
     elderly, fixed income and working-poor families with small 
     children will be turned away, receiving no assistance at all.
       The FY06 Defense Appropriations Conference report that was 
     approved in the House earlier this week provides a total of 
     $2.5 billion in base funding, and $ 1.7 billion in emergency 
     assistance funding for a total $4.2 billion for LIHEAP in 
     FY06--double the highest funding level ever achieved. 
     Importantly, base funding for the program is above the $1.975 
     billion trigger for the first time since 1986 (at $2.5 
     billion), which provides funding for both heating and cooling 
     assistance in the months ahead. Furthermore, the ANWR 
     provision provides a mechanism for LIHEAP funding in the 
     future.
       In addition, the FY06 Defense Appropriations bill creates a 
     Gulf Coast Recovery Fund which dedicates 80% of initial bonus 
     bids (lease sales) and rentals to the Fund for states and 
     local governments affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and 
     Wilma. The bill also dedicates 20% royalties to the Fund 
     states and local governments affected by Hurricanes Katrina, 
     Rita and Wilma beginning in FY15. This funding will be 
     critical to the rebuilding and future prosperity of the 
     cities and states that were decimated by these storms last 
     summer.
       Given the critical need for LIHEAP funding and hurricane 
     recovery assistance in the months ahead, the Edison Electric 
     Institute considers this to be a key vote in the United 
     States Senate. We urge you to support all efforts to pass 
     legislation that will provide an unprecedented level of aid 
     and support to those most in need in our country.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Thomas R. Kuhn,
     President.
                                  ____

       To Members and Supporters of the Campaign for Home Energy 
     Assistance: The Senate is expected to vote early tomorrow 
     (Wednesday) morning on the Defense appropriations bill, which 
     includes a provision that would increase funding for the Low 
     Income Home Energy Assistance Program by $2 billion for 
     Fiscal Year 2006.
       The most recent short-term forecast from the Energy 
     Information Administration states that heating costs are 
     likely to be 7 to 38 percent higher this winter: a 38 percent 
     increase for natural gas, 21 percent for heating oil, 15 
     percent for propane and 7 percent for electricity. It is 
     urgent, therefore, for Congress to provide additional funding 
     for LIHEAP.
       The Defense appropriations bill appears to be our best and 
     possibly last opportunity to provide an increase for this 
     vital program. The measure would add $500 million to the 
     LIHEAP state block grant program and provide $1.5 billion in 
     contingency funds. When combined with the LIHEAP allocations 
     provided in the Labor/Health & Human Services/Education 
     appropriations bill ($2 billion for the block grant program 
     and $183 million in contingency funds), the program would be 
     funded at its highest total ever: $4.141 billion.
       URGENT! Call to Action: The Campaign for Home Energy 
     Assistance urges you to call your senators today and ask them 
     to vote for the Defense appropriations bill when it is 
     considered tomorrow morning.

                                                    David Fox,

                                               Executive Director,
     Campaign for Home Energy Assistance.
                                  ____

                                                December 20, 2005.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: I am writing you concerning the 
     importance of developing the oil resources of Alaska's Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge for national defense.
       As you may be aware, our organization has been actively 
     involved in issues related to energy security and national 
     defense for more than two decades. We have conducted more 
     than 120 studies on this subject, including a substantial 
     number specifically concerned with Alaskan natural resources. 
     I should also note that our work has enjoyed broad bi-
     partisan support, and has been cited by private groups as 
     diverse as the Energy and Environmental Study Institute, the 
     Clean Fuels Vehicles Coalition and the Institute for the 
     Analysis of Global Security; and by government institutions 
     including the United States Department of Energy and House 
     Resources Committee.
       After more than three decades of considering energy 
     security issues and almost a quarter century of studying the 
     role of Alaskan oil, we find that we can come to only one 
     conclusion:
       The development of ANWR is a vital national defense 
     priority. There are a number of reasons why this is the case.
       First, energy, and specifically energy from petroleum is 
     among the most critical defense commodities.
       At the time of Operation Desert Storm, the first Persian 
     Gulf War, a U.S. Army Heavy Division, comprised of 17,500 
     soldiers, used as much oil as four World War II Field Armies 
     which would have comprised over 400,000 troops. To illustrate 
     this point further, the 528,000 U.S. troops that participated 
     in Operation Desert Storm used more than four times as much 
     oil on a daily basis as the entire 2-million man Allied 
     Expeditionary Force that liberated Europe during World War 
     II.
       But even these stunning comparisons do not tell the full 
     story.
       The petroleum requirement per deployed soldier has 
     increased by roughly 20% between Operation Desert Storm, the 
     first Persian Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
       Moreover, as the process of ``Defense Transformation'' 
     proceeds and a greater emphasis is placed on fuel-intensive 
     units such as the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, the fuel per 
     deployed soldier required for military operations will 
     increase even more.
       Second, our access to petroleum on the world market will 
     become increasingly constrained. The competition for oil on 
     the world market has greatly intensified over the past decade 
     and in the future will become even more intense.
       According to the IMF the Chinese economy has been growing 
     at an average of 9% since 1978, and has exceeded 13% in some 
     years. Most recently China's economic growth has averaged 
     between 9% and 10%, fueled in large part by a massive program 
     of industrial modernization. Included among its stated 
     economic goals is the addition of some 120 million 
     automobiles to its domestic fleet over the next decade. This 
     change alone will increase China's oil import requirements by 
     more than 9 million barrels per day. India, too, has 
     experienced extremely high growth rates, as have some of the 
     newly independent states that formerly comprised the Soviet 
     Union. What all of this means is that global demand for oil 
     is going to rise sharply at a time when the addition of new 
     global supplies simply cannot keep pace.
       We cannot, therefore, be sure that we will enjoy access to 
     foreign oil supplies to provide essential petroleum in time 
     of conflict.
       A third factor is the insecurity of foreign sources of oil.
       Even if the amount of oil available on the world market 
     were sufficient to meet our needs, there is no guarantee that 
     it would be available for our use. Of the top ten sources of 
     U.S. oil imports, at least four are of questionable security. 
     Venezuela, our third ranking supplier, provides 11.1% of U.S. 
     oil imports, constituting 6.7% of total supply. It is ruled 
     by an individual who is openly hostile to the United States 
     and who has threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. 
     Saudi Arabia, our second largest source of imports, 
     contributing 6.8% of total supplies and a little more than 
     11.1% of imports, has had its oil infrastructure targeted in 
     a recent fatwa from al-Qaeda. Nigeria, which provides 8.6% of 
     imports and accounts for 5.2% of domestic oil supplies, is 
     fraught with civil unrest and banditry. It loses 135,000 b/d 
     of crude oil to theft. Iraq, which accounts for 3.7% of our 
     imports and 2.3% of domestic supplies, has an ongoing 
     insurgency that has attacked oil pipelines more than 100 
     times in the past year and is also targeted in the al-Qaeda 
     fatwa.
       Moreover. even relatively secure suppliers such as Canada 
     and Mexico are being approached by China with investment 
     proposals that might earmark segments of their production for 
     exclusive Chinese use.
       Fourth, even domestic sources may be vulnerable to 
     disruption.
       The recent experience with hurricanes Katrina and Rita 
     underscored the vulnerability of domestic production in the 
     Gulf of Mexico. We are entering a long-term weather pattern 
     that will be characterized by increased hurricane activity. 
     Therefore, the potential for disruption of Gulf of Mexico 
     production, as occurred this fall, is substantial.
       When all of the factors are taken into account, it becomes 
     evident that the development of ANWR's oil and gas resources 
     is an urgent defense priority. Failure to do so can only 
     serve to undermine the ability of America's armed forces to 
     operate.
           Sincerely,

                                            Milton R. Copulos,

                                                        President,
                              National Defense Council Foundation.

[[Page S14129]]

     
                                  ____
             [From the Weekly E. Newsletter, Dec. 20, 2005]

        The Defense Appropriations Bill of 2006--Call for Action

       The Anti-Lobbying Act prohibits military and civilian 
     government workers from using federal assets to lobby 
     Congress. Any action taken on this Call to Action should not 
     be done during duty hours. Please use your home computer or 
     phone to contact Congress.
       ROA wants you to call your U.S. Senators TODAY! Ask them to 
     pass the Defense Spending Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2863) 
     now! In a time of war, the goal should be passage.
       The House has voted its support of the Defense Spending 
     Appropriations Bill, but the Senate vote could be delayed. 
     This is one of the last remaining appropriations bills.
       Don't let a filibuster stop the needed action. The debate 
     and vote could be today or tomorrow. Make your voice heard 
     now!
       Key elements of the Defense spending bill includes money 
     to:
       Fund TRICARE Reserve Select.
       Provide $1 billion for equipment for shortfalls in the 
     Army/Air National Guard and Army Reserve.
       Fully fund acquisition of 15 C-17 transports and approves 
     multiyear procurement authority.
       Add $180 million for the National Guard and Reserve 
     Equipment Allowance.
       Provide pay and allowances for Reserve and Guard personnel 
     mobilized in support of the Global War on Terror (GWOT).
       Include $681.5 million to support additional recruiting and 
     retention incentives.
       Provide $50 billion for contingency operations related to 
     the GWOT.
       Realign C-130J/ KC-130 to support program sustainment.
       Provide $8.8 billion for shipbuilding programs.
       Add $473 million for Army medical research.
       Support incremental wartime costs for military personnel.
       Increase pay by 3.1 percent.
       We need maximum, immediate effort to call, e-mail, or fax 
     your senators (too late for ``snail mail'') urging them to 
     bring the Defense spending bill to the floor and vote yes as 
     the bill is scheduled for debate and vote today or tomorrow.
       Contact: Call, fax, or e-mail.
       Use ROA's toll-free hotline to call your senator on Capitol 
     Hill. The toll-free number to call your legislator in 
     Washington is (888) 762-8760. Please call! When you reach the 
     Capitol switchboard, just ask for the office of your senator. 
     The Grassroots Advocacy page under legislative affairs/
     grassroots on the ROA Web site can help identify your elected 
     official.
       When you contact your senator's office, you can say: ``I am 
     calling to encourage my senator to vote yes on H.R. 2863, the 
     Defense Spending Appropriations Bill''
       Or, you can fax or e-mail your elected official. See a 
     sample letter on the ROA Web Site.
       E-mails should use the subject line: Subject: Vote Yes on 
     H.R. 2863, the Defense Spending Appropriations Bill''
       If not passed, the National Defense Authorization Act 
     (NDAA) H.R. 1815 could go unfunded.
       The NDAA includes:
       Enhanced TRICARE for drilling Reservists.
       Elimination of BAH II for those mobilized on orders over 30 
     days.
       Civilian pay differential for Reservists with over 18 
     months of deployment.
       Retention and recruitment bonuses.
       Tactical wheeled vehicle recapitalization.
       Continued Humvee uparmoring.
       $114.7 million for enhanced body armor.
       Improvised Explosive Device (IED) jammers.
       Increases of 10,000 Army and 1,000 Marine active duty end-
     strengths.
       Increased hardship pay from $300 to $750.
       A permanent death gratuity pay of $100,000.
       The NDAA, H.R. 1815, will go to the Senate for a vote on 
     Wednesday and is expected to pass without controversy. But if 
     the Defense Spending Appropriations bill isn't passed, the 
     NOAA is hollowed out, as it doesn't provide funds.
       The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes 
     benefits, equipment and programs. The Defense Spending 
     Appropriations Bill provides the money to pay for this 
     equipment and these programs.
                                  ____



                                     American Gas Association,

                                                December 16, 2005.
       Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the 195 local energy 
     utility members of the American Gas Association, which 
     deliver natural gas to more than 56 million homes, businesses 
     and industries throughout the United States, I urge you to 
     support legislation that would open the Alaska Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to energy production, which 
     will be included in the FY-06 defense appropriations bill 
     scheduled to be voted on by Congress this weekend.
       Allowing energy production in ANWR is a vital component to 
     addressing one of our nation's more urgent public policy 
     issues, namely the imbalance between energy demand and 
     available supply, and the resulting high and volatile energy 
     prices that America is experiencing. Increasing our access to 
     domestic energy supplies is critical to enhancing America's 
     energy security, sustaining America's economy and providing 
     the American consumer with relief from ever spiraling energy 
     costs.
       AGA speaks on this matter not only as the representative of 
     natural gas utility companies, but also as a voice for their 
     customers who have been hit so hard financially because of 
     higher natural gas prices. Whether it's a homeowner 
     struggling to pay the heating bill, a small business facing 
     significantly increased energy-related business costs or an 
     industry being forced to move overseas in order to compete in 
     the global marketplace, soaring energy prices have been a 
     severe detriment to America's quality of life.
       Thanks to new technological developments energy can now be 
     produced without undue harm to the surrounding environment. 
     Hopefully, this vote will be the beginning of a trend that 
     recognizes America's energy needs can be met with adequate 
     environmental protections.
       Again, we urge you to support passage of legislation 
     containing the provisions to finally open ANWR.
           Sincerely,
                                                   David N. Parker
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                    Air Transport Association,

                                 Washington, DC, December 9, 2005.
       Dear: Airlines are one of the primary and most significant 
     purchasers of refined crude oil. We anticipate that U.S. 
     airlines alone will consume approximately 19 billion gallons 
     of fuel in their worldwide operations this year. Maintaining 
     existing oil production and developing new resources to 
     supply our nation's increasing need for refined product is 
     indispensable to the economic health of the U.S. airline 
     industry and our ability to provide the frequency and 
     reliability of air service that passengers and shippers 
     demand.
       The airline industry has taken extraordinary conservation 
     measures since the early 1970s and has improved fuel 
     efficiency three-fold. In addition to the introduction of 
     more fuel-efficient aircraft, the industry has initiated a 
     number of new operational practices to conserve fuel and has 
     gone as far as considering how much additional weight 
     magazines and silverware add to an aircraft.
       The intensity and pace of these measures have further 
     accelerated during the recent run-up in oil prices. 
     Nevertheless, conservation and efficiency efforts in such a 
     fuel-intensive industry as ours have their limitations. New 
     sources of petroleum must be found.
       The Air Transport Association of America, Inc., strongly 
     supports the enactment of a federal energy policy that allows 
     for greater access to domestic sources of oil for 
     environmentally responsible production, particularly within 
     ``Area 1002'' of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). 
     Area 1002 was recognized in 1980 by Congress and President 
     Carter as a potentially significant oil and natural gas 
     reserve, and was distinguished by law from the rest of the 
     refuge as a site for possible future energy production.
       The Air Transport Association believes that the time has 
     come to open Area 1002 to environmentally responsible energy 
     production, and we ask for your full support of legislation 
     to accomplish this goal. While not a magic fix to the problem 
     of high oil prices that have added billions of dollars of 
     unbearable costs to an already ailing airline industry, 
     opening Area 1002 is an important component in a 
     comprehensive national energy policy that utilizes not only 
     efficiency and conservation, but also the strength of our 
     precious domestic resources.
       Thank you for your consideration of this important matter 
     and please feel free to call on me with any questions or 
     concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                     James C. May,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, December 19, 2005.
       Dear Member: A Rule 28 point of order against the Defense 
     Appropriations Conference Report may be raised. I ask you to 
     think very carefully about your position on this issue 
     because vital funding and programs are at stake in this 
     decision.
       A Rule 28 point of order will apply to all provisions in 
     the bill that are beyond the authority of the conferees. 
     These provisions include:
       The Hurricane Supplemental, which contains $29 billion for 
     hurricane victims. Included in this supplemental is funding 
     for education expenses, housing, and reconstruction efforts 
     in the disaster areas.
       The Gulf Coast Recovery Fund provides short and long-term 
     disaster relief funding for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 
     Texas, and Florida.
       Avian Flu Liability language included with funding that 
     will encourage the vaccine industry to return to the United 
     States, so that we may be able to create Avian Flu vaccines 
     here at home.
       The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is 
     funded on an emergency basis in FY06 with $2 billion for home 
     heating assistance.
       $3.1 billion is included in the bill for homeland security. 
     Included is funding for Interoperable Communications 
     Equipment Grants to state and local governments, which will 
     help first responders communicate in the event of a natural 
     disaster or terrorist attack.
       Emergency Preparedness Grants to state and local 
     governments. All states are assured a certain level of 
     funding. Funds will be allocated based on threat and risk 
     levels.
       Funds for increased border security, helicopter 
     replacement, and security infrastructure, which is funded on 
     an emergency basis.

[[Page S14130]]

       An additional $1 billion for farm bill conservation 
     programs, which will help farmers and ranchers meet current 
     challenges and ensure the productivity of their land for 
     future generations.
       If a Rule 28 point of order is sustained, the entire 
     Defense Appropriations Conference Report will fall. Rule 28 
     does not allow us to strike specific provisions from a 
     conference report; it kills the conference report altogether. 
     Since the House has voted, it will be necessary to appoint 
     new conferees in the House and the Senate, and we will have 
     to start over.
       Some Members have suggested that we could simply return to 
     conference with the House, strip the provision regarding 
     development on the Arctic Coastal Plain, and pass the bill 
     with the provisions listed above. This is simply not 
     possible. A portion of the funding for these initiatives and 
     programs comes from the revenue ANWR will provide.
       We tried to pass bills that funded these priorities, but we 
     could not find an agreement to do so on an emergency basis. 
     These provisions were included in this bill because we were 
     able to generate additional federal revenues, including 
     revenue generated by development on the Arctic Coastal Plain, 
     which will provide the funds we need and repay emergency 
     spending. If a Rule 28 point of order is sustained, forcing 
     us to begin a new conference, many of the items listed above 
     will need to be stripped from the bill as well. We cannot pay 
     for them without the additional revenue ANWR will provide.
       With best wishes,
           Cordially,
     Ted Stevens.
                                  ____


  Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis Urges Senate passage of Defense 
                             Spending Bill

       Washington.--The Hurricane Katrina recovery, increased 
     funding for low-income heating needs, protection against 
     avian flu and many other programs that were added to the 
     Defense Appropriations Bill are at risk if the Senate does 
     not approve the package this week, House Appropriations 
     Chairman Jerry Lewis said Tuesday.
       ``If the Senate will not approve this bill, we will be 
     forced to rely on a continuing resolution to fund the 
     Department of Defense, which will mean all of the additional 
     spending the House approved last week will be lost,'' Lewis 
     said. ``Continuing resolutions will fund the government, but 
     only at last year's level and with none of these programs 
     that are so urgently needed.''
       ``Clearly, the Senate does not want to do that, and I'm 
     sure they don't want to jeopardize the funding for our troops 
     during time of war,'' Lewis said. ``It is time to stop the 
     partisan debates and approve the final two appropriations 
     bills.''
       The House last week passed the Defense Appropriations bill 
     for Fiscal Year 2006 by a resounding 308-106 vote, with 106 
     Democrats supporting the bill and only 89 opposed, Lewis 
     noted. It is strongly supported by President Bush, and 
     contains many new Pentagon spending levels that would not be 
     funded under a continuing resolution.
       ``This was not even close to being a party-line vote in the 
     House, which should be a message to the Senate that it is 
     time to finish our work and put funding in place for the new 
     fiscal year,'' Lewis said. ``It is irresponsible for a 
     minority of Senators to impede the will of the President, the 
     House and the American people and put all of these urgently 
     needed programs at risk.''

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I don't know how many more times I will 
be before the Senate before this matter comes up tomorrow. I do hope it 
will come to the floor early tomorrow because we need time to consider 
the points of order that will lie against the conference report.
  To me, approval of the conference report really means we are putting 
aside the debate that might take place on the individual items that may 
be raised here. The conference report is not subject to amendment, but 
it is possible to have almost unending delay on the points of order. 
They are debatable and, therefore, the reason for the cloture motion is 
primarily to reduce debate on these various points of order we will 
have and find some way to assure there will be an early passage of the 
conference report.
  This is a conference report providing enormous assistance to the 
Department of Defense, particularly the $50 billion in emergency 
funding that is primarily required to support those who are in our 
uniform defending the Nation in terms of their activities in the war on 
terror. I urge the Senate to vote cloture to limit that debate. We will 
have the points of order. We will have the points of order under the 
Budget Act under rule XXVIII, but there is no reason to have unlimited 
debate on those points or order.
  The cloture motion is for the best interest of the Department of 
Defense to get this bill to the Department of Defense as quickly as 
possible. If those points of order are sustained, obviously, we will 
have to go back to conference, have a new conference, and we will have 
to appoint new conferees. The House is spread all over the country. How 
quickly we can do that, I don't know.
  I do believe that it is in the best interest of the Nation to adopt 
this conference report. It does not contain items, as far as this 
subject, ANWR, is concerned, that have not passed before. We have 
approved ANWR before in this Reconciliation Act, and the House has 
passed the act before. We have added provisions I described dealing 
with the funding that will come in from ANWR. But otherwise it was 
considered before and passed by the House of Representatives 
previously.
  I don't know how much more time I have. Has my time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I don't know who is to 
come next. I don't want to charge any time to the pending measure. That 
was the understanding. So I will just let the time run for a minute.
  I will again remind the Senate that the money that is in the bill 
that is before us, the conference report that is before us, that its 
emergency funding will not survive another conference. It will only 
survive this conference because the money that was predicted to be 
available from income from the sale of oil and gas leases in ANWR--and 
the OMB did increase its estimate from $2.5 billion to $5 billion. 
However, they did not increase that for budget purposes. They confirmed 
the fact that it would come in. So we have allocated that money under 
this bill, particularly to LIHEAP, to low-income housing assistance. 
That cannot survive another conference if ANWR is deleted.
  So for those people who want that money, and it has been pointed out 
that is an enormous increase due to the situation that exists because 
of the fantastic increase in home heating costs, it does not have to be 
spent. It is there in reserve to be spent. We do not mandate that they 
spend that money. We make it available to them on an emergency basis if 
it is necessary, and it may well be necessary through the balance of 
this winter.
  So I do urge the Members of the Senate to vote for the conference 
report, vote for cloture on the conference report, and help us prepare 
for the points of order that may be raised after the cloture motion has 
been approved. I am getting tired, and I apologize.
  Now is my time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Defense Appropriations

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, tomorrow we are going to have some 
significant votes in the Senate on issues of great importance, not the 
least of which is the Defense appropriations bill, one of the most 
important bills we consider in the course of our calendar year. This is 
the bill to provide the resources for our troops--literally, their pay, 
the equipment they need, the training they need, new weapons they need, 
the fundamentals we need to keep our Nation safe.
  This has usually been a very bipartisan bill. Having served on the 
Appropriations Committee, I have seen it in the past with strong 
support from both sides of the aisle and rarely a real partisan issue. 
This time, however, this bill has been modified and changed. Added to 
this bill are provisions which have nothing to do with our Nation's 
defense. They are provisions that have been debated at length for many 
years in the Senate relative to controversial issues on many fronts. 
The most controversial, the lead issue, the one that has been spoken to 
time and again on the Senate floor over the last several days, is the 
authorization for drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. Some may remember that at the time of the invasion of Iraq, 
then Republican House whip Tom DeLay gave a speech in which he said, 
``Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes.'' 
That is what

[[Page S14131]]

he said. Tens of thousands of American troops were gathered in the 
Kuwait desert waiting for the command to go to war, being warned they 
might face weapons of mass destruction, and the then majority leader of 
the House of Representatives Tom DeLay said, ``Nothing is more 
important in the face of a war than cutting taxes.''
  Here we are a thousand days later still at war. We have lost over 
2,150 American soldiers, over 15,000 have been seriously wounded, and 
150,000-plus soldiers now risk their lives in Iraq today as we stand in 
the safety of this Chamber and in this country.
  As we consider this important bill to fund this war and to stand 
behind our troops, it turns out we learned nothing is more important to 
some Members of the Senate than to make sure that we take care of the 
oil and gas companies before we take care of the troops. How else can 
one explain it? How else can we have reached the point where the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge oil drilling is so critically important to 
America that we would jeopardize the passage of the Department of 
Defense appropriations bill in order to pass it? This is the kind of 
thing that gives the Senate a bad name.
  How many times have we heard people ask--I have heard it many times--
why do you let this happen? Why would you let a bill be amended at the 
end to contain things which have nothing to do with it?
  We have some 4,000 pages of bills before us today, almost 1,000 pages 
in this Defense appropriations bill. In it are critically important 
items for our troops, but also in it is this permission to go into an 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drill for oil. Who wants this? Well, 
there are two groups that certainly want it. First, the oil companies. 
They are going to make money on this, as if they had not made enough. 
This year, with their kiting of gasoline and energy prices across 
America they have already had $100 billion in new profits. Well, here 
they come again. They want more and more. Some believe their profit 
margin is at least as important as providing the basic funds for our 
troops. That is why they would put that amendment in this bill.

  How can it have reached this point, where the Senate will have walked 
away from its basic obligation to our men and women in uniform and said 
we are going to allow the use of an appropriations bill for this 
drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Well, the 
people who crafted this brought in a number of Senators and Congressmen 
to support them by promising that some of the revenue from the drilling 
in Alaska would go to fund other programs and purposes. Relief for 
victims of Hurricane Katrina was one of the things that was also being 
promised. There are many other elements that are being talked about--
LIHEAP, the low-income home energy assistance program. It is promised 
that they will have some money as a result of this. So many people have 
decided they can look at this positively because there is something in 
it for them.
  How important is this bill and this vote to the Bush administration? 
So important that Vice President Cheney cut short his trip overseas to 
make sure that he is here tomorrow, if necessary, to cast the deciding 
vote for the drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
and the passage of this bill.
  I think it tells us why it is important. Threatening to withhold 
funding for American troops during wartime and for Katrina victims in 
order to push through ANWR drilling has to rank as one of the lowest 
moments in the history of the Senate.
  Let us put aside for a minute whether the ANWR language ought to be 
in this bill. Let us look at the language itself. This language has 
never been examined or closely debated by any committee, neither the 
House nor the Senate. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 
specific ANWR language in this bill is different in several critical 
ways from any other ANWR drilling proposal considered by Congress, and 
one of the most important elements is the inclusion of a provision 
known as severability. One would have to go searching long and hard, 
but they will find on page 406 of the electronic version of this 
Department of Defense appropriations bill this severability provision. 
Here is what it means: If the State of Alaska decides to sue to have 
the 50/50 split of ANWR revenues called for in this bill declared 
illegal, then money this bill seems to promise for Katrina relief and 
low-income heating energy assistance and many other worthy causes could 
simply disappear.
  It is a bait and switch. The proponents of this amendment lured 
supporters by saying, come on along for the ride. We are going to drill 
in ANWR and we are going to give you some money. We will give it to the 
Katrina victims and we will also give it to the poor people in America 
trying to heat their homes. So stick with us. Then they put in this 
provision. The money that would have gone primarily for those purposes 
could be removed almost entirely. How could it happen? It could happen 
by the State of Alaska asserting that instead of 50 percent, they want 
90 percent of the revenues that come out of this bill.
  Think about that for a moment. The big oil companies make their 
profits, the State of Alaska takes away virtually all the money, and 
all these other good causes find themselves with little or nothing to 
show for it.
  You see, the Alaska Statehood Act already provides that any revenue 
from Alaska oil sales must be split 90-10, 90 percent to Alaska and 10 
percent to the Federal Government. And what did the lone Congressman 
from Alaska, Don Young, say today in the Anchorage Daily News?

       As for the revenue split, Young said he thinks the Governor 
     (of Alaska) would sue to get the 90/10 split promised by the 
     Alaska Statehood Act.

  So in order to get extra votes for this provision, the sponsors 
offered to others in Congress this lure of money from the drilling that 
they can use for their purposes. It turns out, as soon as it is passed, 
we have the State's Alaskan Congressman saying the Governor is going to 
take away the money, virtually all of it.
  In addition, Alaska State officials have made it clear that they 
intend to fight for 90 percent of the ANWR revenues. They passed a 
resolution signed by their Governor that said just that, they are not 
going to take anything less than 90 percent.
  So the big winners from this ANWR provision in the bill will be the 
oil companies and the State of Alaska. They are prepared to jeopardize 
the passage of the Department of Defense appropriations bill because 
there is so much money on the table, so much to be made from the 
revenues from the drilling for this oil. Whoever drafted this language 
knew what they were doing by putting in this severability clause, which 
basically says we can switch after we baited you into this trap, and 
you can't do a darned thing about it. This could end up being one of 
the biggest bait-and-switch deals in the history of the Senate.
  There is another reason to be skeptical about Katrina relief in this 
bill and other promises that are being made around the Capitol. 
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the 
revenues this bill assumes from ANWR drilling are wildly inflated. For 
example, this bill assumes lease bonus revenue from ANWR will total $10 
billion. For that amount of money to be raised, every single one of 
ANWR's 1.5 million acres would have to produce an average of $6,666 in 
lease income. Since 1980, the average that has been produced is $60 an 
acre, less than one-hundredth of what has been promised.
  Moreover, between 2001 and 2005, that average dropped to $45 per 
leased acre, despite record increases during that time in the price of 
oil.
  Now look at the estimated royalties. The bill says 20 percent of 
these estimated royalties will be used to help Hurricane Katrina 
victims. To generate the $40 billion ANWR supporters are promising for 
the Katrina relief fund, oil prices would have to average $89 a barrel 
between 2015 and 2044. The U.S. Energy Information Administration's 
annual energy outlook projects a 1.3-percent annual increase in the 
price of oil between now and 2025. They can never reach the numbers 
that they are projecting to come up with this money.
  The revenues in this bill supposedly promised for LIHEAP will also 
fall short for the same reasons.
  The conclusion is this: For reasons I cannot explain, the Republican 
leadership in the Senate today has departed from the accepted practice 
of the Senate. There was a time when this bill

[[Page S14132]]

was considered something special, a bill to appropriate money for our 
men and women in uniform and for our Department of Defense. It was the 
first priority in appropriations, the first passed, and the first to be 
signed by the President year after year after year. But this year, in 
order to accommodate the political agenda of some Members of the 
Senate, it is the last bill--second to the last bill that we will 
consider. Why did we wait so long? So that this bill could be a vehicle 
for a political agenda for the drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge.
  To think that we would in any way jeopardize this bill for our men 
and women in uniform for this political deal at the close of the 
session is just something that the Senate cannot be proud of.
  I urge my colleagues, stand up for the men and women in uniform. But 
stand up for the integrity of the Senate. It is about time that we made 
it clear that this kind of political horse trading that goes on at the 
close of the session, for an issue that has been debated for years on 
Capitol Hill, has to come to an end. This bill, the Department of 
Defense bill, should be a bill that is not the proving grounds or 
testing grounds for great political ideas. Let's focus on the men and 
women in uniform.
  I urge my colleagues to do two things. First, defeat cloture. Let the 
Senator from Alaska know that this is not appropriate on this bill.
  Second, hold him to his word that once we defeat cloture, he will 
move to strike this provision from the bill on ANWR, and we can move 
forward to funding our troops. The senior Senator from Alaska has said, 
both in his State and on the Senate floor, that if he can't clear 
this procedurally, that will be the end of the debate. We will then go 
to the Defense appropriations bill, as we should. Then let's pass this 
with a strong bipartisan rollcall, having taken out this politically 
unacceptable provision on ANWR.

  This is one of the biggest bait-and-switch deals we have seen on the 
floor of the Senate. Back-room promises have brought this today to the 
Senate for a vote which we will face in the morning. Enough is enough. 
The Senate should reject this. The Senate should demand that ANWR be 
voted on the merits, and we should immediately pass a bill that does 
the right thing not only for our troops but for the Katrina victims and 
also to protect Americans from the threat of avian flu.
  This Defense appropriations bill is a test. It is a test of whether 
this Senate has lost its way entirely; whether one Senator from one 
State can dominate a major piece of legislation, can put in a provision 
totally unrelated to our troops and their welfare, and can push a 
provision which provides greater profits for oil companies and great 
revenues for his home State of Alaska at the expense of taxpayers in 
the United States and at the expense of a wildlife refuge created over 
50 years ago by President Eisenhower.
  I urge my colleagues tomorrow, when we vote, vote against the motion 
for cloture. Let this Senator know, and others who are pushing this 
proposal, that we have reached the end of our rope in terms of allowing 
this kind of political back-room deal to come forward. It is 
unacceptable, and it should be rejected by the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my understanding is I am now recognized 
for 30 minutes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, 
Senator Kyl be recognized for up to 15 minutes, to be followed by 
Senator Bond for up to 15 minutes, Senator Feinstein for up to 20 
minutes as in morning business, and that the time not be charged 
against the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. At that point, that a quorum call be entered and that the 
quorum call be evenly charged.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would add that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum call cannot be requested now. It has 
to be requested at that time.
  Mr. CONRAD. It is very important that we go back to this formulation, 
I say to the Chair. That when all of these speeches have been given, 
there will be a request for a quorum call, and that quorum call will be 
equally charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator cannot lock in at this time a 
unanimous consent for a quorum call at a future time.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is not what I am seeking to do. I am seeking to do 
what we have done repeatedly here. I don't understand why all of sudden 
this is a difficult thing. We have done this repeatedly.
  When the last speaker is concluded, that if they ask to go into a 
quorum call, the quorum call be equally charged. We have done this 
repeatedly, and this is important to our understanding, so we have to 
get this right. We have done this repeatedly throughout the afternoon.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I believe my unanimous consent is pending, 
and it does include the request of the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is provided that any quorum call will be 
divided equally.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to go back to the order, if 
we can. I was about to speak for 30 minutes as was already agreed to by 
the Senate. I would like to proceed.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I understand the Senator is recognized?
  Mrs. BOXER. Does the Senator want me to yield for purposes of a 
parliamentary inquiry? I yield, without losing my right to the floor, 
for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I was just curious about what the unanimous consent 
agreement was that was just entered. I was not on the floor at that 
time and would be interested in having an opportunity to speak later. 
Was there unanimous consent on procedure?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am happy to tell the Senator. I asked 
for time, on the completion of my 30 minutes, for Senator Kyl to speak 
for up to 15 minutes, followed by Senator Bond for up to 15 minutes, 
followed by Senator Feinstein for up to 20 minutes as in morning 
business, and that the time not be charged against the bill, and at 
that time the time would be charged equally.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I have no objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I have no objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President.


                              PATRIOT Act

  Mr. President, folks are watching us so close to Christmas, so close 
to Hanukkah time and wondering why we are here so late in the year. It 
is very unusual for this to happen. I would like to say that we are 
here, in my view, because there is a disinclination on the part of the 
Republican leadership to sit down with the Democrats on the PATRIOT 
Act, fix two provisions of that act, fix it so our constituents don't 
have to worry that their library records will be sought, if there is no 
reason to do that, or their bookstore records or their health records 
or their financial records without a check and balance on that power; 
and that if their home is searched they would be so advised within a 7-
day period.
  But Senator Frist, at this point, seems to keep this issue alive. I 
hope we can resolve that by a short-term extension of the act.
  Every single Member who voted to stop the final vote voted with the 
understanding that we would, in fact, extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 
months. I am hoping that will happen so we can get done with that 
without a vote, as far as I understand it. Everyone wants to continue 
the PATRIOT Act, but there is a majority, I believe, who wants to fix 
these two provisions out of the many provisions.
  We are also here because one Senator has gotten drilling in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the conference report on the 
military bill, on the Defense appropriations bill. That bill funds our 
troops. It is very important. Instead of allowing that to just go 
forward--and again that would go

[[Page S14133]]

forward probably without even a minute's debate, and we could finish 
that up quickly--instead, this Senator wants to give a very special 
gift this Christmas season to the oil companies. We know, if anything, 
they don't deserve a gift. They are laughing all the way to the bank. 
But this one Senator wants to give them another gift, a really special 
one with an enormous bow on top.
  I hope that will happen. But that is another reason we are here.
  We are here because this is a budget-cutting bill that is so 
onerous--it is on the floor right now--that the Republicans aren't even 
sure they have the votes to pass it because of what it does to student 
loans, to Medicare, to things that our people need. They have to fly 
the Vice President back in order to have him in the Chair because it 
might be that close. And he may have to cast the deciding vote to cut 
student loans, to cut Medicare, to cut Medicaid, to cut health to our 
middle-class families, as well as our working poor families. If that 
happens, that will be an image all American families will see, the Vice 
President in the Chair. They couldn't even get their own party to vote 
for this bill, and it will say more than I ever could on the subject.


                                  Iraq

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I had hoped to be in California 
working in the State. I had a very important speech to give on Iraq to 
a very important group in Los Angeles. Instead I am going to give that 
talk here for the next few minutes so that my constituents will get the 
views that I have at this moment in time on that war.
  In 1968, Martin Luther King told us:

       If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, 
     dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who 
     possess . . . strength without sight.

  Dr. King was talking about ending the Vietnam war. But 40 years later 
his warning is increasingly relevant to the Iraq war.
  Strength without sight has now led us into a war based on mistaken 
intelligence, and down a thorny path of pain for far too long. None of 
us can afford to be silent.
  Again, I want to quote Martin Luther King who said:

       Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about 
     things that matter.

  Martin Luther King said:

       Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about 
     things that matter.

  We must have the courage to speak out about things that matter, and, 
if we disagree about things that matter, that is part of the process. 
But let us heed Dr. King's words. It matters that 2,158 service men and 
women have given their lives in Iraq, leaving their families grieving. 
It matters that 16,155 have been wounded, many with scars that will 
last a lifetime.
  It matters that the majority of the American people are demanding a 
new strategy so that we do not have a war without an end.
  We saw 79 Senators from both political parties recently back an 
amendment saying that it is the Iraqis who should take the lead in 
providing their own security next year. Next year is a few days away.
  I think it matters if 79 Senators vote for that amendment.
  I see Senator Levin on the Senate floor. I thank him for that work he 
put into that amendment because it says very clearly that next year the 
Iraqis have to take charge of their own destiny.
  We heard Congressman Jack Murtha's brave statement against this war, 
calling it a ``flawed policy wrapped in illusion.''
  Jack Murtha is a decorated marine, a war hero who bled on the 
battlefield, the military's best friend.
  Now he advocates redeploying U.S. forces at the earliest possible 
date--not tomorrow, not in 2 weeks. Estimates are that it will take 6 
months to a year--while maintaining a quick-reaction force in the 
region to be called upon when necessary.
  How did the administration and its supporters respond to this hero, 
Jack Murtha's thoughtful proposal? Congressman Murtha, with his two 
Purple Hearts and his Bronze Star, was insulted by the White House 
Press Secretary and branded a coward by the newest Republican Member of 
the House; branded a coward by the newest Republican Member of the 
House, a shameful display of partisanship.
  People who never bled on the battlefield tried to demean a war hero. 
That is what we see again and again in this debate.
  Instead of thoughtful dialogue about the life-and-death issues in 
Iraq, the administration lashes out at those who dare disagree with 
them.
  Recently, the Republican National Committee issued a video news 
release attacking Democrats, including me. I want to thank Senators on 
the other side of the aisle who said that was wrong. I am used to being 
attacked, and I normally just ignore these attacks. As a matter of 
fact, I wear them as badge of honor. But this one was so incendiary 
that I have to respond.
  The ad said Democrats were waving a white flag of surrender in Iraq. 
And their evidence? One of their pieces of evidence was my statement 
that we should start reducing our troop strength in Iraq after the 
Iraqi election.
  Guess who else said that very same thing this last weekend: the U.S. 
Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, appointed by President Bush. 
Listen to what he said. President Bush's Ambassador in Iraq said:

       We can begin to draw down our forces in the aftermath of 
     the elections.

  That is exactly what I said. Are they going to run an ad against 
George Bush's hand-picked Ambassador to Iraq who said the same thing 
that Senator Boxer said?
  Democrats aren't waving any white flags, and neither is the 
Ambassador waving a white flag. We are doing the job that we were 
elected to do. We have a right and a responsibility to tell the truth, 
whether the topic is Iraq or any other policy. We have a right--and a 
responsibility--to wave a warning flag about a war that is making our 
Nation less secure.
  Regardless of how many times I am attacked, I will continue to speak 
out just as I am doing today.
  I have four points to make: First, we must restore our credibility. 
Our credibility is at almost an all-time low in the world.
  If we want the American people to be optimistic, and if we want the 
nations of the world to consider us a leader to be trusted, our motives 
must be clear, always; our justifications must be sound; and our 
policies must reflect our ideals. Our policies must reflect our ideals.

  During the Cuban missile crisis, Secretary of State Dean Acheson 
offered to show Charles de Gaulle of France satellite images of Soviet 
missiles in Cuba as proof of their existence. President de Gaulle 
responded by saying:

       The word of the President of the United States is good 
     enough to me.

  Today, the word of this President and his administration has been 
called into question. Frankly, it is hard to believe those words myself 
when the President or the Secretary of State or the Vice President 
start to tell their expectations about Iraq. It is very hard for me to 
believe them. Why is that? I want to believe them. I have served with 
four Presidents, three of them Republican Presidents. I have never felt 
like this. I never felt I had to doubt what they were saying when it 
came to foreign policy.
  Here is the reason. Remember all the false expectations the Bush 
administration pedals? Remember when Secretary Rumsfeld said that the 
war ``could last six days, six weeks, I doubt six months''? . . . Or 
that we knew exactly where to find the weapons of mass destruction.
  I was sitting 10 feet from the Secretary of Defense when he said: I 
know exactly where those weapons are. I know the streets they are on. 
They are right there in Baghdad.
  Remember when Vice President Cheney predicted:

       . . . my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as 
     liberators.

  Remember when White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels said Iraq 
will be ``an affordable endeavor'' and it ``will not require sustained 
aid''?
  Remember when the case for weapons of mass destruction was called a 
``slam dunk''? Remember Vice President Cheney's now famous assessment 
that the insurgency was in its ``last throes''? Remember when the 
President told us about the yellow cake from Niger in a State of the 
Union Address? Remember when we were told ``mission accomplished''? We 
weren't told it; it was scrawled on a banner behind the President of 
the United States as he stood in

[[Page S14134]]

his Air Force gear. Who can ever forget that moment?
  Remember when we were told that Iraqi oil would pay for the war? And 
when Secretary Rice said she didn't want the smoking gun to be a 
mushroom cloud? And when Colin Powell made his forceful presentation 
before the U.N. Security Council proving the case to the world, proving 
the case that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons? He now calls that 
moment a blot on his record.
  I gave you what the members of this administration have told the 
American people to expect in Iraq. They are zero for 10. I have not 
even gone through the entire list.
  Yet even today, in the light of all this history, the Bush 
administration refuses to do more than a perfunctory mea culpa. In his 
last speech, the President took responsibility for going into the war 
on false intelligence. It took him 2 years to say that. He is 2 years 
behind the American people who figured that out a long time ago. But I 
will take it. I will take it.
  The President keeps repeating the false statement that Congress saw 
the same intelligence that he did, even though the CRS, the 
Congressional Research Service, did a very important study on this 
matter. They said that is not true. It is a false statement to say that 
Congress saw the same intelligence he did. The report found that the 
administration had access to more information than was shared by us.
  And the President still does not answer the central question, was the 
intelligence cherry-picked? In other words, did he pick out the parts 
of the intelligence that made the case for war? And he hasn't answered 
whether any of that intelligence was manipulated.
  Democrats are insisting we complete the Senate investigation into 
this matter. Senator Reid actually put the Senate into closed session 
to insist the Senate Intelligence Committee complete the investigation 
into whether the President actually misused intelligence or cherry-
picked intelligence.
  It is important we complete this investigation. It is not about 
politics. If the intelligence was cherry-picked by this President or 
manipulated, the American people deserve to know. The Congress will 
need to act. Why? Because the next time we need to convince the world 
of an imminent threat, it will be far more difficult unless we clear 
the air and restore our credibility.
  America is more than an economic and a military power. Our ideals 
have made us a shining light throughout the world for all of those 
seeking freedom, democracy, and human rights. I believe that moral 
standing is at risk today. We all saw the horrific photos of Abu 
Ghraib, which were at odds with everything for which this country 
stands. I went up to that room to look at those pictures to bear 
witness. It was one of the most painful experiences I have never had.
  We all know what we saw there--and the American people haven't seen 
half of what we saw; they have only seen a fraction of what we saw. The 
abuse was disgusting and was at odds with everything for which this 
country stands. We all know that torture does not produce accurate 
intelligence or make us more safe. Listen to Senator McCain, who is an 
expert on this issue. He says torture ``is killing us.'' Amazingly, 
banning torture was extremely controversial for this administration. 
Dick Cheney even worked nonstop to exempt the CIA from the torture ban 
passed by the Congress. Fortunately, we won this one. Again, I say to 
my Senate colleagues, thank you for standing up, for standing behind 
Senator McCain on this.
  However, we still do not know everything about the secret prisons or 
secret spying on Americans, all of which chips away at our reputation 
as a great beacon of freedom and gives us an eerie sense of a secret 
government. We must not have a secret government. We must not walk away 
from checks and balances. We now face this issue of our Government 
spying on Americans without a warrant. This is serious. It must be 
investigated to restore our credibility.
  The other day I was at a forum with John Dean, the former White House 
counsel to President Nixon during Watergate. When we were asked a 
question as to whether we believe this President investigating and 
wiretapping American citizens without a warrant was legal, my remark 
was: I'm not sure about that. I'm very worried about that. I don't 
think it is. But I want a hearing. I applauded Arlen Specter, chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee, for saying we would have it.
  This is what John Dean said on videotape and he has since confirmed 
it: This was the first time he ever heard a President admit to an 
impeachable offense. That comment by John Dean, who knows more than any 
other lawyer in this country about an excessive abuse of power by the 
Executive is very serious. I sent a letter to four scholars, asking 
them to please tell me if they think John Dean is on the right track or 
on the wrong track.
  Clearly, we must restore our credibility. Second and third, we must 
reverse the strain on our military and get our budget priorities 
straight.
  This administration says dissent hurts our military. Let me tell you 
what hurts our military. Our military is fighting so that the Iraqi 
people have the right to dissent. So to say that our military gets hurt 
when we dissent makes no sense at all. How proud they must be that they 
come from a country where people who love the troops on both sides of 
the aisle are in a rigorous debate. That is what our military wants. 
They do not want to see a country where we all dance to the same tune.
  And they must think it is interesting that even within the parties 
there are disagreements, that a Joe Lieberman disagrees with a Barbara 
Boxer, or a Chuck Hagel disagrees with an Orrin Hatch. That is what 
life in America is about. So when the President or his allies right 
here say, How dare people dissent, I say, How dare we not, if we 
believe the path we are on is wrong.
  Let me tell you what hurts our military: sending men and women to war 
without a plan for victory and without the necessary armor and 
equipment. What hurts our military is stretching it to the breaking 
point and deploying our soldiers for third and fourth tours of duty. 
What hurts our military is a lack of candor.
  Our men and women in the military serve bravely and skillfully in 
Iraq. They have sacrificed so much since this war began. We need to 
honor their sacrifices, not with words but with actions. That means 
treating their caskets and their families with the respect they 
deserve.
  I want to publicly thank my staff in San Diego who stopped a horrible 
situation from happening, when a military man in a coffin, slain in 
Iraq, arrived in San Diego aboard a civilian aircraft, a commercial 
aircraft. When the plane landed, he was not going to be greeted by his 
unit. No one was going to be there. And the airline was going to keep 
him with the cargo, off-loaded with no ceremony, no greeting.
  Thank God, his parents--military people--saw this and called us. We 
stopped it from happening, and we made sure that casket was greeted by 
his unit.
  That is what we need to do. We need to honor our military. It means 
opening up our eyes to their injuries and getting them the help they 
need. Medical studies reveal that 17 percent of soldiers returning from 
Iraq are suffering from mental health problems, including depression, 
anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The VA says that 17,000 
Iraq and Afghanistan vets have been diagnosed with mental disorders 
through February.
  I have heard from military people who tell me their loved ones were 
sent back on to the field of battle when they were diagnosed with post-
traumatic stress, and the doctor said: Don't send them back.
  Now, 17,000 Iraq and Afghanistan vets have been diagnosed with mental 
disorders, just through last February. But despite this huge problem, 
the American Legion--the American Legion--says that mental health 
programs are being underfunded by $500 million a year.
  I offered an amendment to provide these critical resources by 
canceling future tax cuts for millionaires who have already gotten back 
tens of thousands of dollars in tax cuts. It sounds reasonable that we 
would ask a millionaire to help give a veteran the assistance that he 
or she needs because of mental problems.
  Well, my amendment failed. The President says he loves our military,

[[Page S14135]]

but he loves tax cuts for millionaires as much or more. They did not 
weigh in. They did not help us. We could not get it passed.
  Let's be clear. To finance a war that has already cost $251 billion, 
this administration did not ask the wealthiest to do one thing to 
sacrifice. Under the Bush tax cuts, millionaires got--and listen to 
this number--$242 billion back. They have gotten it back over the past 
5 years.
  In the first 2 years of the Iraq war, the average millionaire 
received $112,000 in tax cuts. And we cannot afford to give a soldier 
treatment when he comes home, and he is so sick that he might even turn 
on his own family and hurt them?
  This makes me sick, Mr. President. This makes me sick.
  The President did not secure enough real financial commitments from 
other countries. Instead, our needs are being sacrificed and our 
children and seniors are paying the price.
  Talk about waving the white flag of surrender. I want to talk about 
it. The Republican Congress and this administration are waving a white 
flag over our children, cutting their afterschool programs, No Child 
Left Behind. They have underfunded their own program by $13 billion.
  They are waving a white flag of surrender over our seniors, causing 
them anxiety and threatening their Social Security.
  They are waving a white flag over fiscal responsibility, by creating 
a debt that is more than $8 trillion. That means that approximately $92 
billion is leaving this country every year to pay off the interest on 
the debt that foreign countries own.
  And they are waving a white flag over our homeland security. The 
administration says all the right things about the terror threat. But 
they shortchange homeland defense.
  It has been 4 years since 9/11. We are getting failing grades. We 
need $555 million this year to better secure our ports, $14 billion so 
that our first responders can communicate with one another. It is a 
disgrace that firefighters cannot talk to police officers and health 
care providers in our communities. Oh, no, oh, we couldn't ask the 
people who make over $1 million a year to help us.
  And we are waving the white flag--we are--this Congress and this 
administration.
  Fourth, and finally, we need to change course in Iraq. The President 
presents a false choice between leaving immediately and staying 
indefinitely. He says: Stay the course, stay the course. The course has 
to be changed. Frankly, the President, in every speech, connects this 
war in Iraq to 9/11, even though the 9/11 Commission said there was 
no connection and the President's own documents show there is no 
connection. As a matter of fact, it was a diversion from our fight 
against al-Qaida and bin Laden.

  Do you know what? We are not any safer. Worldwide terrorism is up and 
increased by more than 1,200 terror attacks last year.
  Even the President's own Director of Central Intelligence, Porter 
Goss, says:

       Those jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in 
     and focused on acts of urban terrorism.

  Now, I agree with the President about importing democracy. But as 
Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has written:

     . . . spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun in the 
     Persian Gulf is not likely to lead to a lasting solution 
     against suicide terrorism.

  Last week's election in Iraq was an important step forward. And I 
pray that country will put together the kind of coalition that is 
necessary. But either way, it is time for the Iraqis to control their 
own destiny. Each election they have had, it seems to me, should be a 
step in our recognizing their right to run their own country. Their 
running their own country is a sign of success, not failure. Our long-
term presence is viewed as open-ended, and it is fueling the 
insurgency.
  Too many Iraqis believe that the United States has no intention to 
leave Iraq and with good reason. Every time the President is asked for 
benchmarks, he says we will be there as long as it takes, even though 
general Casey made it clear to me, when I was in Iraq, again, that our 
long-term presence is counterproductive.
  And two-thirds of Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. troops, at least 
two-thirds. In some polls, it is 80 percent. They do not want us there. 
They want to run their own country. That is not failure. That is not a 
white flag. That is not defeat. That is success, when we can redeploy 
our troops, so if the government there needs us, we are nearby.
  We must accelerate the training of the Iraqi troops. I am glad the 
President admitted it has gone far too slowly. But enough with the 
excuses. They have to get out there and defend themselves. And we need 
to take the help that is being offered from around the world, around 
the region. The Egyptian Ambassador lamented the fact that so few 
troops have been trained in his country. He has offered to help, and we 
have not taken it.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, it does not matter if you voted for the 
war or against the war at this point. We need now to take action. None 
of us can remain silent.

  As a Senator, I feel obligated to tell the people of my State how I 
feel. It is time for a new policy. It is time for a new strategy that 
makes us safer and more secure. It is time to put to rest the notion 
that to speak out for a new strategy in Iraq is unpatriotic. It is time 
to realize that turning Iraq over to the Iraqis is what they expect and 
what we should do. That is what success is. It is time for a real 
strategy to stop the spread of terrorism and prevent the proliferation 
of WMDs, not go forward with preemptive wars that isolate America.
  It is time for a real strategy to stop the spread of terrorism. It is 
time to remember that a strong America begins at home and that we can't 
have real security if we abandon our children and our families, our 
fiscal responsibility, or if we cannot prepare for a terrorist strike 
or an emergency such as Katrina. It is time for America to once again 
be a shining example for the rest of the world. We can do it.
  Again, let's be honest about the past and restore our credibility. 
Let's honor our military with a clear plan. Let's get our priorities 
straight. Let's get Iraq right by working in a bipartisan way, not 
running ugly 30-second commercials while our soldiers die and get 
wounded. We can do better. We must do better. With the wisdom of the 
American people, we will do better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Under the previous agreement, 
the Senator from Arizona is recognized for 15 minutes.


                      Patriot Act Reauthorization

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, one of the key items of business that we have 
to do before Christmas is to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. I know there 
is some confusion about exactly where we stand on that. Let me clarify 
that right now.
  First, where are we with respect to the reauthorization of the 
PATRIOT Act? Why? And what can we do to move forward? I think most 
folks by now appreciate the fact that after September 11, we understood 
there were significant problems with our law and we needed to make some 
changes to fill in some loopholes and to make changes that would give 
our law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools they needed to 
fight this new enemy, the terrorists. As a result, we passed the 
PATRIOT Act. But we said we wanted to sunset provisions of the PATRIOT 
Act so that we would have to revisit them before they would become 
permanent law. We are now at that point. The law will expire on 
December 31 unless we reauthorize it.
  So the Senate worked on it for about 8 months. We passed a version of 
the PATRIOT Act to be reauthorized. The House of Representatives did 
the same thing. There were some modest differences between the two 
bodies. We created a conference committee to iron out the differences, 
and I served on that committee. The Senate got most of its way in the 
conference committee. Most people have said about 80 percent of the 
compromising was done by the House. Nonetheless, the version we have 
before us is a version that I support. It is a good version, as the 
House of Representatives found when it passed overwhelmingly before the 
House recessed and left Washington, DC. In fact, I believe 44 Democrats 
supported the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act in the House. Now it 
is up to us to approve it as well and then

[[Page S14136]]

send it on to the President for signature.
  Once a conference report is completed, it is no longer amendable. We 
all understand that. But some Members of the Senate decided they wanted 
to amend it, even though there is no procedure for amending it. So they 
decided to filibuster the bill. When we took a vote on it, it had 
majority support. There were over 50 Senators who wanted to reauthorize 
the PATRIOT Act, but the minority of Senators wouldn't let us vote on 
it. They successfully filibustered it. They said: We are not going to 
let you vote on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act because we would like to 
make some more changes.
  The time for making changes is up. You can't make any more changes 
once a conference report has been filed. They know that. So it is a 
little curious to me why they keep saying, we want to extend it so we 
can make some more changes. That is not the procedure of the Senate, 
and it can't be done. The conference has been discharged. The House of 
Representatives has gone home. Even if we wanted to go back into the 
conference and make changes, we couldn't do it.
  There is a way we can accommodate those who wish to make further 
changes to the PATRIOT Act, but it is not by filibustering. It is by 
allowing us to have the vote, pass the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, and 
then introduce those changes you would like to make in it, and we will 
deal with those in the regular process of hearings and presenting the 
matter to the floor. As a matter of fact, I would like to do that 
myself. There are some things I would like to add to the PATRIOT Act, 
and I fully intend, after we reauthorize it, to introduce that either 
as an amendment to a bill next year or as a separate bill, and to seek 
hearings in the Judiciary Committee so we can try to move the 
additional things I would like to see in the act.

  My colleagues are certainly welcome to do the exact same thing. We 
might even get together and try to have one hearing at which that is 
done. That is the regular order. That is the way we could make the 
changes they are talking about, if a majority of Senators agree. But I 
think that is the rub. I suspect they can't get a majority of the 
Senators to agree to the changes they would like to make. They couldn't 
get a majority of the conference committee in the House or the Senate 
to agree. So they would now like to try to use pure force rather than 
logic to get their changes.
  If they have the confidence that their changes make sense, then why 
wouldn't they want to simply offer them next year and let's vote on 
them? If they have 51 votes, they become law. Instead, they want to 
somehow pressure us at this point into letting the PATRIOT Act expire, 
and then everyone feels we have to do something so we accept their 
unreasonable demands.
  That is not the way to legislate, and it is not a responsible action. 
We should defeat the filibuster, not allow the PATRIOT Act to expire 
but to extend it for the period of time that the conference agreed, 
which is a period of 4 years. And if additional changes are to be made, 
they can be made starting as soon as we come back here next January. 
That is the way to do business.
  There are those who have said: Let's extend it for a few months. As I 
said, you can't extend it for a few months. There is no legislative way 
to do that. It expires December 31. The conference committee is closed 
down. The House has gone home. We are going to finish up in another day 
or two here. So you simply can't snap your fingers and extend a law. 
You have to pass it. It has to be signed into law by the President. He 
said, no, we are not going to have any short-term extension. We have a 
long-term extension right in front of us. It is called reauthorization. 
Allow the Senate to vote. If you do, they will vote with a majority 
vote to reauthorize the act. Then it is done. If you then want to make 
changes, you are welcome to do that.
  What are these big changes that have been talked about? The only ones 
I have heard about are two that were mentioned by the Senator from 
California who spoke before I did. I don't understand either one of 
them. She said we have to make changes, some checks and balances, with 
regard to these library records or bookstore records. Secondly, if you 
have your house searched, you need notice within 30 days.
  That is what the compromise provides. The conference committee 
provided a 30-day notice if your house is searched, so that instead of 
the reasonable standard, which is what exists today, you would have to 
be notified in 30 days. By the way, why aren't you notified 
immediately? In most cases, you are. But there are some cases where you 
are not notified of a warrant that has been issued. Why is that so? 
Suppose you are a couple of gangsters and the prosecutor wants to tap 
your telephone to find out if you are making illegal deals about drug 
running. He goes to the court and gets a warrant to tap your phone. Are 
you told about that? No, of course not. Sometimes a warrant is obtained 
and you are not told about it. You are not told if your house is 
searched or if your telephone is tapped because to do so would allow a 
witness to be compromised or a party of interest to escape the country 
or the information not to be obtained because you know that you are 
under the watchful eye of the prosecutor at the time. So sometimes you 
are not told about a warrant. But there is always a limit on that 
timewise.
  In the PATRIOT Act, the House had something like, I believe, 150 days 
or 180 days. The compromise was 30 days, which is exactly what the 
Senator from California said we needed. I don't understand what the 
problem is there.
  With respect to libraries, this is the section 215 we have talked 
about forever and ever. This is simply the business records 
administrative subpoena for which 335 examples exist in our books on 
the law today. If you are investigating somebody for Medicare fraud, 
you can get one of these subpoenas. A subpoena is not a warrant. A 
subpoena is a request for information. If you suspect somebody of fraud 
on the IRS, the IRS can get one of these administrative subpoenas. It 
is a request for information. Do you have to have a judge authorize 
that request? Not for 335 of these. There is only one that you have to 
have a judge for, and that is if you are investigating terrorism. The 
one that ought to be the easiest is the hardest because we are so 
concerned about protecting civil liberties that we say under the 
PATRIOT Act, you have to go to a judge first, even for a subpoena--not 
just a warrant, for a subpoena.
  So it has all the protection I think one would want. But we say we 
need a standard. So what is the standard the courts have applied? A 
relevancy standard. We will put that in, too. That is still not enough. 
We want a three-part test that ties it into international terrorism. 
Fine, we put that in. And one more thing; we want to make sure any 
records are destroyed within a reasonable time and that people are not 
told of this information. We said the Justice Department has to set 
that up. That is still not good enough. We want to make sure it is not 
abused. Fine. We will have a report from the executive branch every 6 
months to Congress explaining in great detail how many subpoenas were 
issued, what the problems were with them, if any, and anything else 
that Congress wants to know about the use of these so we can have 
oversight.
  There is not much more you could do and still have an effective 
section 215. Why is section 215 used? As we know, two of the hijackers, 
al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi, the two who were on the plane that came into 
the Pentagon and killed 125 people there, as well as the people on that 
flight from Dulles Airport, their airline reservations for September 11 
were checked on August 31 on a computer at a library, and had we had 
the PATRIOT Act library record ability to check that out, and had we 
known of those two people who I am talking about here, we could 
possibly have known they were checking reservations for September 11 
and intercepted them and prevented them from getting on that airplane.
  The bottom line is there are circumstances in which you want business 
records. Libraries have business records the same as any other kinds of 
entities. There is nothing wrong.
  This has been the law forever. We have built in a lot of protections. 
I don't know what more anybody would want with respect to protections 
for these particular records.
  So even if you assume that there is more to be done, my question is, 
how

[[Page S14137]]

much more? The differences have been characterized from the other side 
as minuscule. They have said let's extend this and a couple of other 
changes we want to make. If that is the case, then why is the other 
side willing to let the entire act expire? We don't have the 
protections of the PATRIOT Act over provisions that are not that 
important, especially since they could be offered next year in an 
amendment to any bill. We could have hearings for them in the Judiciary 
Committee. There would be no problem considering these kinds of 
requests.
  If it expires, the PATRIOT Act's provisions no longer protect us. One 
of those is to allow the FBI and the CIA to talk to each other. Let me 
explain why this is important. This wall that used to exist was torn 
down by the PATRIOT Act. Patrick Fitzgerald, who is the U.S. attorney 
who is currently a special prosecutor, as we know, looking into another 
matter, testified how the wall worked in practice.
  He said:

       I was on a prosecution team in New York that began a 
     criminal investigation of Osama bin Laden in early 1996. The 
     team . . . had access to a number of sources. We can talk to 
     citizens. We could talk to local police officers. We could 
     talk to other U.S. Government agencies. We could talk to 
     foreign police officers. Even foreign intelligence personnel. 
     And foreign citizens. . . . We could even talk to al-Qaida 
     members--and we did. But there was one group of people we 
     were not permitted to talk to. Who? The FBI agents across the 
     street from us in lower Manhattan assigned to a parallel 
     intelligence investigation of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. 
     We could not learn what information they had fathered. That 
     was ``the wall.''

  The ``wall'' had deadly consequences. The 9/11 Commission report 
contained detailed examples of how the wall prevented them from 
cooperating, the FBI and CIA, prior to 9/11--and perhaps the biggest 
example is the one I cited in which Khalid al-Midhdar and Nawaf al-
Hazmi, two of the hijackers, were known to the CIA and that they were 
connected to terrorism. They had been connected to the Cole bombing and 
they were in the United States. The CIA refused to give the FBI the 
information because of this wall.
  I mentioned the fact that we later learned they had actually checked 
their September 11 airline reservations on a library computer. The FBI 
agent working on the case in Washington, DC, after being unable to 
communicate with the CIA, said this:

       Whatever has happened to this--some day someone will die--
     and wall or not--the public will not understand why we were 
     not more effective in throwing every resource we had at 
     certain ``problems.''

  That agent was right, and thousands did die. That wall is going to go 
back up if the PATRIOT Act is not reauthorized. So those people who 
have filibustered the PATRIOT Act and prevented us from voting on it, 
prevented the will of the majority from prevailing in this body. Since 
a majority of both House of Representatives and the Senate favors 
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, those people will have prevented us 
from having in place the PATRIOT Act to protect us from the terrorists. 
They will have allowed this wall to be resurrected to prevent the FBI 
and the CIA from talking to each other and we are going to be right 
back where we were before September 11.
  Again, I say, as the FBI agent did, what happens if some terrorists 
should strike us and we could have prevented that had the PATRIOT Act 
been in effect? Those who filibuster this act had better ask themselves 
that question. They have a very simple way to get around the answer; 
that is, allow us to have our vote. It will take 20 minutes. We can 
reauthorize the PATRIOT Act and it is back in force and then any other 
little changes you want to make to it, we will consider them next 
January, next February. What is wrong with that offer, considering what 
is at stake.
  I urge my colleagues again that the PATRIOT Act needs to be 
reauthorized. All it takes is for the other side to stop its 
filibuster, allow us to take the vote and, by a majority vote, we will 
reauthorize it, thus giving the American people the protection we 
deserve from the law enforcement and intelligence agencies who need 
this vital tool.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.


                       Measures Before The Senate

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are a number of subjects I want to 
address tonight. I appreciate the time. First, the Defense 
appropriations bill that is before us that is going to have to be 
clotured is very important. I want to make sure everybody understands 
what we are talking about. There are some very important things in 
there, including relief for the Katrina victims, and all of the victims 
of the hurricanes in the gulf coast over to Florida. These are 
important funds that need to be provided.
  It also includes the opening up of ANWR, which will provide revenues 
that will help us meet the needs of LIHEAP and also of the hurricane 
victims. Beyond that, it is going to help us meet needs that all 
Americans have for an adequate energy supply. Nine hundred thousand 
barrels of oil would have been coming out of the coastal regions of 
northern Alaska above the Arctic Circle had the previous approval of 
this bill by the Congress in 1995 not been vetoed. So ANWR is necessary 
if we are going to bring supply up to help meet the demand for energy.
  But most important, this provides $50 billion to support our troops 
in the war on terror. We have heard remarks recently on the floor about 
what our troops want. I can tell you one thing our troops want is to 
have the bullets, the supplies, the reinforcements, and the assistance 
they need to conduct the war. Our troops, by and large, are very 
enthusiastic about continuing to finish the job. What bothers them is 
to hear people in this body and in the media say that the President has 
failed and we ought to impeach him. Their Commander in Chief, they 
believe, has done the right thing in helping us clean out the murderous 
tyrant Saddam Hussein and carry the war on terror to the hotbed of 
terrorism that was and would be Iraq if we left. They are concerned 
that if we try to pull out the troops before they finish the job, it is 
going to be a disaster. I am going to talk more about that later on, 
but the people who claim to be supporting the troops should not be 
filibustering the Defense appropriations bill.
  Speaking of the related subject, let me turn now to electronic 
surveillance of suspected terrorists' conversations with al-Qaida 
abroad. That is a vitally important area that has been substantially 
mischaracterized by recent remarks on the floor. The National Security 
Act of 1947 requires the President to keep Congress fully and currently 
informed on U.S. intelligence activities to the extent consistent with 
due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of 
classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and 
methods.
  This statutory requirement recognizes that some of the programs or 
activities may be so sensitive that the information is provided only to 
a few Members of Congress.
  Regrettably, a very effective program that the President authorized 
has now been fully exposed. I hope there will be a full investigation 
by the Department of Justice and appropriate prosecutions of those 
found to have leaked that information.
  Recognizing the need to protect sensitive programs and activities, 
Congress created the Intelligence Committee and worked with the 
President to balance the Congress's constitutional need for information 
and the President's constitutional responsibility to protect national 
security.
  Before we start calling the President's efforts illegal or 
unconstitutional, maybe people ought to take a look at the law and the 
Constitution. The President has the constitutional authority to conduct 
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. 
This is what the President stated he has done. It was for foreign 
intelligence purposes.
  In the most recent definitive case addressing this issue, the 1980 
Truong case from the Fourth Circuit, the Court upheld the Executive's 
warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. persons for foreign 
intelligence purposes. The Court explicitly recognized a foreign 
intelligence exception to the warrant requirement based on the 
President's constitutional authority and responsibility to protect 
national security.
  Incidentally, the President, under whose authority that warrantless 
search--eavesdropping--was conducted was Jimmy Carter.

[[Page S14138]]

  The FISA statute that has been passed works with the President's 
constitutional authorities. It is one way to conduct foreign 
intelligence surveillance, but it is not the only way. You see, 
Congress cannot get rid of a President's constitutional authority by 
passing a law. The President can conduct warrantless foreign 
intelligence surveillance because he is charged under the Constitution 
with protecting our Nation and conducting foreign relations.
  Under the fourth amendment, the surveillance still has to be 
reasonable; it just doesn't require a warrant. In the context of the 
war against al-Qaida and worldwide terrorism, the constitutional 
resolution authorizing the use of all necessary and appropriate force 
to prevent future attacks makes it clear that the President's 
determination of what is and isn't reasonable is entitled to some 
deference. When you are fighting a war, you have to be able to move 
quickly to respond to threats. The President has said he exercised the 
authority to maintain speed and flexibility to target terrorists when 
they are about to harm our country. If the Constitution provides for 
that agility, the President should use it.
  As the 9/11 Commission has pointed out, it was clear that enemy 
communications were made from the United States prior to the September 
11 attacks. The Commission criticized our inability to link things 
happening in the United States with things that were happening 
elsewhere. We know, for example, that Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al 
Midhar, two terrorists who flew a jet into the Pentagon, communicated 
overseas to other members of al-Qaida while they were in the United 
States. We knew they were terrorists, but we did not know they were 
here until it was too late. Reflecting his constitutional 
responsibilities and authorities, the activities authorized by the 
President make it far more likely that such killers can be identified 
and located in time in the future to prevent that tragic occurrence 
from recurring.
  The lawful activity conducted under this authorization has given the 
United States a proven ability to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. 
It enables us to learn more about those who have a link to al-Qaida in 
a way that is agile and timely enough to prevent and detect further 
attacks.
  The program has been successful, but continuing public discussion of 
the nature and use of the capability simply will arm our enemies with 
the knowledge they need to prevent detection and will increase the 
danger to our country, our citizens, and our values.
  Speaking of giving the necessary tools to our law enforcement and 
intelligence agencies, there is the PATRIOT Act, which, again, is being 
filibustered by those on the other side. Over the past few days, 
opponents have raised a number of arguments and charges against two 
controversial provisions from the original PATRIOT Act--FISA business 
records and national security letters. Unfortunately, many of the 
arguments have been inaccurate and misleading, particularly the 
allegations that the conference report does not fix alleged problems 
with these investigative tools.
  Let me be clear, as my colleague from Arizona just pointed out, if 
the USA PATRIOT Act is not reauthorized, we will have done a grave 
disservice to our Nation's security. That is your and my safety, Mr. 
President, and the safety of our families, of our communities, of our 
country. We will be sending the wrong message to terrorists and spies 
who threaten our national security that we will not use every 
constitutional tool available. I don't want to send that message.
  It is far too easy 4 years after September 11 to put restrictions on 
the intelligence community that are not necessary or appropriate. When 
we needlessly restrict intelligence investigations, we increase the 
possibility that the next attack will succeed.
  The arguments of those who seek further to restrict the PATRIOT Act 
tools are not based on any factual allegations of abuse but, rather, on 
unsubstantiated allegations, inaccurate and misleading press accounts, 
and hypotheticals. To adopt their position and to reject the conference 
report is to legislate to the possible rogue FBI agent, the one-tenth 
of 1 percent who might go beyond the law and should be prosecuted if he 
or she does. If we take that step, we will deprive the other 99.9 
percent of FBI agents of lawful investigative tools.
  Rather than basing their votes on inaccurate media reports or 
hypotheticals, I urge my colleagues to base their position on this 
important legislation on facts: the fact that terrorists continue to 
seek to kill Americans; the fact they continue to plot attacks; the 
fact they are determined to continue the war against us; the fact that 
this conference report provides significant increased protections for 
privacy and civil liberties; and the fact that our national security 
investigations have not abused the authorities provided under the 
original act.
  This bill is a compromise. Over the past days, many who have opposed 
the conference report have suggested we can quickly solve the matter by 
simply adopting the original Senate bill. They pointed to the Senate 
passage of this bill by unanimous consent. We did not object to the 
bill because it needed to proceed to conference quickly. If the Senate 
bill had been submitted to the conferees for signature, there are some 
who would not have signed it. That bill went too far, in my view. This 
conference report strikes the appropriate balance, and just barely.
  That said, the conferees considered the bill adopted by the Senate 
and the Senate position on NSLs and FISA business records. All of that 
has been debated and negotiated. In short, the legislative process 
resulted in the conference report presented to us.
  Many opposed to the conference report have made a great deal about 
what this bill is not. Well, I have a list of thing the bill is not as 
well. This bill does not place national security investigators on a par 
with their counterparts investigating criminal cases, regrettably, and 
it doesn't give them the same access criminal investigators have to our 
records. Unfortunately, we could not get that done. But neither does it 
compromise any American civil rights.
  Speaking, as I was, of the war in Iraq, let me point out that we have 
had a tremendous milestone. Last Thursday, there was a 70-percent voter 
turnout, the highest thus far.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an op-ed piece by a 
marine who spoke very eloquently about the reasons why he is signing 
up, why he is going back to Iraq, why significant numbers of people are 
reenlisting because they know we are making progress in the war on 
terror.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       When I told people that I was getting ready to head back to 
     Iraq for my third tour, the usual response was a frown, a 
     somber head shake and even the occasional ``I'm sorry.'' When 
     I told them that I was glad to be going back, the response 
     was awkward disbelief, a fake smile and a change of subject. 
     The common wisdom seems to be that Iraq is an unwinnable war 
     and a quagmire and that the only thing left to decide is how 
     quickly we withdraw. Depending on which poll you believe, 
     about 60 percent of Americans think it's time to pull out of 
     Iraq. How is it, then, that 64 percent of U.S. military 
     officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue 
     our work? Why is there such a dramatic divergence between 
     American public opinion and the upbeat assessment of the men 
     and women doing the fighting?

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, our efforts in Iraq are pivotal to our 
strategic interests in the Middle East and throughout the world. This 
past Wednesday, Osama Bin Ladin's principal deputy, Aman al-Zawahiri, 
in his latest video on the internet called for the insurgent groups in 
Iraq to unite in order to drive out the Americans. Zawahiri has stated 
consistently that the war in Iraq is his holy jihad and the 
battleground for establishing a worldwide, Islamo-fascist state. 
Terrorists like Zawahiri are clear on their goals for Iraq, let us be 
clear and steadfast in our resolve to defeat their diabolical plans and 
lay the foundation for a peaceful, free Iraq.
  As I outlined on the Senate floor earlier this year, Southeast Asia 
is of vital importance to the economic health and the security of the 
United States--and I have urged active engagement. Home to over 500 
million people and two Muslim democracies, U.S. engagement is essential 
for strategic, economic and security reasons.
  I have just returned from my second trip to the region this year. In 
January of this year, I visited Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, 
including a tour of Aceh in the wake of the devastating tsunami that 
hit that part of the country. I have just returned from a trip to

[[Page S14139]]

the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand. Throughout Southeast Asia, I 
spread the message that America has vital interests in the region and 
that we will continue to cultivate economic and security ties.

  Foremost, however, I made it known that the United States wants to 
participate in this and any future East Asian summits. The summit was 
initially billed as a meeting of East Asian countries, but it continued 
to expand until it was a meeting of ASEAN countries plus Japan, Korea, 
China, India, Australia and New Zealand--it has started to look like 
everyone but the United States.
  I can understand China wanting to take this opportunity to 
marginalize the United States while pressing aggressively their 
priorities in the region. However, I pointed out to the leaders with 
whom I visited in Southeast Asia that the United States was in Asia 
during World War II to liberate the region from Japanese aggression; we 
were in Asia to prevent the region from being taken over from the 
communists, and we are in the region to fight Islamic fascists bent in 
turning the region into part of an Islamic caliphate. We were in the 
region immediately to provide resources to save thousands of lives in 
Aceh and begin the rebuilding process. We have made a valuable 
contribution to the quality of life in Asia and we should not be 
excluded from such an important summit.
  The Philippines has a population of 87 million people and population 
is expected to double in the next 30 years. I saw a startling statistic 
that showed in the same time that median income increased over 2,000 
percent in Korea, increased over 900 percent in Thailand and almost 700 
percent in Indonesia, median income increased only 90 percent in the 
Philippines.
  Despite its longstanding ties to the United States and the presence 
of an English speaking population, the country has not advanced 
economically to the level it should have. The corruption of Marcos was 
a terrible setback but it is time to move ahead. The country is in need 
of U.S. Foreign Direct Investment but I heard from the American Chamber 
of Commerce that reforms are needed before more investment will flow, 
especially in area of judicial reform and intellectual property 
protection. We do have extensive U.S. Government presence that is 
actively working with the government on these and many important 
reforms.
  In an excellent meeting I had with President Arroyo, I commended her 
on the leadership role the Philippines has taken to pushing ASEAN 
finally to get tough on Myanmar. It is long past time for that country 
to improve its human rights record and move towards installing the 
popularly elected government. We also discussed and I thanked her for 
her support of our objective to advance free trade in Asia.
  Despite the massive undertaking, the rebuilding of Aceh is 
progressing. The U.S. remains involved, notably we have been integral 
to building a 60 mile road to cross the island of Sumatra, an essential 
artery to rebuilding the country. Between our efforts and between the 
waiver of military sanctions by the President, our standing in the 
United States is on the rise.
  Reviving military to military relations will pay more dividends than 
support for the United States. The reform-minded President of Indonesia 
is a graduate of Webster University in St. Louis, MO, but he is also a 
graduate of the IMET program. While his tasks are immense, he is 
committed to reform and he has taken on corruption in the government 
and needed structural reforms in the military. Change will never happen 
at a pace that will satisfy some in this Congress, but important 
reforms are advancing and I believe we should seize the opportunity to 
influence further the professionalism of the Indonesian military 
through more IMET participation.
  I also had the opportunity to dine with some very engaging, forward-
looking members of the Indonesian parliament. They share my concern in 
the limitations of the Indonesian education system and the holes in 
curriculum that may be exploited by the paesantrans that are Saudi 
funded and teach an extreme version of Islam.
  President Bush has identified an important goal, improving the 
education system in Indonesia, and has proposed a four year, $157 
million education program for Indonesia. USAID is implementing the 
program that will work on curriculum issues and train teachers. This 
program is targeted at introducing basic education and the teaching of 
skills to young Indonesians, so that they will leave school with the 
ability to find work--creating a capable Indonesian labor force in the 
process.
  Finally, I had an excellent visit to Thailand, a great and 
longstanding ally of the United States. Like the other countries in the 
region, we have active ties with Thailand on a number of levels. We are 
presently negotiating a FTA with the Thais, successful completion of an 
FTA will make Thailand our second free trade partner in Asia.
  But there is also a great deal of success in the region in the war on 
terrorism and many of the countries in Southeast Asia have been 
valuable partners. As I have stated on this floor, Southeast Asia has 
opened up as a second front on the war on terrorism. It is home to its 
own terrorist network, Jemaah Islamiyah, that has made a number of 
successful and deadly attacks, including the two devastating bombings 
in Bali.
  There have been numerous victories over terrorism in the past 3 years 
in the Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines. For example, last month 
on November 9, 2005, in Indonesia, Indonesian police tracked down and 
killed Dr. Azahari bin Husin, the Jemaah Islamiyah bomb expert who was 
known as the most feared terrorist in Asia. Azahari was responsible for 
the two Bali bombings, an attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta, 
and the bombing of the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, among others. He 
was in the midst of planning a string of terrorist attacks when police 
assaulted his safe house in East Java. The termination of his terror 
campaign was the result of a culmination of numerous entities working 
together to fight terrorism in the region. U.S. assistance was and 
remains paramount to such efforts and is having great effect.
  In Thailand on August 11, 2003, Riduan Isamuddin, aka Hambali, was 
arrested by Thai authorities near Bangkok, Thailand, after extensive 
coordination between multiple agencies and authorities. The capture of 
Hambali truly is a testament to the effectiveness that we and the 
allies we support are having in the global war on terror. When the 
details of this operation are declassified in the future, the 
phenomenal tale of his capture should make for a dynamic, nonfiction 
movie. President Bush described Hambali as ``one of the world's most 
lethal terrorists'' and a key figure in al Qaeda's global operations. 
Hambali was a close associate of September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh 
Mohammed, KSM, and it is no coincidence that the information we have 
gleaned from detainees like KSM has led to captures like that of 
Hambali.
  In the Philippines, a great success in the war on terror has taken 
place over the past year on the southern Philippine island of Basilan. 
I met with the Commander of the Joint Special Operations Task Force 
Philippines, JSOTF-P, and he briefed me on this tremendous success. One 
of the primary terrorist organizations in the Philippines is the Abu 
Sayyaf Group, ASG. The ASG is primarily a small, violent Muslim 
terrorist group operating in the southern Philippines. The group split 
from the much larger Moro National Liberation Front in the early 1990s 
under the leadership of Abdurajak Abubakar Janjalani, who was killed in 
a clash with Philippine police in December 1998. His younger brother, 
Khadaffy Janjalani, replaced him as the nominal leader of the group. 
The group's goal is to promote an independent Islamic state in western 
Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago, area in the southern Philippines 
heavily populated by Muslims. In April 2000, an ASG faction kidnapped 
21 persons, including 10 Western tourists, from a resort in Malaysia. 
On May 27, 2001, the ASG kidnapped three U.S. citizens and 17 Filipinos 
from a tourist resort in Palawan, Philippines. Several of the hostages, 
including U.S. citizen Guillermo Sobero, were murdered. Philippine 
authorities say that the ASG had a role in the bombing near a 
Philippine military base in Zamboanga in October 2002 that killed a 
U.S. serviceman. In February 2004, Khadaffy Janjalani's faction bombed 
SuperFerry

[[Page S14140]]

14 in Manila Bay, killing approximately 132, and in March, Philippine 
authorities arrested an ASG cell whose bombing targets included the 
U.S. Embassy in Manila.
  Today, however, after a year of joint operations between U.S. and 
Phillipine personnel consisting of combat patrols, civil affairs 
assistance, and local interaction with the citizens on the island, the 
majority of ASG personnel and other terrorist groups have been squeezed 
out of the island. Not only have most of the nefarious characters 
departed, but as our troops built wells and provided educational 
assistance they gained the trust of the inhabitants. They showed them a 
better way of life and thus ensured that once they left the terrorists 
would not be welcomed back. Thus far the method has worked, and a haven 
for terrorism has been eliminated. Through establishing security, 
building infrastructure and winning the confidence of the locals, 
Basilan Island has transformed into a place where terrorists are no 
longer welcome, and although U.S. and Philippine forces have largely 
left, the terrorists have not returned.


                           Rajadamri Compound

  Mr. President, on a number of occasions this session, I have 
addressed my colleagues about the critical importance of engagement and 
maintaining strong relationships with our allies in Southeast Asia. As 
I have described, an active U.S. presence is essential for a number of 
vital economic, security and strategic reasons. The United States has a 
number of strong allies in the region and these relationships are very 
important for promoting our policies pursuing peace, stability and 
prosperity in Southeast Asia. I remind my colleagues that the United 
States and the Kingdom of Thailand will soon celebrate 175 years of 
formal relations between the two countries, which makes Thailand our 
foremost and longest standing ally in Asia. It is in this context that 
I rise to address the significance of the Rajadamri Diplomatic Compound 
occupied by the U.S. Embassy in Thailand.
  After the end of World War II, the U.S. Government intervened with 
the Government of the United Kingdom on behalf of the Kingdom of 
Thailand. The United Kingdom was demanding war reparations from the 
Kingdom of Thailand, which was nominally allied with Japan during the 
war. However, the United States argued that during the war the Allies 
received very meaningful assistance from the Free Thai movement, which 
was composed of a significant number of the Thai leadership. In 1949, 
in acknowledgment of the U.S. role in assisting the Free Thai movement 
and in persuading the United Kingdom to forego pursuit of war 
reparations, the Royal Thai Government sold Rajadamri to the United 
States for a nominal sum and transferred title to the 17 acre compound.
  Rajadamri is a beautiful piece of property. Located in the heart of 
bustling Bangkok, around the corner from the U.S. Embassy and across 
from the famous Peace Park, Rajadamri is a magnificent setting where a 
visitor can simultaneously admire the imposing modern towers of 
downtown Bangkok and feed a Mekong catfish or pet the good-natured 
Chihuahua that lives on the grounds. The tranquil compound also houses 
three historic Thai homes that were built by the king for favored 
members of the royal family. Rajadamri represents a true gesture of 
friendship from the Thai Government and the people of Thailand. The 
granting of these royal residences to the U.S. Government is 
unprecedented and emphasizes even more so that this gift is a true 
symbol of the gratitude of the Thai people.
  This compound has played a significant role in the long relationship 
with our stalwart Thai allies. In addition to the close cooperation 
between U.S. Forces and the Free Thai during WWII, the Thai Government 
has stood by the United States during Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, 
Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The Thais remain a very close friend in 
Southeast Asia and provide a variety of assistance beyond military, 
including delivering important assistance to Indonesia, Sri Lanka and 
other countries affected by the tsunami of 2004; and serving as the 
strategic center for our efforts to deal with Avian influenza and other 
pandemic risks. During the Vietnam War, the morgue used for 
transferring soldiers killed in action from Vietnam to the U.S. was 
initially located on this compound. Rajadamri has served as a base for 
regional U.S. financial operations. Rajadamri also continues to house 
numerous embassy support elements, along with other facilities 
supporting assistance programs, our war against terrorism, operations 
to eliminate trafficking in humans and drugs, and our operations to 
promote peace and stability in the region.
  As the Rajadamri compound was essentially a gift to the United States 
by a grateful Royal Thai Government, I believe it is our obligation to 
continue to use the compound in a manner that is consistent with the 
spirit in which it was given to the United States. The Kingdom of 
Thailand is one of the United States true friends in the world. In 
honor of that friendship, in an effort to strengthen our warm relations 
and in hopes that the relationship will grow as we continue to meet 
challenges in the region and the world, we must maintain Rajadamri as a 
centerpiece of our mission to Thailand. I urge my colleagues to support 
me on this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 
10 minutes as in morning business and that following my remarks Senator 
Levin be recognized for up to 10 minutes and that the time not be 
charged against the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Wiretap

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to read a quote that I thought my 
colleagues might be interested in. Let me first read the quote. It 
says:

       Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by 
     the way, any time you hear the United States government 
     talking about wiretap, it requires--a wiretap requires a 
     court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. So when we're 
     talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about 
     getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our 
     fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, 
     constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing 
     what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value 
     the Constitution.

  Now, that sounds like something that would come from somebody saying, 
of course, we ought to have court orders before we wiretap our 
citizens. Well, let me tell my colleagues who made this statement. It 
was President Bush in 2004, on April 20, in my home State of New York, 
in the great city of Buffalo.
  Let me read what the President said while we are talking about this 
new revelation about wiretaps. He says again, this is a quote from 
President Bush, April 20, 2004:

     . . . any time you hear the United States government talking 
     about wiretap, it requires--a wiretap requires a court order. 
     Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about 
     chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court 
     order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens 
     to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional 
     guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is 
     necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the 
     Constitution.

  So I have a question for the President: Sir, with all due respect, 
what has changed? If, on April 20, 2004, you said we needed a court 
order to do wiretaps when we listen in on our citizens, why is it now 
that you are out there busy saying we do not need a court order; that 
the law does not require it?
  On April 20, 2004, I would say to the President, you obviously knew 
that this program of wiretapping citizens was in effect. Why did you 
say we always need a court order, that that is what the Constitution 
says, ``because we value the Constitution,'' ``constitutional 
guarantees,'' your words?
  I think this shows the speciousness of the argument that has been 
made by those in the White House, including the President, that, of 
course, wiretapping citizens without a court order is perfectly allowed 
by the law. The President himself stated something that you learn in 
law school, that you probably even learn in a civics class in high 
school or a constitutional law class in college, that a wiretap for an 
American citizen requires a court order.
  The President of the United States stated:

     . . . any time you hear the United States government talking 
     about wiretap, it requires--a wiretap requires a court order 
     . . .

  I could not have stated it any better myself. That is the law. That 
has been

[[Page S14141]]

the law for a long time in this country and many believe that the 
Constitution, the fourth amendment, so requires.
  So I would ask the President now to admit that in the heat of the 
aftermath of 9/11, something we all felt, that a mistake was made; that 
the Government went ahead and wiretapped American citizens without a 
court order. That was a mistake and should not be repeated or defended. 
We Americans realize that we need security as well as liberty and, in 
fact, in the Pantheon of values, I guess security might come a little 
bit above liberty, but as the President is implying, when it comes to 
wiretaps we can have both. So for all the sturm und drang, for all the 
fuss that has been made, oh, of course, everyone knows the law does not 
require us to get a court order for wiretaps, the President's basic 
knowledge--and by the way, from what I am told, this is from the 
President's archives. He went off the script and just said this on his 
own, that he knew that a wiretap requires a court order.
  So I would ask the President to reconsider his words of the last few 
days. I would ask the President to join the vast majority of Americans 
who know that if you are going to wiretap an American citizen, of 
course, you have to go to court. And if it is unwieldy to do so, that 
you go to Congress and change the law. You do not change it with the 
flick of a pen.
  You compare this statement, what the President said in Buffalo, NY, 
on April 20, 2004, to what the President is saying in the last few 
days, it is a 180-degree turn.
  Mr. President, which one do you really mean? Which one do you really 
believe? Please, no one should be playing political games on something 
as serious as the delicate balance between security and liberty.
  So I ask my colleagues, as we consider possibly renewing the PATRIOT 
Act, to read what the President has said. The view that we have had on 
this side of the aisle, that it was sort of beyond discussion; that if 
one is going to wiretap an American citizen, they needed court 
permission--in emergencies, of course, it is allowed 72 hours after it 
is done--that that was more or less the consensus in this country, and 
it was a consensus the President was part of at least as of a year and 
a half ago.
  What made the President change his views? What made him reverse the 
universally accepted view that a wiretap requires a court order is 
beyond me. But let us move forward here. Let us come together, realize 
that we must protect ourselves but that we can protect ourselves and 
protect our liberties at the same time.
  I urge the President to explain why he said what he did on April 20 
and why what he is saying now is so different and to return to the 
position that most Americans accept, the position he had on April 20 
but has since vanished, and that is that to wiretap an American citizen 
requires a court order.
  I yield my remaining time and yield to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cantwell be 
recognized immediately after I conclude, for 10 minutes under the same 
conditions as I am speaking under.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         defense appropriations

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a totally extraneous provision allowing for 
oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--
ANWR--has been inserted in the Defense Appropriations Conference 
Report. The provision was in neither the House or Senate bill which 
went to conference. This provision clearly violates Senate Rule 28 
which states:

       Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not 
     committed to them by either House, nor shall they strike from 
     the bill matter agreed to by both Houses. If new matter is 
     inserted in the report, or if matter which was agreed to by 
     both Houses is stricken from the bill, a point of order may 
     be made against the report, and if the point of order is 
     sustained, the report is rejected or shall be recommitted to 
     the committee of conference if the House of Representatives 
     has not already acted thereon.

  It is clear that the ANWR provision violates Rule 28 and that the 
Presiding Officer will, on the advice of the Parliamentarian, so rule. 
The sponsors have indicated that they will appeal such a ruling of the 
Presiding Officer and seek to overrule it. If they are successful, this 
would, in effect, eliminate enforcement of Rule 28.
  That is why language has been inserted in the Defense Appropriations 
Conference Report which would, upon the signing of the legislation into 
law, attempt to reinstate Rule 28's effectiveness. That provision 
states:

       Effective immediately, the presiding officer shall apply 
     all the precedents of the Senate under Rule 28 in effect at 
     the beginning of the 109th Congress.

  Playing ping pong with the Senate rules is an outrageous process. 
Violating a Senate rule and restoring it, all in the same bill, if 
permitted to occur, means the rules of the Senate are subject to the 
whim of conference committees. Rules will exist or can be ignored, 
violated, or reinstated at the whim of the conferees. Conference 
reports could be used by a Senate majority to circumvent any Senate 
rule. Each conference committee becomes a Rules Committee--every 
conference report can accomplish anything the majority wants regardless 
of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Senators should play by the rules, 
not play with the rules. Do we care if the Senate rules take a massive 
blow? Why are we contemplating destroying our process this way?
  The majority has cited as a precedent the 1996 Federal Aviation 
Authorization Conference Report. A Rule 28 point of order was raised 
against that bill because of out of scope matters which were added in 
conference. The ruling of the Chair was overturned by the Senate, 
creating a precedent that the Senate so regretted that, by bipartisan 
agreement, 4 years later, the Senate restored the enforcement of the 
rule.

  The trashing of our rules proposed in this Defense Appropriations 
bill in order to get an unrelated provision passed, is far worse than 
the mistake we made in 1996. The effort to combine the destruction of a 
rule and its restoration all in the same legislative act would create a 
precedent which could lead to the routine circumvention of any Senate 
rule by conference committees. Is this what we want to do in the 
Senate--to leave ourselves without rules we can rely on?
  If the suspension of a rule has merit, the Senate has a process under 
its rules to suspend it. Suspension of a rule simply requires a 1-day 
advance notice and a \2/3\ vote. This is the proper way to proceed 
under the rules, not abusing the conference committee process to allow 
the majority to change the rules at any time for any purpose by adding 
language to a conference report.
  So what can a minority do in response to protect itself in the future 
against this trashing of the rules? The minority would presumably never 
agree to allowing the Senate to appoint conferees. Since the steps 
leading to conference require the cooperation of the minority party in 
most instances, why would the minority leave itself vulnerable to 
losing the protections of 200 years of Senate rules, precedents, and 
history? My colleagues, walking down this road leads us to an abyss. 
Why are we doing this to the Senate? I am afraid it is because some 
have the power to do it and get their legislative goal accomplished.
  Arthur Vandenberg, one of my predecessors from Michigan is one of the 
giants of Senate history. His portrait was recently added to the Senate 
Reception Room outside of this chamber where he joined six other greats 
of the Senate. Senator Vandenberg back in 1949 said:

       I continue to believe that the rules of the Senate are as 
     important to equity and order in the Senate as is the 
     Constitution to the life of the Republic, and that those 
     rules should never be changed except by the Senate itself, in 
     the direct fashion prescribed by the rules themselves.

  Senator Vandenberg added that when:

     . . . we fit the rules to the occasion, instead of fitting 
     the occasion to the rules . . . in the final analysis, under 
     such circumstances, there are no rules except the transient, 
     unregulated wishes of a majority of whatever quorum is 
     temporarily in control of the Senate. That, Mr. President, is 
     not my idea of the greatest deliberative body in the world. . 
     . . No matter how important [the pending issue's] immediate 
     incidence may seem to many today, the integrity of the 
     Senate's rules is our paramount concern, today, tomorrow, and 
     so long as this great institution lives.


[[Page S14142]]


  No Senator, no matter how he or she feels about ANWR, should accept 
the abuse of power which is incorporated in the ANWR add-on to the 
Defense Appropriations bill. That bill, so important to our troops and 
our national security should not be misused in this way.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I notice that Senator Cantwell is 
on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. I would say to the Senator from Washington, Senator Frist 
will be here shortly to do maybe, I hope, a unanimous consent request. 
If that is the case, I ask the Senator from Washington to allow us to 
interrupt.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I am happy to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, many of my colleagues have been on the 
floor talking about the importance of the votes tomorrow, and I want to 
remind my colleagues that I do think that these votes are important for 
the Senate process. I am very disturbed, as are many of my colleagues, 
that we have moved forward with the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill that includes language to open up drilling in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as a provision allowing drug 
manufacturers to be protected from liability from lawsuits for vaccines 
that they make.
  I think most of my colleagues thought we were going to vote on a 
Department of Defense appropriations bill tomorrow that was going to 
help our troops and give military pay raises and help provide security 
for our Nation. The last thing I think many Americans think is a nexus 
to that is drilling in the Arctic Refuge, particularly when many 
Americans believe we don't have enough energy independence and need to 
get over our over dependence on fossil fuels.
  I hope my colleagues understand how important this issue is. We have 
been contacted by military leaders, retired military leaders who have 
said:

     . . . any effort to attach controversial legislative language 
     authorizing drilling in ANWR to the defense appropriations 
     conference report will jeopardize Congress' ability to 
     provide our troops and their families the resources they 
     need. . . .

  This coming from retired military personnel who thought it was so 
important they actually sent a letter saying they were concerned that 
this legislation would hold up funding for our troops. That letter has 
previously been printed in its entirety in the Record.
  We have also been contacted by the Retired Military Officers 
Association. These are individuals, too, who want to see legislation go 
through because they want to make sure the men and women in the 
military receive their increase in pay and take care of the troops 
overseas and get all the enforcements they need in a Defense bill. But 
they also wrote to us saying:

       We are concerned that the insertion of any divisive, non-
     defense related issues at the last minute could further delay 
     the enactment of this crucial legislation.
  So military leaders from around our country are saying they do not 
like the antics of putting ANWR drilling, a very divisive issue that 
has been debated for 25 years, into a Defense appropriations bill. This 
is coming from the military men and women who want to see a clean 
defense appropriations bill.
  I should say to my colleagues that there are other people watching 
this issue as well. We have newspapers across the country that are also 
calling out for Congress to be more responsible on this legislation. 
They are hearing the complaint, as I am, from many parts of the country 
about this legislation and the way it has been put together.
  The Statesman Journal in Salem, OR, states that some U.S. lawmakers 
are still trying to scheme and allow oil drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge.
  I heard my colleague talk about the vote tomorrow and the process. I 
just wish to emphasize that while there will be points of order as it 
relates to the budget and the budget process allowing for a budget 
point of order and the rules of the budget as it relates to this bill, 
the Defense appropriations bill, there is language in here that I 
believe is outside the scope of this legislation and should not be 
allowed.
  I hope my colleagues understand that is one of the possible votes 
tomorrow--on whether this language on the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, as my colleague from Michigan said, has no inclusion, neither 
in the House nor Senate original proposal, has no place showing up in a 
conference report in the eleventh hour. That is why we are hearing from 
people all over the country about how absurd it is to include this in 
the legislation.
  I hope, if my colleagues are forced to have a vote on upholding the 
ruling of the Chair, that they will realize they are really overturning 
the Senate rules if you disagree with the ruling of the Chair on this 
issue. This is not the same as the budget process. It is part of our 
Senate rules. The Senate rules, as the Senator from Michigan read, are 
very clear. You can't include things in a conference report that were 
in neither House nor Senate version. But that is exactly what the 
Senator from Alaska has tried to do.
  Alaska will likely get, from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, $5 billion in bid bonuses. I actually think that this proposal, 
even for an Alaskan, is shortsighted.
  America needs to be diversifying into alternative fuels like 
biofuels, and be focusing on lightweight materials that help us be 
efficient.
  I think that is why this newspaper in Oregon calls this plan 
shortsighted, that it is disgusting that lawmakers would try to equate 
oil profits with the Nation's true defense needs. That is what 
newspapers across the country are saying about this legislation. I 
believe they are right because we are doing a great disservice to the 
men and women in the military by continuing to talk about this issue 
without being specific to the fact that we are adding something that 
should never have been put in this legislation.
  Another Oregon newspaper, the Oregonian also said that Arctic 
drilling has been thrown into the Defense bill, and it is an 
emotionally charged matter of supporting the troops at a time of war, 
and it does not belong there.
  This is from another newspaper: It doesn't belong there.
  Americans are watching and paying attention to the fact that this 
legislation was thrown in at the eleventh hour. I believe we should 
pull it out and get on about our business of passing a Defense 
appropriations bill.
  Let me mention another issue that I am sorry is in this legislation.
  I have for the Record several editorials that I would also like to 
submit for the Record on this issue of immunity for drug and vaccine 
manufacturers. There are several here that deserve being a part of the 
Record. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times Dec. 14, 2005.]

                    The Stealth Liability Provision

       Republicans are using the last days of this Congressional 
     session to try to grant extraordinary liability protection to 
     the drug companies that will make the vaccines and other 
     medicines to combat a possible influenza pandemic. But they 
     have been slow to mount a comparable effort to help the 
     people who may be harmed by adverse side effects.
       Although liability protection is being portrayed as a vital 
     step in carrying out the president's $7 billion flu pandemic 
     plan, it serves a political purpose as well. The insulation 
     against liability looks suspiciously like an effort to reward 
     the drug companies, which help bankroll Republicans, and 
     punish the trial lawyers, who help bankroll Democrats.
       Some form of liability protection is clearly needed, if 
     only to allay the concerns of drug company executives worried 
     about lawsuits. We know how to provide sensible liability 
     protection and have done so for routine childhood 
     immunizations, and for the national swine flu vaccination 
     campaign of 1976 and the smallpox vaccination effort two 
     years ago. But each time individuals had a mechanism to seek 
     compensation, and often, if warranted, the government could 
     sue the manufacturers.
       For a pandemic, however, Republican leaders would allow 
     suits only if there was willful misconduct. The companies 
     could be reckless or grossly negligent and escape 
     responsibility. As for victims' compensation, the Republicans 
     have been vague and secretive, but claim that they will 
     produce a fair and robust compensation system. Their 
     provision is expected to be attached to a defense 
     appropriations bill that is now before a conference committee 
     and, once approved, cannot be amended on the floor.
       The conferees ought to shun that provision and leave the 
     complexities to fuller discussion early next year.

[[Page S14143]]

             [From the Des Moines Register, Dec. 9, 2005.]

                      Drug Makers Don't Need Gift.

       President Bush and Congress are trying to give a Christmas 
     present to one of their favorite industries--the drugmakers. 
     Senate legislation seeks to create a new government division 
     within the Department of Health and Human Services with the 
     power to shield drug companies from lawsuits.
       The legislation would allow drug makers to create a product 
     with no threat of civil accountability--even if they're 
     negligent.
       That's wrong on its face. But there's also no reason for 
     doing it. The motivation appears to be based on an untruth 
     repeated recently by President Bush.
       Last month, when he outlined a prevention plan for an 
     avian-flu outbreak, he also called on Congress to ``remove 
     one of the greatest obstacles to domestic vaccine production: 
     the growing burden of litigation.'' He said the industry had 
     been ``flooded'' with lawsuits.
       In an independent review of jury verdicts and judicial 
     decisions for cases involving flu vaccine, two Harvard 
     researchers found 10 suits in the past 20 years. Just 10.
       The industry doesn't need protection from litigation--or 
     any more gifts from its friends in Washington.
                                  ____


             [From the Detroit Free Press, Dec. 16, 2005.]

     Vaccine Makers: Lawmakers Service People, Not Drug Companies.

       As panicky as Americans may some day become about getting 
     vaccinated against bird flu, that urgency does not translate 
     into walling off vaccine makers from lawsuits or invoking 
     secrecy around medical research.
       Attempts to add those measures to year-end bills piling up 
     in Congress are subterfuges to dodge the full debate that 
     would probably sink them.
       Some vaccines do come with risks. The best model so far for 
     addressing them is the one used for children's immunizations, 
     which includes a fund to reimburse anyone harmed by a 
     vaccine.
       Shielding drug companies completely could undermine 
     confidence in the vaccines they do develop for an epidemic, 
     which would heighten the risk if bird flu mutates into a form 
     easily transmitted from human to human.
       Managing public fears--whether of the illness or the 
     preventive measures or both--is an essential part of any 
     health strategy.
       In that context, how to handle a rush vaccination program 
     merits serious debate.
       Shoehorning industry favors into other bills, such as the 
     defense spending bill, does not meet the threshold.
       Another potential stealth insert is a plan to create a 
     biomedical research agency that would not have to answer 
     Freedom of Information Act requests or follow other 
     accountability rules normally applied to federal agencies.
       The vaccine shield was part of that plan; groups allied 
     against it wonder whether some of the secrecy provisions also 
     could get slipped into a spending bill.
       The research agency bill allows more information to be 
     hidden than any current law, according to analyses by 
     journalists' associations lined up in opposition.
       Public health programs work best when they live up to that 
     name by operating in the open and serving the common good.
       Congress needs to remember that its first responsibility is 
     to the health of people in this country, not to the companies 
     that get contracts to help protect it.

  Ms. CANTWELL. For example, the Register-Guard--I don't know why 
Oregon is paying so much attention to what is happening, but they are 
on top of things--says in an editorial, ``Unjustifiable protection 
against lawsuits,'' making sure to protect the drug companies is an 
immunity deal for vaccine makers that has been slipped into the Defense 
bill.
  They think it is unjustifiable.
  Another paper, the Vindicator, a Youngstown, OH, newspaper with the 
headline: ``Trading on fear by passing legislation is wrong.''
  It says that when legislators begin attaching complex legislation 
with far-reaching effects to must-pass bills, a tactic designed to 
grease the way for passage with virtually no debate, people should be 
alarmed.
  I ask unanimous consent these articles be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Register Guard, Dec. 14, 2005]

                        Vaccines Come With Risk

       President Bush and Republican leaders in Congress are right 
     to focus special attention on improving the nation's capacity 
     to develop and distribute vaccines quickly. No response to a 
     bioterrorism attack or influenza pandemic would save more 
     lives than rapid, widespread immunization of healthy people.
       But it's inexcusable to exploit public fears of a flu 
     pandemic as a means to grant the drug industry unjustifiable 
     protection against lawsuits filed by injured patients. Senate 
     Majority Leader Bill Frist is attempting to slip immunity for 
     drug and vaccine makers into a defense spending bill without 
     debate.
       It's not just unseemly to concoct such a blatant Christmas 
     giveaway for the pharmaceutical industry. Barring injured 
     patients from seeking compensation undermines the very public 
     health goals an effective vaccination program seeks to 
     promote. Case in point: the Bush administration's 2003 effort 
     to have health professionals and first-responders immunized 
     against smallpox.
       Some military personnel and others who received the 
     smallpox vaccine suffered heart attacks and neurological 
     disorders. When other first-responders were told there would 
     be no compensation for anyone who experienced adverse 
     reactions, the backlash stopped the program in its tracks.
       President Bush would have Americans believe that greedy 
     trial lawyers and runaway jury verdicts have crippled vaccine 
     makers. Hogwash. The idea that U.S. vaccine production has 
     suffered as a result of product liability lawsuits is a 
     Trojan horse designed to sneak the administration's tort 
     reform agenda into must-pass public health legislation.
       Here are the facts: A study of ``Legal Concerns and the 
     Influenza Vaccine Shortage'' by two Harvard University School 
     of Public Health professors found only 10 lawsuits against 
     the manufacturers of flu vaccine during the past 20 years. 
     Moreover, pharmaceutical companies have been making heavy 
     recent investment in vaccine R&D without any additional 
     liability protection.
       The common-sense solution to this issue has existed since 
     1986. It's called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a 
     no-fault fund that shields drug manufacturers from most 
     lawsuits by compensating patients who can prove they were 
     injured by a vaccine.
       All Congress needs to do is extend the VIC plan to any new 
     federal flu pandemic vaccine. That solves the problem without 
     creating the first blanket industry product liability 
     immunity in the nation's history.
                                  ____


                  [From the Vindicator, Dec. 13, 2005]

          Trading on Fear to Pass Vaccine Legislation Is Wrong

       When legislators start playing on the worst fears of 
     people, the people should be worried. And when legislators 
     begin attaching complex legislation with far reaching effects 
     to must-pass bills--a tactic designed to grease the way for 
     passage with virtually no debate--people should be alarmed.
       The American people should be both worried and alarmed by 
     the efforts of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to ram 
     through legislation in the name of protecting the nation from 
     a bird flu epidemic. The bill would not only indemnify the 
     pharmaceutical industry from suits involving death, 
     disability or sickness resulting from the use of pandemic flu 
     vaccines, but would create a new secret bureaucracy to shield 
     the government's health decisions from public scrutiny.
       The need to provide some sort of protection to 
     pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that provide life-
     saving vaccines is arguably necessary.
       Even though a study by Harvard public health professors 
     reported in the October 2005 Journal of the American Medical 
     Association concluded that there were only 10 vaccine-related 
     civil lawsuits brought in the United States in the last 20 
     years, wariness by pharmaceutical companies in pursuing new 
     vaccines is understandable. In today's litigious climate, it 
     only takes one big mistake to bankrupt a company.


                       Vigorous debate necessary

       But the need to protect vaccine providers from unreasonable 
     risks should be vigorously and openly debated in Congress. If 
     companies are to be indemnified against potential 
     catastrophic losses by the federal government, should the 
     federal government share in any extraordinary profits a 
     company makes when its vaccine is a market success?
       But there will be no such discussion of hypotheticals if 
     Frist has his way. He is attempting to attach the liability 
     shield bill of Sen. Richard Burr, R-NC, onto a must-pass 
     defense spending bill.
       Even more troubling, S.B 1873 would establish the 
     Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency within 
     the Department of Health and Human Services. BARDA would be 
     presided over by a presidential appointee and would assume 
     many of the functions of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health.
       But unlike the CDC and NIH, BARDA would be exempt from the 
     Freedom of Information Act.

  Ms. CANTWELL. The Toledo Blade editorial said:

       Congress and President Bush have acted sluggishly in 
     protecting the nation from public health emergencies, but 
     they can move at lightning speed when it comes to helping 
     their friends in the pharmaceutical industry.

  I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Toledo Blade Editorial, Dec. 16, 2005]

                           Congress, on Drugs


          helping their friends in the pharmaceutical industry

       One example: A Senate bill aimed at creating a stealthy new 
     federal agency to shepherd rapid development of drugs and 
     vaccines to be used against bio-terrorism and pandemic 
     disease.
       Against the backdrop of potentially deadly bird flu 
     outbreaks worldwide, it sounds like

[[Page S14144]]

     a good idea, but a closer look reveals a plan for blanket 
     immunity for industry against legal action by anyone hurt or 
     killed by defective drugs or vaccines. Worse, the agency's 
     activities would be shielded from public view by an exemption 
     from the federal Freedom of Information Act, broader even 
     than the CIA enjoys.
       The bill, introduced in mid-October by Sen. Richard Burr, 
     Republican of North Carolina, reportedly is set to be 
     attached to a defense appropriations bill that Congress must 
     pass this month before lawmakers leave town for the holidays. 
     That means there would be little or no debate.
       The legislation would be welcomed at the White House, which 
     has demonstrated repeatedly that it wants to govern with the 
     least amount of public input and as much secrecy as possible.
       Not surprisingly, the action is being taken in the wake of 
     two reports that give the Bush Administration low marks for 
     emergency preparedness.
       First, the 9/11 commission gave the government an F for 
     lackluster homeland security efforts since the terrorist 
     attacks more than four years ago. That was followed by a 
     stinging D+ from Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit, 
     nonpartisan Washington organization that graded the 
     administration's overall public health capability in the 
     event of a disaster.
       Senator Burr has been quoted as saying the legislation is 
     necessary to provide ``the incentives and protections 
     necessary to bring more and better drugs and vaccines to 
     market faster.'' Experts, however, say the industry is doing 
     just fine and doesn't need special treatment. Moreover, 
     despite claims to the contrary, there has been no disruptive 
     wave of lawsuits against drug manufacturers.
       And, working in secrecy, BARDA would have the sole 
     authority to determine what medical equipment, drugs and 
     vaccines would be shielded from civil lawsuits.
       We have editorialized before about the penchant for the 
     Bush administration, which backs S.B. 1873, to try to expand 
     the secrecy under which government operates. It began long 
     before the threat of avian flu, even before Sept. 11, 2001. 
     But the administration and its supporters have not been shy 
     about using fears of disease or terrorism or national 
     security to further a goal of being able to operate with less 
     and less public oversight.
       If Burr's bill is a good one, it should be able to survive 
     the healthy debate that is supposed to be a part of the 
     legislative process.
       Likewise, if bureaucrats are making life and death 
     decisions regarding the medical care that is available to the 
     American people, they should be subject to the same Freedom 
     of Information law that existing public health agencies work 
     under.

     
                                  ____
  Ms. CANTWELL. The St. Louis-Dispatch, ``Vaccines: Shot in the dark.''

       Nor is there any reason to provide extraordinary liability 
     protection for drug companies making bird flu vaccine.
       It may be attached to a defense appropriations bill . . . 
     that would be a big mistake.

  I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Editorial, Dec. 15, 2005]

                       Vaccines: Shot in the Dark

       Shielding vaccine makers from accountability won't speed 
     the development of new drugs to fight bioterrorism. But 
     that's the approach some in Congress seem bent on taking.
       Rushing to get home for Christmas vacation, Congress is 
     poised to approve an ill-considered bill introduced by Senate 
     Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. The bill would create a 
     new bureaucracy, the Biomedical Advanced Research and 
     Development Agency, that would perform many of the functions 
     now carried out by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention and the National Institutes of Health.
       It's being sold as an essential step in President George W. 
     Bush's pandemic flu plan, and a short-cut to the development 
     of vaccines for other diseases that could be used in a 
     bioterror attack. It is neither.
       The new agency would be exempt from the federal Freedom of 
     Information Act. And it would have the authority to block 
     civil actions on drugs, vaccines and other medical devices 
     developed for it. That means patients would have no right to 
     compensation if they were harmed, and professional groups 
     could be blocked from getting information about things like 
     complication rates.
       The foundation of public health is sharing information, 
     making it as widely available to individuals and local 
     governments as possible. Arguing that an agency designed to 
     help combat bird flu or bioterror should work in 
     extraordinary secrecy is as puzzling as it is wrong-headed.
       Nor is there any reason to provide extraordinary liability 
     protection for drug companies making bird flu vaccine. For 20 
     years, America has had a vaccine injury compensation fund 
     that helps people injured by side-effects of inoculations and 
     protects vaccine makers from excessive liability. It works 
     fine, so why tamper with it?
       Most analysts say that recent reductions in the number of 
     vaccine makers are tied to low profit margins and uncertain 
     markets, not to the fear of lawsuits. Now, with guarantees of 
     massive government purchases, the industry is gearing up 
     research and production. It doesn't need these new 
     protections.
       Dr. Frist's bill could be voted on by the end of the week. 
     It may be attached to a defense appropriation bill that would 
     be the last thing Congress votes on this year. That would be 
     a big mistake.

  Ms. CANTWELL. The Times-Tribune of Scranton, PA, said:

      . . . the prospect of a pandemic is being used by Congress 
     to pander to the pharmaceutical industry.

  And:

       Congress should not use legitimate concerns about a flu 
     epidemic as a wedge to protect the manufacturers from 
     liability.

  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Times-Tribune, Dec. 12, 2005]

                           Pandering Pandemic

       Fear of an avian flue pandemic has driven the government to 
     find ways to increase the production of vaccines while 
     improving monitoring and detection technology. Unfortunately, 
     the prospect of a pandemic also is being used in Congress to 
     pander to the pharmaceutical industry.
       The Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development 
     Act of 2005 would create a new federal agency that would be 
     exempt from public disclosure laws, while superseding many of 
     the functions now handled by public agencies such as the 
     National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention. It would have the power to designate 
     certain drugs as exempt from civil liability litigation.
       That measure cannot be directed at vaccines. According to a 
     study of recent flu vaccine shortages by the Harvard School 
     of Public Health, only 10 liability suits have been filed 
     against vaccine manufacturers over the last 20 years. Most 
     such claims are handled under the National Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Program.
       Economic factors produce vaccine shortages. Vaccines are 
     difficult and costly to produce, and unlike for prescription 
     drugs, there is no definitive long-term market. That's why 
     the federal government, quite rightly, has begun to subsidize 
     vaccine production.
       Members should get a copy of the most recent issue of the 
     New England Journal of Medicine, which accuses Merck of 
     misrepresenting the results of clinical trials of Vioxx, the 
     anti-inflammatory medicine that was pulled from the market 
     this year.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Several other articles that I will go through include 
the Roanoke Times, that this legislation is in pursuit of secrecy 
around this issue.
  The Orlando Sentinel: Drug firms don't deserve virtually unlimited 
protection against vaccines lawsuits that would shield manufacturers.
  The Raleigh, NC newspaper: Wrong way immunity.
  One more, the Las Vegas Sun, titled ``Vaccines and accountability: 
Bush's proposal to shield avian-flu vaccine makers from liability 
invites health problems.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have those printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the World News, Dec. 11, 2005]

                       Naughty Pursuit of Secrecy

                           (By Tommy Denton)

       As is his custom this time of year, Santa's been making a 
     list and checking it twice, finding out who's been naughty 
     and nice.
       President Bush and other perpetrators of the nefarious 
     ``Black Drug Act'' should consider themselves in the 
     ``naughty'' column.
       OK, the ``Black Drug Act'' slightly overstates the 
     nefariousness of the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug 
     Development Act of 2005, its formal title, but not all that 
     much.
       Introduced in October in response to natural and 
     potentially terrorist-induced pandemics, the bill would 
     create a new federal bureaucracy under a presidential 
     appointee charged with overseeing a vast new initiative to 
     develop remedies for such events.
       Skeptics might wonder why the administration supports 
     creating another agency that effectively duplicates the 
     functions currently assigned to the highly capable U.S. 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National 
     Institutes of Health and other federal public health 
     operations.
       The answer, for those untutored in the ways of Washington 
     in general and the Bush administration in particular, lies in 
     the proposed agency's license to operate under smothering 
     secrecy.
       That's where the ``black'' comes in under the legislation's 
     informal title, as in the ``black'' operations of the 
     military that are exempt from public awareness or exposure.
       The same would apply for the Biomedical Advanced Research 
     and Development Agency, which, with its extra-judicial powers 
     and supervision by a political appointee, would

[[Page S14145]]

     be cloaked in official secrecy while ensuring that remedies 
     for fighting a biological outbreak or attack would remain 
     equally ``black.''
       Translated into operational terms, that means BARDA would 
     grant astounding levels of secrecy and legal immunity from 
     civil lawsuits filed by persons harmed by the products of the 
     drug companies overseen by the agency.
       Even the business of the agency would be exempt from the 
     public protections of the federal Freedom of Information Act. 
     The Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency are 
     required to meet the accountability standards of such 
     scrutiny, for goodness' sake, so the shield provided to BARDA 
     and its clients in the pharmaceutical industry should elicit 
     a public denunciation of epic proportions.
       Yet, under the president's eager support, a squadron of 
     Republican senators has been shoving the bill closer to 
     passage with a frightening lack of public attention to its 
     perils.
       Bush pleaded early last month: ``One of the greatest 
     obstacles to domestic vaccine production [is] the growing 
     burden of litigation. In the past three decades, the number 
     of vaccine manufacturers has plummeted, as the industry has 
     been flooded with lawsuits.''
       Oh? According to a study published in October of 2004 in 
     the Journal of the American Medical Association by Michelle 
     Mello and Troyan Brennan, Harvard University School of Public 
     Health professors, only 10 lawsuits were filed against makers 
     of flu vaccine in the last 20 years.
       And the president's alleged flood of lawsuits apparently 
     has not seriously discouraged such manufacturers of vaccines 
     for influenza and other infectious diseases as Merck, Wyeth, 
     GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and the Swiss company Roche.
       Sanofi-Pasteur, the nation's largest flu vaccine maker, 
     already has invested $150 million to double its production 
     capacity in response to the likely demand for its products, 
     according to a recent report on National Public Radio.
       The key for the White House and congressional leadership in 
     this effort to invoke official secrecy and stymie the civil 
     justice system in the event of malpractice and negligence is, 
     simply, fear.
       Never mind that sound, cutting-edge medical science--
     indeed, all science--and responsive public policy work best 
     under the confidence-building conditions of public 
     transparency.
       If you have no concern for science or the patience for 
     transparency, then raise the specter of bio-terrorists 
     preying on a vulnerable nation, invoke the need to work in 
     secret to repel that peril, and you're halfway home.
       Boogy, boogy, boogy!
       Killer viruses!
       Hide, take refuge in secrecy, hide!
       Boogy, boogy, boogy!
       Under such fear-inspired secrecy, the public would be 
     stripped of the very openness and accountability required to 
     acknowledge, assess and overcome threats to public health and 
     safety--processes essential in a democratic republic.
       No, the Black Drug Act has precious little to do with much 
     of anything other than securing an expanded sphere of 
     official secrecy in which the administration and its favored 
     corporate benefactors can exploit the fruits of fear.
       Santa's still making his list, and he's not amused.
                                  ____


               [From the Orlando Sentinel, Dec. 13, 2005]

Learn From Past Vaccines: Drug Firms Don't Deserve Virtually Unlimited 
                  Protection Against Vaccine Lawsuits

       Even with the threat of a worldwide bird-flu pandemic, U.S. 
     vaccine manufacturers might be unwilling to respond without 
     protection from lawsuits. Protection is fine but it needs 
     limits and some recourse for victims.
       The leading proposal in Congress, from Senate Majority 
     Leader Bill Frist, would bar lawsuits except where a 
     manufacturer's willful misconduct caused injuries or deaths. 
     That standard is much too permissive; it would shield 
     manufacturers in cases of gross negligence, such as failing 
     to follow normal safety procedures.
       Yet Mr. Frist's proposal would not set up an alternative 
     system to compensate victims of severe reactions, which are 
     inevitable in any mass vaccination. Congress made the same 
     mistake preparing for a swine flu pandemic in 1976. That 
     program collapsed amid widespread fears about harm from the 
     vaccine. The country was lucky the pandemic never 
     materialized.
       Congress gave lawsuit protections to childhood-vaccine 
     manufacturers in 1986, but wisely created a compensation 
     system for severe reactions. Rep. Dave Weldon, a Palm Bay 
     Republican and doctor, is rightly concerned that the lack of 
     a system for a bird-flu vaccine could deter doctors and 
     others on the front lines in a pandemic from getting 
     vaccinated.
       Mr. Weldon also sensibly proposes an independent review of 
     the safety of a bird-flu vaccine, to anticipate problems and 
     build public confidence in the program.
       Without limits and the kind of measures Mr. Weldon 
     advocates, lawsuit protection for flu-vaccine manufacturers 
     could backfire.
                                  ____


              [From the News and Observer, Dec. 16, 2005]

                           Wrong-Way Immunity

       It's understandable why the Bush administration and its 
     Capitol Hill allies are trying to speed up the production of 
     vaccines and drugs to combat pandemics and bioterrorist 
     attacks. But in that effort, the administration and 
     Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina have gone off 
     course.
       A bill introduced by Burr has come under wide criticism 
     because of its intended formation of a large new bureaucracy 
     wrapped in secrecy and its lack of accountability to the 
     citizens it is designed to protect. With the measure stalled 
     in the Senate, the sponsors appear intent on trying to pass 
     it as a rider to the defense appropriations bill.
       This kind of end run around fuller consideration would be a 
     mistake. The Senate especially needs a more complete 
     exposition of the Burr bill's proposal that the Biomedical 
     Advanced Research and Development Agency (BARDA) be exempt 
     from the Freedom of Information Act.
       Even more sweeping is a provision empowering the new agency 
     to shield from any legal action those producing vaccines, 
     drugs, medical equipment or other products turned out to 
     combat pandemics or bioterrorism. Such a broad exemption from 
     liability is hardly justified on the record.
       A study reported by the Journal of the American Medical 
     Association found, for example, that there had been only 10 
     lawsuits in 20 years over flu vaccines. Drug companies don't 
     get out of the vaccine business because of liability, the 
     study's authors said, but because of low profit margins and 
     unpredictable demand.
       These are two factors that clearly should be more fully 
     dealt with in any legislation to spur the production of 
     vaccines, for instance, for an avian-flu pandemic.
       There is another major question hanging over Burr's bill: 
     Is it desirable to form within the Department of Health and 
     Human Services a new supersecret agency?
       Already in place are the U.S. Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention, the Department of Homeland Security and the 
     National Institutes of Health. Such programs ought to provide 
     more than enough federal firepower to encourage and monitor 
     the steps being taken to prevent or counter pandemics or 
     bioterror attacks. The forming of a large new agency that 
     would be all but shielded from public and even congressional 
     scrutiny can hardly be the right answer for Americans.
                                  ____


                 [From the Las Vegas Sun, Nov. 2, 2005]

   Vaccines and Accountability: Bush's Proposal to Shield Avian-Flu 
         Vaccine Makers From Liability Invites Health Problems

       The Bush administration is planning today to release a 
     detailed proposal of its plan to thwart an avian flu 
     pandemic. Scientists say the flu, now present in Asia and 
     parts of Europe, could develop into a worldwide crisis if the 
     virus causing it mutates into a form that makes people, and 
     not just birds, contagious.
       President Bush spoke Tuesday in general terms of his plan, 
     most of which we believe is well thought out. The plan would 
     provide funding for developing a new technology for producing 
     vaccines. It would commit the country to a continued 
     partnership with the World Health Organization. It calls for 
     helping to fund the people and agencies in other countries 
     who are now battling the virus. It would provide funding for 
     states to develop emergency plans in the event of a pandemic. 
     It also calls for manufacturing and stockpiling supplies of a 
     flu vaccine that shows promise of being effective.
       These points are all worthy of congressional approval. We 
     do have reservations, however, about another point in Bush's 
     plan. He is asking Congress to absolve the manufacturers of 
     vaccines from all legal liability, meaning they couldn't be 
     sued if people who took the vaccines died or suffered 
     physical harm. We believe this aspect of the plan needs a 
     hard look by Congress.
       Is there really a good reason to remove accountability from 
     manufacturers of drugs that are intended to safeguard the 
     whole country, if not the whole world? We believe that a 
     solid shield against legal action could lead to a lowering of 
     safety standards by manufacturing executives, who will be 
     under pressure to rush vaccines into production. If the 
     manufacturers want protection from widespread bad outcomes, 
     let them buy insurance.
  Ms. CANTWELL. We can see from the editorials there are many people 
paying attention to what is in this Department of Defense 
appropriations bill. I should say, because my colleagues all have a 
copy of the legislation on their desk but they may not have dug deep 
into these many pages to see, that they should pay special attention to 
language starting on page 434 about a liability provision exempting 
drug manufacturers.
  It was alarming enough to me to have the ANWR language, but certainly 
to have additional language that is thrown into this bill as these 
various editorials have said, at a time without the review and the 
complexity of the legislation being discussed is wrong.
  I hope my colleagues tomorrow will think about their votes on this 
process and to say that the Defense bill and appropriations should be 
about the

[[Page S14146]]

troops. It should be about protecting our country. It is about giving 
them resources. It should not be about backdoor attempts or legislative 
blackmail to say force Members to vote for drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge or this drug liability provision.
  I hope my colleagues will read this legislation carefully.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 
10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I don't know what the parliamentary 
situation is, if my time is not to be charged to the bill or charged to 
the bill. Could the Presiding Officer inform me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The last two speakers have asked their time 
not be charged. They were speaking as if in morning business. The Chair 
would honor the request that the Senator's time not be charged against 
the bill.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That would be my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Defense Appropriations

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am rising to say we now know we will 
get the votes on the reconciliation and we are going to have a vote on 
the Defense appropriations bill which includes the ANWR legislation as 
well as the Katrina hurricane relief and the Rita hurricane relief.
  I rise tonight because I hope we now see the pathway to finishing a 
very productive year in the Senate. It is never easy to pass 
legislation in the Senate. We all know that. We have 100 Senators 
representing 50 States and everyone has a different idea. What we have 
to do is come together for the good of our country.
  If ever there was a time when important legislation for the families 
of our country, for the military men and women of our country, for the 
children of our country, for the future, to have energy independence 
for America, this is the time when we must say, even if I don't like 
everything in this bill we must pass it. I don't like everything in 
this bill. Not one Member would say we liked everything in this bill.
  However, what we have pending in the appropriations bill for our 
Department of Defense and regarding ANWR is essential for the future of 
our country. I hope my colleagues will look at this last opportunity we 
have this year to do what is right for our country.
  On the appropriations bill, the chairman of the committee has done an 
incredible job. We are going to have a budget to which we will adhere. 
It is going to have an across-the-board cut to pay for the Katrina 
relief we all are seeking. We are trying to do the responsible thing. 
That is to meet the crises facing our country, the war on terror, doing 
what is right for our military men and women with boots on the ground 
as we speak, helping to make sure terrorists are stopped from 
disrupting Iraq and Afghanistan and coming back to America.
  We are trying to do those things. We are trying to help the victims 
of Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. We are trying to make these important new 
expenditures in a responsible way with an offset of an across-the-board 
1-percent cut in discretionary expenditures with the exception of 
veterans' health benefits. We are not going to cut those. We know the 
Veterans' Administration was running out of health care money, so we 
gave them an emergency supplemental to make sure veterans' health care 
needs are addressed.
  Other than that, we have a 1-percent across-the-board cut in 
discretionary spending as an offset, because that is the responsible 
way to help rebuild the gulf coast that has been hit so hard this year.
  We are taking up the Defense appropriations bill along with ANWR. 
Sometimes I hear on the other side of the aisle arguments as if we had 
not passed ANWR in the Senate. We have passed drilling in ANWR in the 
Senate because we know we must have an energy policy in this country 
that will produce more energy, more types of energy.
  We have to employ conservation to conserve energy. At the same time, 
we have to promote solar energy; renewable sources, such as wind 
energy; research into other types of new fuels, which we are doing 
every day, so we have new sources; and increasing our domestic supply 
of oil and gas, which is the bread and butter of our energy needs for 
this country.
  We are over 50 percent dependent on foreign sources for our energy 
needs in America. That is not a position in which the strongest Nation 
on Earth should find itself. We should have the capability to provide 
our own energy and depend on no one.
  Drilling in ANWR would give us the amount of oil that we get from 
Saudi Arabia every day. We are looking at 4 billion to 11 billion 
barrels of recoverable oil and gas in this area.
  I will never understand why the people who are so opposed to this 
will not go and look at it. The Wildlife Refuge is an area the size of 
the State of South Carolina. The area to be drilled is under 2,000 
acres. Because we have new technologies, you can now drill for miles 
underground without ever marring the surface.
  So we are talking about an area the size of Dulles Airport that would 
be the drilling site in an area the size of South Carolina.
  Are there trees in this area? No. There is not a tree in this area. 
It is grassy plains. Drilling is not going to harm the environment. It 
is going to be done in an environmentally safe way. It will increase 
the energy supply in our country. The people of Alaska, where this is 
to be done, want it. They have overwhelmingly supported it time and 
time and time again. They have supported it in polls. They have 
supported it in coming to Washington to seek the approval of Congress 
because they want the jobs. They want the economic boost. So this is 
something that is good for everyone, and it is the right thing to do 
for our country.
  So I hope, as we start voting on these very important bills and 
finish the business of this year--I hope very soon because so many of 
our Members want to be with their families at this time of year, just 
like everyone in America does--I hope we will do the responsible thing.
  We were elected to represent the people and to stay here as long as 
it takes. I hope we do that tomorrow and we deliver to the American 
people a reconciliation bill that sets the budget on a path to lower 
our deficit by half, as the President has asked us to do, over the next 
5 years; a Defense appropriations bill that will give the Katrina and 
Rita victims the help they need and deserve, and to be able to drill in 
ANWR so we will be able to add one more new source of energy for our 
country that we control, that we do not depend on foreign sources to 
produce for us. That is another vote for the stability of the economy 
and the national security of our country.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing as we start these 
important votes tomorrow.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. I rise today to talk about a few of the many ways that 
this spending reconciliation bill reinforces the misplaced priorities 
of the Republican leadership of this Congress.
  With the 2 reconciliation bills--the bill that we are considering 
today that cuts services for the poor and the bill that we will see 
again in January that cuts taxes for the wealthy--we again are saying 
to the American people that we believe in shared sacrifice . . . so 
long as this sacrifice is made only by those who can least afford it. 
Especially in a time of war, this is wrong.
  I didn't vote for the Senate version of the spending reconciliation 
bill a few weeks ago because I didn't think that it was right to try to 
reduce our huge budget deficit by cutting funding for those who need it 
most while cutting taxes for those who need it least.
  Never mind, of course, that these two bills would actually increase 
the deficit, and therefore not even meet the purpose they were meant to 
serve.
  Now we have received the conference report on the spending 
reconciliation bill, after the House passed this report late last night 
with almost no review or debate. The report cuts funding for the needy 
far more than the original

[[Page S14147]]

Senate bill did, and therefore is even worse than the bill we saw a few 
weeks ago.
  I will attempt to address 6 of the many areas in which this bill cuts 
services to those who need these services most: Medicaid, Child Support 
Enforcement, Child Care, Supplemental Security Income for the Disabled, 
Foster Care, and Higher Education.
  First, this conference report asks for more from those who need 
Medicaid services while asking nothing of pharmaceutical companies and 
HMOs. In fact, this bill was a victory for big business.
  This conference report allows States to increase the Medicaid 
copayments that many beneficiaries must pay in order to receive health 
care services and medications. The original Senate bill included no 
increases in copayments or premiums.
  This conference report, however, reflects the House cuts, which 
overwhelmingly impact beneficiaries.
  The House and Senate conferees also chose to leave a $10 billion 
Medicare slush fund for managed care companies intact.
  The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, an independent 
commission appointed to advise Congress on Medicare spending, found 
that the $10 billion slush fund was unnecessary and unwarranted, and 
recommended its elimination.
  The Senate included its elimination in the Senate-passed budget bill, 
but the managed care companies and the administration went to work on 
the conferees, and the slush fund lives.
  That means the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have $10 
billion to dole out to multimillion dollar managed care companies while 
States will be allowed to increase the copayments of patients making 
below the Federal poverty level, which is slightly more than $19,000 
per year for a family of four.
  The average compensation of the highest paid executive in each of the 
11 largest managed care companies in America was approximately $15 
million in 2002. These companies are not the ones in need of Government 
subsidies.
  Another example of this conference agreement's choice of big business 
over working Americans is the giveaway to pharmaceutical companies 
while punishing poor seniors who need nursing home care.
  The Senate version of this bill insisted that Medicaid get the best 
pharmaceutical prices by increasing the minimum rebates drug 
manufacturers are required to pay the Medicaid program.
  In a victory for the pharmaceutical industry, this provision was 
stripped. Meanwhile, provisions that would substantially impact middle-
income seniors in need of nursing home care were maintained.
  Medicaid was not meant for people who have enough money to afford 
their own nursing home care, and rules restricting the transfer of 
assets to qualify for Medicaid are necessary.
  However, the rules adopted by the conferees are overly restrictive 
and punish middle-income seniors.
  Under the rules outlined in this conference report: A woman who 
helped her granddaughter with her college tuition 5 years ago would be 
penalized.
  A widow who doesn't know what her husband spent their money on before 
he died 4 years ago would be penalized.
  A senior whose home appreciated during the housing boom to $500,000 
would be refused Medicaid, even if her house is modest. Medicaid has 
always had the right to collect from the home of a beneficiary through 
a lien. Now, we are going to deny coverage altogether to a senior who 
happens to live in an active real estate market.
  The typical nursing home resident is a widow in her 80s with 3 to 5 
medical diagnoses who needs help with most daily activities. Almost 
half have Alzheimer's disease or another dementia. Many have no 
immediate family. Why are we punishing them and rewarding HMOs and 
pharmaceutical companies?
  A budget is more than a collection of numbers; it is a reflection of 
values. We should all value health care for the least among us.
  This conference report makes many more cuts beyond the cuts to 
Medicaid.
  Many low-income mothers cannot afford to lose the child support 
payments to which they are legally entitled simply because deadbeat 
dads can get away with not paying to support their children. Yet the 
House has created a conference report that cuts $1.5 billion over the 
next 5 years and $4.9 billion over the next 10 years from the funding 
for child support enforcement.
  The CBO estimates that this will result in $8.4 billion being taken 
out of the pockets of mothers who are owed child support over the next 
10 years.
  This conference report includes $1 billion in additional funding for 
childcare. That sounds pretty good. But since the report would 
dramatically change the way the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
program works, the negative effects on childcare of the conference 
report as a whole are simply huge.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this conference report 
provides $11 billion less than what States would need in order to 
support the new TANF work requirements that this bill requires and to 
maintain the existing childcare programs for low-income working 
families not on TANF.
  Because of this shortfall in funding, many States will likely be 
forced to reduce the number of childcare slots available for TANF 
families. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an 
estimated 255,000 fewer low-income children will receive childcare 
assistance by 2010 compared to the children who received it in 2004.
  This conference report also uses a budget gimmick to make it appear 
that the bill saves more money that it actually does. Shamefully, this 
gimmick comes at the expense of poor people who need supplemental 
security income.
  Let me explain. Today, when disabled people are forced to wait for 
many months to be approved for supplemental security income by the 
Social Security Administration--and unfortunately this seems to happen 
quite often--the money that these disabled individuals are owed is paid 
in one lump sum once these folks are approved for this supplemental 
income. Under this conference report, however, these people would 
instead receive the support for which they are eligible in 
installments.
  Why? So that when the savings of this conference report are 
calculated, it will appear that the savings are bigger than they really 
are, since some of these payments will be pushed outside of the 5-year 
``budget window.'' But this accounting gimmick comes with a real cost: 
the disabled have to wait longer for the help that they need. That is 
just shameful.
  The conference report also cuts $343 million in foster care funding, 
including cuts that will make it more difficult for some grandparents 
to raise their own grandchildren.
  Finally, much has been said already about the $13 billion cut in 
Federal financial aid for college students in this bill. About one-
third of the total cost-savings in the budget reconciliation bill come 
from the student loan program.
  This bill dramatically increases the cost to middle-income families 
of borrowing money to send their kids to school.
  The PLUS program, Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students, is 
available to families who have exhausted their Stafford loan 
eligibility, are credit worthy, but have run out of money for college 
before their kids are done with school.
  Today, PLUS loans are made to parents at an interest rate of 6.1 
percent. This conference report hikes that interest rate to 8.5 
percent. For the 800,000 families with a PLUS loan, that is an average 
increase of $550 per year. Instead of paying $989 in interest, they 
will pay $1,541.
  At a time when we should be doing everything we can to prepare our 
students to compete in the economy of the 21st century, it simply makes 
no sense whatsoever to make it harder for low- and middle-income 
students to go to college.
  In summary, there is simply no reason why we should support this 
conference report which goes much farther in cutting support for the 
needy than the bill that we barely passed by a vote of 52 to 47 a few 
weeks ago. If we are going to ask some Americans to share in the 
sacrifice that wartime requires, we should ask all Americans to share 
in that sacrifice, not only those who are most in need.

[[Page S14148]]

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Deficit 
Reduction and Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005.
  The purpose of this bill is deficit reduction. We did it without 
taking anything away from students. In fact, we gave new money and a 
new program to college students. Let me summarize some of the things we 
did.
  Academic Competitiveness and SMART grants: Creates new grant programs 
that award academic competitiveness grants and SMART grants to Pell-
eligible students in an undergraduate program of study. Students in 
their first and second years may receive awards of $750 and $1300 
respectively, provided they have completed a rigorous program of study 
at the secondary level. Undergraduate students in their third and 
fourth year may receive up to $4,000 in grant aid if they major in 
math, science, technology, engineering or critical foreign languages 
and make progress toward a degree. Students at both 2-year and 4-year 
academic colleges will be eligible for the academic competitiveness 
grants.
  Increase loan limits: Increases loan limits for first- and second-
year students to $3,500 and $4,500 respectively and increases graduate 
borrowing limits to $12,000 per year for unsubsidized loans. In 
addition, the bill permits graduate students to borrow PLUS loans.
  Interest rates: Reduces the cap on student loan interest rates from 
where they are currently capped at 8.25 percent and stabilizes them at 
6.8 percent. The interest rate on parent loans, currently capped at 9.0 
percent, would be fixed at 8.5 percent.
  Lender payment cap: Requires lenders to rebate to the Federal 
Government the difference between the borrower rate and the lender rate 
when the borrower rate exceeds the lender rate.
  Reduction of work penalty: Reduces the work penalty by increasing the 
income protection allowance for students and encourages saving for 
college by reducing the percent of savings that are assessed.
  Simplified needs analysis: Simplifies the application process for 
student aid by permitting students and families who are receiving 
means-tested assistance to file a shorter form and raises the ``auto-
zero'' amount to $20,000 so that families with income levels below that 
amount are automatically determined to have zero expected family 
contribution.
  Reduction of origination fees: Reduces origination fees charged to 
borrowers by 1 percentage point immediately and by half of a percentage 
point for each year beginning July 1, 2007, and continuing through July 
1, 2010.
  Distance learning: Eliminates the ``50 percent'' rules for 
institutions offering distance education programs. One 50 percent rule 
limits the percentage of courses offered through distance learning and 
the other rule limits the percent of an institution's students that may 
be enrolled in distance education courses.
  School as Lender Program: Imposes a moratorium on the School as 
Lender Program effective April 1, 2006. To be grandfathered, schools 
must be making loans prior to or on April 1. In addition, the bill 
requires that the proceeds of the sale of loans, in addition to any 
interest and special allowance payments, must be used for need-based 
student assistance programs at the school. Limits expenses to 
reasonable administrative expenses.
  Extension of loan foregiveness: Permanently extends teacher loan 
forgiveness up to $17,500 to math, science, and special education 
teachers in low-income schools. Private school teachers become eligible 
for loan foregiveness.
  9.5 percent loans: Eliminates the recycling of 9.5 loans and extends 
the limitations already in effect under the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection 
Act. Provides a 5-year extension for the smallest of the non profit 
lenders.
  Over the past year, I have worked to reauthorize the Higher Education 
Act. I worked closely with my colleague and good friend from 
Massachusetts to develop legislation that would provide students with 
access to postsecondary education, make it more affordable for students 
to get to college, and provide them with new opportunities.
  In March of this year, the Senate adopted a budget resolution that 
included reconciliation instructions for several committees, including 
mine. The Senate HELP Committee was given a target that represented 40 
percent of the total deficit reduction package. In conference, the 
Senate HELP Committee again was given the heaviest lift. We were given 
a target that made up an even higher percentage, saving $16.1 billion 
of the $39 billion total.
  One of the principles that guided the committee's efforts to achieve 
the savings was ensuring that a significant portion of the savings 
would be used to provide student benefits. In September, the committee 
approved bipartisan legislation unanimously that included several 
provisions designed to help students, including $8 billion in need-
based grant aid. Of that $8 billion, over $2 billion was targeted to 
encourage students in their junior and senior year to major in math, 
science, and critical foreign languages. In November, the Senate 
approved this program as part of the larger reconciliation bill.
  While the conference report is less generous to students than what 
the Senate had agreed to, the reconciliation bill we are considering 
provides $10 billion in spending on student benefits. First among 
these, the bill creates a new academic competitiveness program that 
provides grant aid to low-income students. Students eligible for Pell 
grants are able to receive up to $700 in additional grant aid their 
first year of college, and $1,300 in their second year. Students 
majoring in math, science, and critical foreign language programs in 
their third and fourth years are eligible for up to $4,000 in 
additional grant aid.
  This report dedicates $3.75 billion to grant aid for the next 5 
years. This is an extraordinary commitment and a larger increase in 
grant aid than we have seen in the last 5 years under Pell or any other 
Federal student aid source. This is real money that will help today's 
students enter and succeed in college. It will also help support 
students in programs of study critical to our national security and 
economy and create a strong incentive for more students to enter these 
fields.
  The $3.75 billion grant program is smaller than this body approved in 
November. This is a first step, and the first step is a critical step 
to take, but it is often the most difficult and misunderstood. I 
believe this is a good start, but we must continue to work toward what 
it takes to ensure this Nation's competitiveness. Access to 
postsecondary education is critical to this effort, and we cannot lose 
sight of the goal of a strong and competitive American economy.
  The reconciliation conference report also includes provisions to 
reduce borrower origination fees in both major Federal student loan 
programs. Borrowers currently pay origination fees of up to 3 percent 
when they take out their loans. The conference report provides for the 
reduction of these fees, so that students will not pay more than 1 
percent in either program.
  These fees cost students millions of dollars every year, and they 
don't provide any benefit. They make college more expensive, and 
students typically end up paying interest on these fees for 10 years or 
longer. The reduction of these fees will save individual students 
hundreds of dollars over the life of their loans.
  The bill allows current law to take effect on schedule, setting 
borrower interest rates at 6.8 percent. Many people have suggested that 
the 6.8 percent rate will cost students more over the life of their 
loans. They don't realize that this provision is already part of 
current law. Four years ago, when Congress approved the fixed interest 
rate for borrowers, students supported this change because they had 
paid interest rates of up to 8.25 percent for years. Now, after 4 years 
of historically low interest rates, the 6.8-percent fixed rate doesn't 
seem as attractive.

  I want to point out, however, that current trends and projections 
don't support the conclusion that the 6.8 percent interest rate will 
cost students more in the long run. At each of the last 13 meetings, 
the Federal Reserve Board has voted to increase interest rates. The 
historic lows that interest rates have been set will not continue and 
will likely to continue to go up. The rate increases accounted for a 
nearly 2 percent increase in borrower interest rates in 1 year. By 
setting the student loan interest rate at a set rate

[[Page S14149]]

we will save future interest rate increases from effecting student 
lending. This is the same interest rate policy that passed the Senate 
HELP Committee unanimously.
  Only 5 years ago, borrower interest rates exceeded 8 percent. At the 
current rate of increases, students would be paying more than 6.8 
percent by July 1, 2006. That is before the next school year. In fact, 
they would be paying more than 7.3 percent if we had kept the current 
interest rate structure. The same can be said of the parent loan 
provisions. Parent loans are currently capped at 9 percent. At the 
current rate of increase, parent borrowers would be paying more than 
8.5 percent by July 1, 2006. This is the same rate that passed the HELP 
Committee unanimously.
  The bill that initially established the 6.8-percent fixed interest 
rate was passed by unanimous consent over 4 years ago. In September, 
the HELP Committee voted unanimously in support of these provisions. In 
October, the HELP Committee, with the support of five Democrats, voted 
again to allow the scheduled interest rate change to take effect.
  The conference report also provides for increased loan limits for 
students. This has been criticized as a provision that will only 
encourage more students to take out increased loans. However, since 
1994, many students have been taking out significantly more private 
loans to meet their education expenses. Many of these loans have 
interest rates of up to 18 percent or more. The difference between a 
$10,000 private loan at the 18-percent rate and a federally guaranteed 
loan at a rate of 6.8 percent would save a student almost $8,000 over 
the life of the loan. As the cost of college across the country has 
skyrocketed, this provision will help more students afford the 
increased cost of tuition and subsidize their interest, so they don't 
have to take out private high-interest student loans.
  As I said earlier, this bill provides almost $10 billion in student 
benefits over 5 years and significantly more over the long term. At the 
same time, we have been able to additionally net more than $12 billion 
from Federal loan programs to make them operate more efficiently, which 
contributes to reducing the deficit.
  While I am very disappointed that the conference report does not 
include broader-based grant aid to improve access to and persistence in 
postsecondary education, I am pleased that the report includes the 
grant funding that it does. These are funds that will benefit low-
income students and will help our country and its economy to remain 
competitive by ensuring that tomorrow's workforce has the skills 
necessary to compete in the global economy. I will continue to work 
next year and in the coming years on legislation to further our goal to 
provide the opportunity for all Americans to go to college if they 
choose.
  There were a number of provisions important to students included in 
the conference report provided to the Budget Committee that were 
stripped from the final language due to Senate procedural rules. Among 
these provisions was one that would have clarified the purpose of the 
new grant program. That section used to read: ``The purpose of this 
section is to increase the number of postsecondary students from low-
income backgrounds who are enrolled in studies leading to baccalaureate 
degrees in physical, life, and computer sciences, mathematics, 
technology, engineering, and foreign languages critical to national 
security.'' This language was removed from the conference report 
because of potential conflicts with the ``Byrd rule.'' It is my hope 
that the Department of Education will consider this language when they 
promulgate the appropriate regulations on the administration of this 
program.

  Another important provision that was stripped from the report was 
language to repeal the so-called single holder rule, which limits the 
ability of students to consolidate their loans with the lender of their 
choice. I hope the Senate will take action on this important issue 
quickly and permit students to take advantage of this additional 
flexibility.
  I will continue to work toward the goals we held for the 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I hope that this process 
can continue in a bipartisan way, because ultimately, it is about 
students, it is about the economy, and it is about our national 
security.
  With respect to pensions, the conference report also adjusted 
premiums payable to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, and 
will save a total of $3.6 billion. These savings will be achieved by a 
series of increases to pension insurance premiums.
  The per-person premium for single employer plans will rise from $19 
to $30 and will be indexed; the per-person premium payable for 
multiemployer plans will rise from $2.60 to $8 and will be indexed; and 
a new premium will be charged against underfunded, terminated plans of 
$1,250 per person and will be payable for the first 3 years after the 
sponsor emerges from bankruptcy. This ``termination premium'' will 
apply to plans of sponsors whose parent company filed for protection 
under Chapter 11 after October 18, 2005. This increase in premiums 
payable by plan sponsors to the PBGC is long overdue. Single-employer 
premiums have not been increased since the early 1990s. This conference 
report marks the first instance in which multiemployer plan premiums 
have been increased since 1980. Now, all of the language in the pension 
part of this bill will be superceded when the full pension bills passed 
by the House and by the Senate are conferenced to one bill to provide 
full pension reform to protect the pensions of all hard-working 
Americans who were promised a defined benefit plan.
  This bill meets the goal of deficit reduction, and it does so by 
taking the money from corporate windfalls, not students. It protects 
current student programs. It adds a new student grant program to the 
tune of $3.75 billion. Much of what is in the education part passed the 
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously. 
That means that Republicans and Democrats voted for it. We did not get 
all the money we wanted for students. We got more than they had before. 
We had to settle for some limitations--but limitations that will 
improve America's competitiveness. In legislation you seldom get all 
that you would like to have. We can be proud of what we have done for 
students--and for people on pensions.
  Overall, the bill provides significant saving measures while at the 
same time providing billions of dollars in new student grant aid. In 
addition, this bill will help to stabilize our Nation's defined benefit 
pension system.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the 
spending reconciliation conference report.
  The Federal budget should reflect the Nation's priorities. 
Unfortunately, the priorities on display in this year's budget 
reconciliation process are out of touch with those of the American 
people. Worse yet, the rhetoric we hear about fiscal responsibility is 
at odds with the reality of the pending legislation.
  This bill cuts deeply into programs that serve our country's most 
vulnerable citizens in order to fund tax breaks for those who need them 
the least. I support lower taxes. I also support lower Government 
spending. Most Americans do. But at what cost, and for what purpose?
  What sacrifices in our domestic priorities, our economic security and 
independence, our humanity are we asking the American people to endure 
so that the wealthiest can pocket a little more income each year, even 
as working class Americans--facing rising fuel prices and health care 
costs--are pocketing a lot less?
  And it is not even as if the spending cuts here will fully pay for 
the tax breaks. The majority's campaign to do away with pay-as-you-go 
rules has meant that the tax breaks over the past 4 years have been 
financed by debt. Debt that now exceeds $8 trillion and keeps rising.
  Debt, not discipline, has been the hallmark of the majority's fiscal 
strategy. They want us to believe that we can't afford the Government 
we need. But funding our domestic priorities like education, health 
care, and equal opportunity for America's children is not inconsistent 
with budget discipline. In fact, a responsible fiscal policy is a 
prerequisite to tackling the challenges of a relentlessly competitive 
global economy.

[[Page S14150]]

  First, ensuring access to basic health care is critical to our 
Nation's productivity. But this bill undermines Medicaid and essential 
health services for the poor, cutting benefits by $6.3 billion over 10 
years.
  Second, education is the key to economic competitiveness. But this 
bill cuts student loans by $12.7 billion, the largest cut in history. I 
don't understand how the majority expects middle-class American 
families to make it in the 21st century workforce if we turn our backs 
on students.
  Third, helping people move from dependence to independence, from 
poverty to prosperity is in all of our best interests. And many States 
have made great progress implementing TANF requirements and moving 
people from welfare to work. But this bill deprives States of the 
flexibility they need to set realistic and meaningful work targets for 
their caseloads. It also dramatically underfunds childcare, thus 
assuring that it will be even more difficult for States and families to 
fulfill the Federal mandates.
  The TANF program affects millions of American children and families 
and deserves a full and fair debate. Under the rules, the 
reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is 
therefore the wrong place for policy changes and the wrong place for 
the proposed changes to the TANF program.
  In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper 
meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal 
responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and 
unsustainable debt. Instead of being a tool to get us back on track to 
deal with our serious economic challenges, reconciliation has become a 
tool for enacting tax cuts for the wealthy while punishing the poor.
  This is a profound disappointment to me. Indeed the entire 2006 
budget process has been a disappointment.
  Mr. President, as we wrap up this session and look towards next year, 
I hope we will find ways to work in a bipartisan manner on the issues 
and choices that really matter to American families. The importance of 
our task and the demand for responsible leadership will only grow in 
the years ahead.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report on 
spending reconciliation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the budget 
reconciliation conference report. The conference report cuts total 
$39.7 billion versus the Senate proposed $34.6 billion. It reduces 
mandatory outlays for entitlement programs by relying heavily on added 
financial burdens on poor, working Americans.
  This ``deficit-reduction'' effort of cuts in vital programs is offset 
by provisions soon to come which will provide $95 billion in additional 
tax cuts--including cuts to capital gains and dividends rates. The 
conference report will raise $39.7 billion while capital gains and 
dividends tax cuts passed by the House will reduce revenues by $20 
billion over 5 years and $50 billion over 10 years. This strategy is 
clearly not reducing the deficit, and it does not justify cutting 
programs for the poor to benefit the wealthy.
  This bill is just another step to further the Republican agenda of 
severely cutting benefits to working-class families while handing out 
tax cuts to the wealthy. The fiscal year 2006 Department of Defense 
appropriations conference report is another illustration of this--this 
bill contains a 1 percent across-the-board cut to discretionary 
programs totaling $8.6 billion in fiscal year 2006.
  While Republican leaders had the opportunity to create significant 
savings in the conference report by reducing prescription drug costs 
and eliminating unnecessary payments to HMOs, they chose not to. This 
bill provides relief for special interests in exchange for greater 
burdens on poor, working families, welfare recipients, and children.
  Here is an overview of who wins and who loses in this conference 
report.
  The conference report fails to include provisions in the Senate bill 
that would have limited what Medicaid pays for prescription drugs. The 
Senate bill increased the minimum rebates that drug manufacturers are 
required to pay the Medicaid Program for drugs provided to Medicaid 
beneficiaries. The Senate bill also applied the rebates to drugs 
provided to Medicaid beneficiaries in managed care plans. In total, the 
prescription drug provisions in the Senate bill would have saved $3.9 
billion over 5 years and $10.5 billion over 10 years. The conference 
report eliminates all but a few hundred million of these cuts.
  Although not in this bill, the drug industry scored another major 
victory in the fiscal year 2006 Department of Defense conference report 
by being handed broad liability protection even in instances of 
reckless disregard or gross negligence. This egregious provision 
protects drug companies even when there are criminal violations of FDA 
standards.
  I think we can safely say this holiday season will be a merry one for 
the drug industry. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for poor and 
working Americans on Medicaid under this bill.
  The conference report maintains the $10 billion Preferred Provider 
Organization, PPO, stabilization fund even though 52 Senators voted to 
eliminate it and the extremely strong showing of private health 
insurance participation in the Medicare prescription drug benefit 
obviates the need for it.
  Even the independent, non-partisan Medicare Payment Advisory 
Commission, MedPAC, recommended, nearly unanimously, that the $10 
billion stabilization fund be eliminated because it is unnecessary and 
unwarranted and provides an unfair competitive advantage to PPOs.
  In total, the conference report contains $1.9 billion in increased 
copays and premiums for poor families and children in Medicaid. That is 
over 5 years. If you look at the 10-year figure, that amount jumps to 
$10.1 billion.
  The Senate bill contained no such increases in premiums and copays.
  In total, the conference report cuts $3 billion that will directly 
impact Medicaid beneficiaries.
  What is going to happen to these families once they are required to 
pay possibly as much as 20 percent of the cost of each medication they 
take or 20 percent for each doctor visit with no annual limit on how 
much they have to pay out-of-pocket? They simply won't go to the 
doctor, they won't take their medications, or they will simply not 
enroll in Medicaid at all.
  For those Medicaid beneficiaries who can no longer afford to stay 
enrolled in Medicaid or choose not to enroll, who wind up in an 
emergency room for their medical care, under this bill there is no 
limit on what they may be charged, other than a 10-percent limit of the 
cost of service for those who are between 100 percent and 150 percent 
of poverty, which is equivalent to between $9,570 and $14,355 of 
individual annual income.
  As under the House-passed spending reconciliation bill, the 
conference report allows providers to deny a service if the patient has 
no ability to pay the charges at the time of services and States can 
terminate Medicaid coverage if the family cannot pay premiums.
  The conference report allows States to provide any child, without 
regard to income, a lower benefits package than they have today. That 
means low-income children, no matter how poor they are, are no longer 
guaranteed vision screenings, eyeglass coverage, therapy services, and 
medical equipment that would allow them to attend school.

  I am disappointed that the conference report eliminates a provision 
that Senator Hutchison and I worked hard to get included in the Senate 
bill which protects Medicaid adult day health care services in eight 
States: California, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Washington. In California alone, the 
elimination of this provision means that 47,000 seniors and disabled 
people are at risk of losing community-based health care services.
  And why are they at risk? They are at risk because of aggressive 
actions by this administration to force California's adult day health 
care program into a 1915(c) Medicaid waiver which the State of 
California estimates will make 40 percent of currently eligible program 
participants ineligible for the services they receive today. These 
services include skilled nursing care, physical, occupational, and 
speech therapy, and nutrition services for low-income, frail elders and 
disabled adults.
  The administration is pursuing this despite vocal, bipartisan 
opposition from California's Congressional Delegation. I ask unanimous 
consent to

[[Page S14151]]

enter into the record two letters from the California delegation to the 
administration opposing a waiver.
  Cuts to Federal student loan programs in the conference report will 
push college out of reach for many middle- and low-income families. The 
$12.7 billion reduction over 5 years, nearly one-third of the 
conference report's total cuts, will be the largest cut to student aid 
ever enacted.
  This conference report makes it more expensive for students and their 
parents to borrow for college by increasing the interest rates and fees 
they pay on loans. At the same time, this bill protects private lenders 
at a higher cost to the Government.
  This is being done as students and families are struggling to pay 
skyrocketing college costs. The average cost of attending a public 
university for 1 year in our country has increased 66 percent within 
the last decade.
  Students will be forced to take out more loans to meet the cost of 
increasing tuition. This will only drive them greater into debt, making 
it even more expensive for students to pursue a college degree.
  The conference report reauthorizes the TANF Program for 5 years 
despite overwhelming opposition in the Senate to including TANF 
reauthorization in budget reconciliation. The conference report 
contains drastically inadequate child care funding and will cost 
California approximately $350 million more annually as a result of 
changes to work participation requirements.
  Lastly, I am deeply concerned about the impact this conference report 
will have on child welfare in California. This bill, like the House-
passed bill, reduces Federal foster care supports that help 
grandparents and other relatives care for abused and neglected 
children. It also contains a provision overturning a 2003 Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals decision in Rosales v. Thompson that may harm more 
than 4,400 foster kids in California alone.
  Mr. President, the bill before us today represents a victory for 
special interests over the interests of our nation's poorest and most 
vulnerable citizens. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this 
bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that two letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 2005.
     Hon. Michael O. Leavitt,
     Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Leavitt: As Senators representing 
     California, we are very concerned about the future of adult 
     day health care (ADHC) in California due to the recent 
     requirement imposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
     Services (CMS) to convert the ADHC program to a 1915(c) 
     waiver. If implemented, this proposal would radically 
     diminish what services are provided. how the services are 
     delivered, and to which populations the services are 
     provided.
       As you know, ADHC services manage disease and chronic 
     conditions; prevent and reduce hospitalizations, physician 
     and emergency department visits; and maintain or improve 
     health status while permitting the individual to retain 
     important community and familial contacts. The provision of 
     these services is qualitatively equivalent to those provided 
     in institutional long term care environments but less costly 
     than when the same services are provided in such settings.
       California and seven other states have long been innovators 
     in providing ADHC services as an alternative to institutional 
     long-term care for the frail elderly and disabled. ADHC 
     services have been offered in California and the other states 
     as an optional state plan benefit under Medicaid since the 
     1970's, prior to the introduction of the 1915(c) home and 
     community based services waiver.
       ADHC services are currently provided to 47,000 participants 
     in California, including the frail elderly, persons with 
     disabilities, persons with Alzheimer's disease and related 
     dementia, persons with developmental disabilities, persons 
     with psychological disabilities and those infected with HIV.
       In 2003, CMS ordered California to remove ADHC services 
     from the state plan as an optional benefit and offer the 
     services through a 1915(c) waiver. CMS's stated rationale for 
     taking this action is that, despite the provision of these 
     services under Medicaid for more than two decades, they are 
     not defined in the federal statute and therefore must be 
     stopped.
       Unfortunately, transposing ADHC into a waiver would deny 
     access to these services to many of those within the 
     currently served populations. It is estimated that the 
     transition to a waiver would leave approximately 40 percent 
     without ADHC services in California due to the restrictive 
     rules governing 1915(c) waivers.
       While seven other states also offer ADHC services as an 
     optional state plan benefit under Medicaid, it is our 
     understanding that to date none of those states have been 
     requested to transform their ADHC services into a waiver. Yet 
     the policies your agency is pursuing make those states 
     vulnerable to the same consequences that are anticipated 
     in California.
       The action by CMS, attempting to reinvent a program that 
     has worked for more than 25 years and saves the Medicaid 
     program money, is totally contrary to your own stated 
     interest in reducing the institutional bias in Medicaid and 
     encouraging the use of community-based services. Further, it 
     occurs as CMS is launching a new demonstration program in 
     Medicare to allow beneficiaries access to ADHC under the home 
     health benefit.
       At a time when both your Administration and the National 
     Governors' Association have identified Medicaid's 
     institutional bias as a serious policy problem and are 
     examining options for enhancing home and community-based 
     care, it is puzzling that CMS's Medicaid program is moving in 
     the opposite direction by proposing to dismantle existing 
     ADHC programs and force them into waivers, thereby 
     undermining their effectiveness. Maintaining ADHC services as 
     an optional Medicaid benefit would be consistent with the 
     Administration's New Freedom Initiative and the United States 
     Supreme Court's Olmstead decision, which give priority to the 
     provision of services at home and in the community,
       We urge you to withdraw CMS's attempt to overturn existing 
     Medicaid policy and thus continue Medicaid beneficiaries' 
     uninterrupted access to ADHC services in California and other 
     affected states. We look forward to your response.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Dianne Feinstein.
     Barbara Boxer.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 2005.
     Michael O. Leavitt,
     Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 
         Washington, DC.
     Re Adult Day Health Care

       Dear Secretary Leavitt: As Members of the California 
     delegation, we are very concerned about the future of adult 
     day health care (ADHC) in California due to the recent 
     requirement imposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
     Services (CMS) to convert the ADHC program to a 1915(c) 
     waiver. If implemented, this proposal would radically 
     diminish what services are provided, how the services are 
     delivered, and to which populations the services are 
     provided.
       As you know, ADHC services manage disease and chronic 
     conditions; prevent and reduce hospitalizations, physician 
     and emergency department visits; and maintain or improve 
     health status while permitting the individual to retain 
     important community and familial contacts. The provision of 
     these services is qualitatively equivalent to those provided 
     in institutional long term care environments but less costly 
     than when the same services are provided in such settings.
       California and seven other states have long been innovators 
     in providing ADHC services as an alternative to institutional 
     long-term care for the frail elderly and disabled. ADHC 
     services have been offered in California and the other states 
     as an optional state plan benefit under Medicaid since the 
     1970's, prior to the introduction of the 1915(c) home and 
     community based services waiver.
       ADHC services are currently provided to 47,000 participants 
     in California, including the frail elderly, persons with 
     disabilities, persons with Alzheimer's disease and related 
     dementia, persons with developmental disabilities, persons 
     with psychological disabilities and those infected with HIV.
       In 2003, CMS ordered California to remove ADHC services 
     from the state plan as an optional benefit and offer the 
     services through a 1915(c) waiver. CMS's stated rationale for 
     taking this action is that, despite the provision of these 
     services under Medicaid for more than two decades, they are 
     not defined in the federal statute and therefore must be 
     stopped.
       Unfortunately, transposing ADHC into a waiver would deny 
     access to these services to many of those within the 
     currently served populations. It is estimated that the 
     transition to a waiver would leave approximately 40 percent 
     without ADHC services in California due to the restrictive 
     rules governing 1915(c) waivers.
       While seven other states also offer ADHC services as an 
     optional state plan benefit under Medicaid, it is our 
     understanding that to date none of those states have been 
     requested to transform their ADHC services into a waiver. Yet 
     the policies your agency is pursuing make those states 
     vulnerable to the same consequences that are anticipated in 
     California.
       The action by CMS, attempting to reinvent a program that 
     has worked for more than 25 years and saves the Medicaid 
     program money, is totally contrary to your own stated 
     interest in reducing the institutional bias in Medicaid and 
     encouraging the use of community-based services. Further, it 
     occurs as CMS is launching a new demonstration program in 
     Medicare to allow beneficiaries access to ADHC under the home 
     health benefit.
       At a time when both your Administration and the National 
     Governors' Association have identified Medicaid's 
     institutional bias as a serious policy problem and are 
     examining options for enhancing home and community-based 
     care, it is puzzling that CMS's Medicaid program is moving in 
     the opposite

[[Page S14152]]

     direction by proposing to dismantle existing ADHC programs 
     and force them into waivers, thereby undermining their 
     effectiveness. Maintaining ADHC services as an optional 
     Medicaid benefit would be consistent with the 
     Administration's New Freedom Initiative and the United States 
     Supreme Court's Olmstead decision, which give priority to the 
     provision of services at home and in the community.
       We urge you to withdraw CMS's attempt to overturn existing 
     Medicaid policy and thus continue Medicaid beneficiaries' 
     uninterrupted access to ADHC services in California and other 
     affected states. We look forward to your response.
           Sincerely,
         Mary Bono, Jerry Lewis, Henry A. Waxman, Anna Eshoo, 
           Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Darrell Issa, Elton 
           Gallegly, John T. Doolittle, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, 
           Gary Miller, Lois Capps, Pete Stark, Howard Berman, 
           Adam B. Schiff, Linda T. Sanchez, Joe Lofgren, Tom 
           Lantos, Hilda L. Solis, Doris O. Matsui, Lucille 
           Roybal-Allard, Xavier Becerra, Jane Harman, Bob Filner.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Deficit Reduction Act 
of 2005 Conference Report. This conference report and the 
Administration's budget are fiscally irresponsible and reflect 
misguided priorities.
  The dual reconciliation process this year illustrates these misplaced 
priorities, as middle- and low-income families are being asked to pay 
the price for tax cuts for the wealthiest. The second reconciliation 
bill, which will soon be negotiated by the House and the Senate, will 
contain a reduction of as much as $70 billion in tax revenue that will 
more than eliminate the effect of the spending cuts to critical 
programs in the conference report that we are considering today. With 
the enactment of the two reconciliation bills, there is a real effort 
by this administration and the majority to perform a bait and switch on 
the American people and at the end of the day the ``so-called'' deficit 
reduction bill along with the tax reconciliation bill will further 
increase the deficit by as much as $30 billion over the next 5 years.
  The President's claim at his news conference yesterday that his 
policies are focused on the priorities of average Americans belies the 
experience of most working families. The economy has grown this year, 
but the benefits of that growth continue to show up in the bottom lines 
of companies rather than in the paychecks of workers. The Minority 
Views of the Joint Economic Committee 2005 Annual Report released 
yesterday finds that in the recovery from the 2001 recession, working 
families have been left behind from the start, and they continue to be 
left behind today.
  The unemployment rate is nearly a full percentage point higher than 
when President Bush took office, about 5 million fewer jobs have been 
created in this recovery than at this point after the 1990-91 
recession, and millions of Americans who want to work do not have jobs.
  Higher prices for gasoline, home heating fuel, and medical care are 
also squeezing the take-home pay of workers. In the past year, average 
hourly earnings are down, after adjusting for inflation. Moreover, wage 
growth has been uneven, with low-earning workers hit hardest by 
sluggish wage gains and more recently by declining real wages.
  The signature policies of the administration and the majority have 
not addressed the problems facing ordinary American families. 
Successive rounds of tax cuts were poorly designed to stimulate job 
creation and produced a legacy of large budget deficits. Those large 
and persistent budget deficits contributed to an ever-widening trade 
deficit and massive borrowing from abroad.
  Most of the benefits of the tax cuts accrued to very high-income 
taxpayers, while--as this reconciliation bill shows--cuts in programs 
that benefit middle- and lower-income families are viewed as the best 
way to pay for those tax cuts.
  As far as health and human service programs go, this bill has gone 
from bad to worse as compared to the Senate-passed bill. As expected, 
significant portions of the reduction that are achieved in this 
reconciliation bill are achieved by cuts in programs that low- and 
moderate income Americans rely on. The reconciliation package before us 
includes roughly $40 billion in spending cuts over 5 years, of which 
$11.2 billion will come from Medicaid and Medicare.
  Included among these `savings' are new copayments on Medicaid 
beneficiaries and additional flexibility to States to scale back 
coverage for certain vulnerable populations. It also tightens rules 
designed to limit the ability of elderly people to shed assets in order 
to qualify for nursing home care. And, for the first time, people with 
home equity of $500,000 or greater would be ineligible for nursing home 
care under Medicaid.
  During Senate consideration of the reconciliation bill, I offered an 
amendment to restore targeted case management services, TCM, to assist 
eligible high-need Medicaid beneficiaries gain access to needed 
medical, social, educational, and other services. Despite promises that 
this provision would be corrected, the conference report jeopardizes an 
essential bridge to services for these populations.
  While low-income Medicaid beneficiaries are bearing the brunt of 
budget cuts, drug companies and Medicare managed care plans emerged 
virtually unscathed in the conference report. Specifically, the report 
drops a Senate provision that would have eliminated the $10 billion 
slush fund to health insurers a key recommendation of the Medicare 
Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, because it is unnecessary, 
unwarranted, and provides an unfair competitive advantage to private 
health plans over traditional Medicare. Nevertheless, under veto threat 
by the President, the conference report leaves this fund fully intact, 
forgoing $5.4 billion in savings over 5 years and twice that amount 
over 10 years.
  The bill also shed most of the drug rebate provisions contained in 
the Senate-passed bill and includes only two minor provisions that 
generate savings of only $220 million over 5 years and $720 million 
over 10 years.
  I would remind my colleagues that this body passed by a vote of 75 to 
16 a Baucus motion to instruct conferees to reject provisions that 
would undermine Medicaid coverage for pregnant women, the disabled, 
low-income children, the elderly, or other vulnerable populations. Yet, 
this conference report entirely ignores the will of the majority of the 
Senate in this area.
  At the same time, this conference report strikes yet another blow to 
community health care providers who serve Medicare and Medicaid 
recipients. On the Medicaid side, pharmacy payment reform provisions 
contained in this bill will be devastating to the Nation's community 
retail pharmacies and could significantly reduce Medicaid recipients' 
access to their essential services. The provisions cut $6.3 billion out 
of community retail pharmacies payments over the next 5 years by 
reducing the amount that Medicaid pays for generic medications at a 
time when the program should be doing everything it can to encourage 
utilization of generic medications. Every time a pharmacy dispenses a 
generic medication, Medicaid saves about $100, but this report drives 
pharmacies to either dispense more expensive medications or simply not 
serve Medicaid customers at all.

  The conference committee also included cuts to Medicare providers 
that were not included in either the House- or Senate-passed bills. 
Under the conference report, home health care providers will see their 
reimbursement rates frozen in 2006, in addition to the already 
scheduled .8 percent reduction implemented as part of the Medicare 
Modernization Act of 2003. Again, this conference report puts into 
effect the exact opposite policy at a time when the administration and 
States have made access to home- and community-based care a priority. 
I, along with Senator Collins, had urged the conferees to not consider 
such cuts, and I am disappointed that is exactly what the conference 
did.
  Another unfortunate provision in this conference report will impact 
individuals with disabilities who have languished for months waiting 
for the Social Security Administration to review and approve their 
applications for Social Security Supplemental Income, SSI, and are owed 
back benefits as a result of these delays. They will now have to wait 
even longer under this package. Instead of receiving a single lump sum 
payment as they do under current law, SSI beneficiaries will receive 
back benefits in installments that could stretch out over the course of 
a year.
  This provision means many poor SSI recipients with disabilities who 
have

[[Page S14153]]

been unable to work and who have probably been unable to pay their 
mortgage, heating, and other bills will be forced to endure financial 
destitution even longer.
  Another area of concern is the inclusion of the House reauthorization 
for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF. This bill adds tough 
new requirements on States and recipients with no additional funding 
for child care. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, has estimated 
that an additional $11 billion in childcare funding is needed to meet 
these requirements. Unfortunately, this bill only provides $1 billion 
in additional childcare funding.
  If my Republican colleagues were truly committed to helping families 
break the cycle of poverty, they would not create tough new 
requirements that States and recipients will be challenged to meet and 
then provide no additional childcare funding to help them do so.
  Moreover, the policy goals of this conference report are quite 
detrimental to States like my home State of Rhode Island. We are a 
leader among States in providing childcare assistance to low-income 
families. We recognize that all working families need help paying for 
childcare and that high quality early care is the key to the healthy 
development of our children. Rhode Island has made a commitment to help 
all low-income families pay for childcare, giving equal treatment to 
families on welfare and those who are working but cannot afford the 
high cost of childcare. In Rhode Island, we have seen childcare budgets 
rise as Federal investments have remained stagnant. The new TANF work 
requirements, coupled with inadequate funding for childcare, 
jeopardizes my State's commitment to assure that all children have 
safe, nurturing, and enriching childcare.
  New harsh requirements will now apply to separate State programs as 
well, hurting States that have been successful in helping families 
transition to work through other State initiatives. The Congressional 
Budget Office, CBO, has estimated a cost to States of $8.4 billion over 
the next 5 years in order to meet these work requirements. This amounts 
to a higher cost to States than even the controversial House-passed 
bill.
  I want to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that last 
week Senator Carper introduced and this body approved by a vote of 64 
to 27 a motion to instruct conferees not to include the reauthorization 
for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in this reconciliation 
package. I am most troubled that such a vote was ignored, and we now 
face the reauthorization of TANF without allowing the Senate to put 
forth its own bill and have a fair debate on this issue.
  The reconciliation conference report also includes a $1.5 billion cut 
in Federal funding for child support enforcement efforts over the next 
5 years and $4.9 billion cut over the next 10 years. Some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle might suggest that these 
child support cuts are modest, but the fact remains that the CBO has 
estimated that, as a result of these cuts, $2.9 billion in child 
support will go uncollected over the next 5 years.
  In my home State of Rhode Island, 45,000 families rely on the Office 
of Child Support Services for help in securing and maintaining child 
support payments. This is an agency that needs more not fewer resources 
in order to continue to make collections efficient. I am baffled that 
the leadership of this Chamber would cut a program that is cost 
effective, promotes responsibility, and helps families. This program 
has garnered strong bipartisan support because of its cost 
effectiveness.
  During consideration of S. 1932, the Budget Deficit Reduction Act, 
the Senate approved a sense-of-the-Senate amendment offered by Senator 
Harkin, stating that the Senate should not accept any cuts to the child 
support enforcement program during this Congress. In addition, last 
week Senator Kohl introduced and this Chamber passed by a vote of 75 to 
16 a motion to instruct conferees not to include any provisions that 
would reduce funding for the child support program. How can a program 
that has this level of bipartisan support receive a $1.5 billion dollar 
cut?
  This reconciliation conference report also hurts college students by 
eliminating the Pro-Gap Program that would have provided $6.5 billion 
in much-needed aid for college students. In its place is a single 
modest math/science initiative. While I fully support initiatives that 
boost our global competitiveness through encouraging study of math and 
science, I am dismayed that this bill compromises the successful and 
important Pell grant program to do so. For the first time need-based 
financial aid under the Pell grant program is tied to curriculum, 
essentially stifling academic freedom for low-income students.
  Again, I remind my colleagues that last week Senator Kennedy 
introduced and this Chamber passed by 83 to 8 a motion to instruct 
conferees to insist that the Senate provisions increasing need-based 
financial aid, which were fully offset by savings in S. 1932, be 
included in the final conference report. I am disappointed that such a 
vote was ignored.
  In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, escalating home energy 
prices, and stagnant wage growth, taking money from important Federal 
programs in order to pave the way for billions of dollars in tax cuts 
shows how out of touch the majority and administration are with hard-
working Americans.
  Unfortunately, there has been no change in the priorities or policies 
of the administration and the majority to address the problems facing 
the country's most disadvantaged citizens or to help ordinary working 
families.
  And instead of sound budget policies aimed at preparing for the 
imminent retirement of the baby boom generation, this administration 
and this majority have refused to adopt the kinds of budget enforcement 
rules that helped achieve fiscal discipline in the 1990s and have 
remained committed to extending tax cuts that will add further to the 
budget deficit.
  The end result is that policy priorities are distorted and programs 
that help working families cope in a difficult economy have become 
candidates for budget cutting in order to fund tax cuts for the 
wealthiest. Meanwhile the problems of large budget and trade deficits 
and the economic insecurity felt by many American families remain 
unaddressed.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I express deep concern about the conference 
report for S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction bill. Like many of my 
colleagues, I too have called for fiscal responsibility and restraint 
in government spending. However, my opposition to this conference 
report is not just based on fiscal restraint, but also against 
misplaced priorities. I voted against the bill when it first passed the 
Senate because of the draconian message that it sent to the American 
people, and now we face a package that is worse.
  We are all conscious that we are heading into the holidays--a time 
for celebration and reflection. Unfortunately, this is not true for 
some of us, especially for certain low-income families and individuals 
affected by this reconciliation package. While families who are well 
off sit at their lavishly decorated dining room tables, calculating the 
largess they enjoy as a result of tax cut extensions advocated by the 
majority party, other families will sit in stark contrast with spare 
fixings, worry, anxiety, and fear that comes with not knowing how they 
will survive.
  The package before us will hit families across the country right in 
the wallet. The cuts in the conference agreement decrease Medicaid 
benefits and increase Medicaid copayments and premiums. According to 
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, people living just above 
the poverty line may experience the most hardship, finding that they 
need to pay $20 to $100 for health care services that now cost no more 
than $3. These Medicaid changes, which total roughly $16 billion over 
the next 10 years, were not included in the original Senate bill.
  Welfare reform has been pending for several years now, but that is 
because the issues are complicated and there exists great contention in 
how far we want to go to ensure that welfare recipients are fully-
participating members of the workforce. The approach in my State of 
Hawaii has been a kinder, realistic approach that works to ensure that 
recipients have the education, training, and other tools that they need 
to become and remain self-sufficient, for their own good and the good

[[Page S14154]]

of their children. However, the provisions in the reconciliation 
conference report deny the Senate's balanced view on welfare reform and 
instead adopt some of the most controversial policy changes that will 
impose major unfunded mandates on States.
  It makes no sense to eliminate the flexibility States have to design 
work requirements for those families served wholly by State funds. 
According to preliminary estimates, Hawaii would have to increase its 
work participation rate by 16 percent or bring another 1,600 families 
into work from FY 2007 and beyond to meet the new standard, or face 
severe penalties. It also makes no sense to bring more welfare parents 
into the workforce without ensuring that their children will be 
adequately cared for through appropriate and adequate childcare 
assistance. According to CBPP, under this package, childcare would be 
available to an estimated 255,000 fewer children in low-income working 
families not receiving cash welfare assistance than in 2004. It is 
unconscionable to do this to our low-income families, particularly 
without giving Senators the opportunity for further and adequate 
deliberation.
  The conference agreement does not include cuts in food stamps, but 
that is one of the few bright lights in this package for vulnerable 
families. It also makes significant cuts in child support enforcement 
funding, Supplemental Security Income, and foster care assistance--none 
of which were included in the original Senate bill. These are clearly 
misplaced priorities. The better choice would have been to achieve 
savings by going after special interests catered to by the health care 
industry, but we are again seeking spending cuts on the backs of low-
income families and individuals in our country.
  Finally, we may say that we are for increasing higher education 
opportunities, but this reconciliation conference report includes the 
largest cuts to student loan programs in history, a total of $12.7 
billion. Some additional assistance is provided for certain students 
who are eligible for Pell grants, but the most needy students are not 
prioritized and additional hurdles make it difficult to apply for aid 
in the first place. The general Pell population--including about 14,000 
students in my state of Hawaii--have been waiting for an increase in 
the base grant for several years now, but will have to wait longer 
because this conference report does not include that additional help 
for them to stay in school.
  For these and other reasons, I strongly oppose the conference report 
before us. I cannot vote in favor of a package with such harmful cuts--
particularly not this close to Christmas, and particularly not to 
impact those that need our help the most. Human kindness should abide 
throughout the year, but particularly at this time of year. This 
conference report simply embodies the opposite message.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, there are many provisions within this 
reconciliation conference report that are deeply troubling to me, but 
at this point, I want to focus my concerns on provisions that undermine 
the historic 1996 welfare reform bill. That bill changed the old broken 
welfare system into a new program that encouraged people to work their 
way into self-sufficiency.
  In 1996, I was an active participant in the controversial but 
bipartisan negotiations to boldly change our outdated welfare system, 
known then as the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, AFDC. Under 
the old rules, parents were discouraged and penalized from trying to 
work. In 1996, after contentious but full bipartisan debate by the 
House and Senate, we passed a bold new program called Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families, TANF.
  The new rules encouraged and required parents to move from welfare to 
work, but there were incentives to help parents, and billions of new 
dollars in childcare so parents could work with the knowledge that 
their child had childcare. Such supports are essential so that parents 
can make a successful transition.
  The historic reform of 1996 also made changes in the child support 
enforcement programs, and further enhancements were made in 1998 to 
improve child support enforcement. While progress has been made on both 
programs, the child support enforcement has been a real success story. 
In 1996, child support enforcement collected $12 billion. Thanks to the 
changes in welfare reform, child support enforcement is now collecting 
$21.9 billion. In the President's fiscal year 2006 budget, the Office 
of Management and Budget, OMB, rated the Federal child support 
enforcement programs among the highest, most efficient programs in all 
of the Federal Government.
  Despite this record of success, the reconciliation conference cuts 
child support enforcement by $1.5 billion over the next 5 years and a 
$4.9 billion cut over the next 10 years. These cuts are outrageous 
because States use this funding to track down absent parents, establish 
legally enforceable child support orders, and collect and distribute 
child support owed to families. CBO has estimated that this loss in 
Federal child support funding will result in $2.9 billion in child 
support going uncollected over the next 5 years and $8.4 billion going 
uncollected over the next 10 years. The reality is that children and 
families will be shortchanged. How, in any way, does this lack of 
investment promote personal responsibility? The answer is that it does 
not--in fact, this provision actually undermines past reforms.
  I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Grassley for his effort 
in forging a bipartisan welfare reform reauthorization bill during 
recent debates. In March, the Senate Finance Committee secured such 
consensus that it was able to move the TANF reauthorization package on 
a voice vote. On December 14, the Senate voted 64 to 27 on a motion by 
Senator Carper not to include TANF in reconciliation. This amendment 
was a clear sense of the Senate about the importance of investing in 
childcare as an essential support for families making the transition 
from welfare to work.
  Despite this bipartisan discussion in the Senate, the welfare reform 
authorization has been sandwiched into a massive reconciliation 
conference report that we have been given only 10 hours to debate. We 
have 10 hours to debate on a whole host of issues, many of which, 
including welfare reforms, have serious problems that were not part of 
the original Senate bill.
  Previous Republican proposals were designed to pressure the States to 
have at least 50 percent of their TANF families in work activities, 
but, under these earlier discussions, States would have 5 years to 
achieve these new, tougher standards. The reconciliation package that 
we are forced to vote on now would impose this new, tougher 
participation rate by 2007. And it gets even worse. Under the 
conference report, the Department of Health and Human Services will 
issue new regulations to re-define work activities and how States will 
be required to verify the hours and activities to avoid serious 
financial penalties. These new regulations will be issued in June of 
2006, just a few months before new, tougher standards are imposed. 
Adding insult to injury, very little childcare money is provided--only 
$1 billion over 5 years. The Congressional Budget Office reports that 
the cost to States of this new bill would be $8.4 billion over the next 
5 years, which is slightly more than the cost would have been under the 
House reconciliation bill. CBO projects that some States would not meet 
the new mandates and would face fiscal penalties as a consequence. This 
is not fair because it essentially sets up States to fail. It will not 
promote work and self-sufficiency among welfare parents. It will 
encourage States to push families off the welfare rolls.
  West Virginia currently has a 27 percent participation rate. Under 
these new rules, it would have to reach 50 percent in 2007, and State 
officials do not even know, at this point, what the rules will be. In 
my own State of West Virginia, Gov. Joe Manchin has said, ``The 
proposed Federal funding cuts in TANF will greatly impact the families 
and children who depend upon the childcare, transportation assistance 
and welfare-to-work transitional periods. I urge Congress and the 
President to reconsider this action. We cannot lose sight of the fact 
that the individuals affected are those who are the neediest.'' I 
wholeheartedly agree with West Virginia Governor Manchin.
  In addition to policy concerns raised by this conference report, the 
process has been equally unfair. The 774-page conference report on the 
reconciliation spending cut bill was filed in the House of 
Representatives at 1:12 a.m. on Monday, December 19. Four hours later,

[[Page S14155]]

after less than 40 minutes of debate on the measure, the House began 
the final vote on the reconciliation spending cut bill. Now the Senate 
has only 10 hours to debate this package with no ability to make 
changes.
  This package is patently unfair to our children. It will hinder the 
effort to move parents from welfare to work. It will undermine efforts 
to promote personal responsibility and ensure that parents pay the 
child support they owe their children.
  It is unfair to our States to change the rules on welfare reform. 
Even worse, they will be changed just months before States have to meet 
these new standards.
  This reconciliation conference report turns its back on 
bipartisanship.
  It turns its back on needy children and families.
  It turns its back on personal responsibility.
  It is the wrong approach to welfare reform, and it should be rejected 
along with the other cuts in reconciliation.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the budget conference report that is 
about to be voted on by the Senate decreases access to and 
affordability of needed health care through the Medicaid Program for 
low-income children, parents, seniors, and people with disabilities 
while protecting a $10 billion fund for Medicare private health plans 
that are already acknowledged to receive payments far in excess of 
Medicare fee-for-service.
  Clearly, the conferees made the choice to protect private health plan 
overpayments in Medicare while cutting access to care for some of our 
most vulnerable citizens enrolled in the Medicaid Program.
  The conference report permit States to cut back on benefits for 
nearly all of the 27 million low-income children enrolled in Medicaid, 
including allowing States to restrict and limit benefits even for those 
with little or no income. The language is ambiguous about whether Early 
Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment, EPSDT, services, which are 
critical to ensuring that children have access to all medically 
necessary services they need, will continue to be provided. Benefits 
that could be lost include comprehensive developmental assessments, 
assessment and treatment for elevated blood lead levels, eyeglasses, 
dental care, hearing aids, wheelchairs and crutches, respiratory 
treatment, comprehensive mental health services, prescription drugs, 
and speech and therapy services.
  While certain populations, like pregnant women, people with 
disabilities, dual eligibles, and people with long-term care needs, are 
explicitly protected from benefit reductions, all other children 
enrolled in Medicaid, with the exception of children in foster care, 
are no longer ensured such protections.
  The conference report also permits, States to reduce Medicaid 
benefits for many low-income parents and some people with disabilities 
to something called a benchmark package, even if it is bare-bones 
coverage with minimal benefits. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, 
had previously written that it expected a reduction in benefits by 15 
percent to 35 percent due to this provision. The conference report 
estimates that over $6 billion in cuts will occur to benefits for low-
income people in Medicaid.
  The conference report also allows States to impose substantial cost-
sharing charges upon Medicaid beneficiaries that will impact millions 
of low-income beneficiaries. Currently, States can generally charge no 
more than $3 for copayments per service or prescription drugs with 
groups like children entirely exempt. That is all changed by the 
conference report.
  For very low-income people, the Secretary would increase the nominal 
copayments of $3 by the medical portion of the Consumer Price Index, or 
M-CPI, which rises twice as fast as inflation generally. Of course, it 
will result in sharp rises in cost-sharing for our Nation's most 
vulnerable citizens, which a large body of research indicates will 
result in having people forgo needed health care services and 
prescription drugs.
  Meanwhile, beneficiaries with income between 100 and 150 percent of 
poverty could be charged copayments up to 10 percent, and beneficiaries 
with income over 150 percent of poverty could be charged copayments of 
up to 20 percent of the cost of medically necessary care.
  Furthermore, providers are allowed to deny care to anyone that cannot 
afford such cost-sharing. There are not even protections for children 
facing life-threatening conditions and in dire need of medically 
necessary care, as the language states that it would be incumbent upon 
the provider to waive the copayment in this case and only if the State 
allows it.
  It should be further noted that there really are no statutory 
limitations because even those protections or limitations on cost-
sharing that I have cited may be waived by the Secretary under the 
conference report.
  CBO estimates that the conference report will result in $10.1 billion 
in cuts over 10 years resulting from increases in beneficiary 
copayments and premiums and these reductions are about 90 percent of 
the size of the cuts in the House package that they previous analyzed. 
It is important to remind my colleagues what the CBO said about the 
House bill, as it so closely mirrors what came out of the conference.
  As CBO's analysis of the House bill states, ``We estimate that the 
number of affected enrollees [due to increased cost-sharing 
requirements] would increase from 7 million in 2010 to 11 million by 
2015, and that about half of those enrollees would be children.''
  CBO added that, due to added premiums, ``about 70,000 enrollees would 
lose coverage in fiscal year 2010 and that 110,000 would lose coverage 
in fiscal year 2015 because of the imposition of premiums.''
  In sharp contrast, the Senate bill had nothing that increased 
premiums or cost-sharing.
  Without the Medicaid Program, the number of children without health 
insurance--8.3 million in 2004--would be substantially higher. In fact, 
the number of uninsured children has dropped by over 300,000 children 
over the past 4 years due in large part to Medicaid and the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. We should not at this 
time be taking steps backward by reducing coverage for low-income and 
vulnerable populations, including children.
  Senators need to fully recognize, understand, and reject what the 
House of Representatives and conferees have done with respect to the 
health and well-being of children, seniors, and the disabled in their 
budget reconciliation bill. Our Nation's most vulnerable citizens 
should not be asked to bear the burden of billions of dollars in budget 
cuts--cuts that are not even being used to reduce the deficit but, 
rather, to help pay for tax cuts.
  There is also the fact that the conference report will significantly 
restrict eligibility for nursing home care under Medicaid. The 
conference report adopts most of the punitive provisions in the House-
passed bill to limit eligibility for long-term care services, but adds 
additional restrictions so that savings in this area would actually be 
11 percent larger than the House bill and 7 times larger than the 
Senate bill.
  There are numerous problems with the provisions in this section that 
I do not have time to address today, but I would like to ask unanimous 
consent to place into the Record a letter from AARP expressing concern 
about these provisions, that CBO estimates will cut $6.5 billion out of 
nursing home spending over the next 10 years. It should be noted that 
these figures are just Federal amounts and that if you add State cuts 
in spending that there are billions and billions more in cuts to 
eligibility and services to Medicaid beneficiaries.
  In addition, I also want to raise another major problem that I asked 
conferees to address and was highlighted by my introduction of S. 2074, 
the Medicaid Indian Health Act. That legislation would have exempted 
American Indians and Alaska Natives, AI/ANs, and Indian health programs 
from those provisions and changes being proposed to Medicaid that will 
all have devastating consequences for Native Americans.
  Unfortunately, the conference report failed mightily in this regard. 
In fact, there is not even a mention of Native Americans or Indian 
health program in the legislation despite the fact the Federal 
Government's responsibility for Indian health, the uniqueness of the 
Indian health care system, and the serious health problems of Indian 
people require that protection of access to health care services for 
Native Americans be reflected in Federal Medicaid

[[Page S14156]]

policy. Failure of the conferees to address this fact will have 
significant harmful consequences for American Indians and Alaska 
Natives.
  For example, the budget conference report would allow States to 
impose cost-sharing on Medicaid beneficiaries similar to and at even 
higher levels than those allowed under the SCHIP program, with the 
stated policy objective of achieving more appropriate utilization of 
cored services. This objective, however, would not be achieved at 
Indian Health Service, IHS, or Indian tribal health facilities, as 
these programs do not charge their American Indian and Alaska Native 
patients for health care. Rather, imposition of premiums and copays 
would produce the following unintended--and very harmful impact--on the 
Indian health system:
  Medicaid enrollment of AI/ANs who are eligible for coverage is 
already low, since the IHS user population receives health care without 
charge at IHS and tribal facilities. The financial barriers imposed by 
assessment of Medicaid premiums would further depress AI/AN enrollment. 
Decreases in Medicaid enrollment would deprive already-underfunded 
Indian health programs of vital Medicaid revenues on which they are 
heavily dependent.
  The imposition of copayments will not change utilization habits of 
Indian Medicaid beneficiaries because IHS and tribal providers do not 
charge copays to their Indian patients. Copay amounts would be simply 
cost-shifted to the Indian health programs, causing a further reduction 
in the services they can offer, and reducing the resources they need to 
purchase contract health care.
  These reductions in resources available to the Indian health system 
will decrease the health services they can provide and cause further 
decline in the health status of Indian populations. Everybody voting on 
today's package should be fully aware of that fact.
  In addition, the budget reconciliation bill would, for the first 
time, allow States to offer different Medicaid benefit packages to 
``individuals within one or more groups of individuals'' in the State 
by requiring enrollment in ``benchmark'' or ``benchmark-equivalent'' 
Medicaid coverage. This authority would allow a State to reduce the 
amount, duration and scope of Medicaid benefits to many beneficiaries. 
The Indian Health Service, which is now funded at less than 60% of need 
and is heavily dependent on Medicaid payments, would be decimated by 
any reductions in Medicaid-covered services.
  While States receive 100% FMAP for Medicaid services provided in an 
IHS or tribal facility, those facilities have limited capabilities and 
are not able to directly supply all needed care. When the IHS or tribal 
facility must refer an Indian Medicaid beneficiary to a private or 
public provider, the State must pay the regular State Medicaid match. 
Thus, States would have an incentive to limit the benefits AI/ANs 
referred to outside providers could receive under the State Medicaid 
plan.
  If Native Americans stay within the IHS system and the benefits are 
not covered, this is simply yet another cost shift to Indian health 
care programs.
  As part of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 report, the 
Congress said, ``The most basic human right must be the right to enjoy 
decent health. Certainly, any effort to fulfill Federal 
responsibilities to the Indian people must begin with the provision of 
health services. In fact, health services must be the cornerstone upon 
which rest all the other Federal programs for the benefit of Indians. 
Without a proper health status, the Indian people will be unable to 
fully avail themselves of the many economic, educational, and social 
programs already directed to them or which this Congress and future 
Congresses will provide them.''
  The Federal Government has a ``Federal trust responsibility'' to 
Indian people that it is simply not fulfilling. This budget conference 
agreement is yet another example of this failure and should be rejected 
for this reason, as well as the negative consequences that it will have 
on low-income children, senior citizens, and people with disabilities 
across this Nation.
  Finally, although I do not have the time today to talk at length 
about the problems with the Medicare provisions, I will say that I am 
very disappointed and deeply concerned about the $8.1 billion in home 
health cuts that have been included in the conference report. It is 
also disturbing that the conferees would choose to add a provision that 
was in neither the House nor Senate bills to cut $3 billion out of the 
Medicare disproportionate share hospital, DSH Program, which provides 
financial assistance to our Nation's safety net hospitals. These cuts 
will undoubtedly have negative consequences on safety net hospitals 
across the country. With 46 million uninsured people in our country, it 
makes little sense to be cutting our Nation's safety net providers at 
this time.
  This is all about choices. The Senate reconciliation bill contained 
the same level of savings in Medicaid and Medicare without all of these 
provisions that will certainly have negative consequences on millions 
of people served by Medicaid and Medicare. The conferees had before 
them the choice of protecting vulnerable, low-income citizens or to do 
things such as protecting the interests of private health plans.
  For example, such cuts were added in conference to help pay for 
decisions such as the dropping of savings that had been obtained in the 
Senate bill by such things as elimination of what is known as the 
health plan ``slush fund.'' This $10 billion fund was created in the 
Medicare prescription drug bill to encourage participation by private 
health plans, but the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, 
almost unanimously recommended its elimination and the Senate bill had 
included such savings.
  The dropping of such reasonable cost savings out of the conference 
report has clearly left low income people to pay the price through 
cost-sharing increases and benefit restrictions that will undoubtedly 
have negative consequences on the health and well-being of our Nation's 
most vulnerable citizens enrolled in Medicaid.
  I would also like to express my opposition to section 1101 of this 
budget reconciliation conference report the Senate is now considering.
  I am disappointed the budget reconciliation bill includes a 2-year 
extension of the Milk Income Loss Contract, or MILC, a wasteful subsidy 
that primarily benefits dairy farmers in only a few states. I helped 
lead the opposition in the Senate in 2002 when this new dairy subsidy 
program was created as part of the farm bill. The MILC program has 
already cost taxpayers over $2 billion. I strongly oppose extending it 
further.
  The Milk Income Loss Contract Program expired on September 30, but 
this conference report extends it for 2 years at a cost to the 
taxpayers of almost $1 billion. I oppose the extension because I 
believe this MILC Program is basically unfair and unnecessary.
  Since the subsidy payments began in 2002, almost half the MILC 
payments--about $950 million--has gone to producers in only four 
States, Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. In fact, 20 
percent of the payments, over $410 million, went to producers in just a 
single state, Wisconsin. The other half of the Federal payments is 
shared among all the remaining 46 States.
  California, on the other hand, by far the nation's largest dairy 
state, isn't even among the top four in Federal MILC payments. 
California's dairies produce 20 percent of the nation's milk but get 
only about 7 percent of the payments. Idaho is 4th in dairy production, 
but 12th in MILC payments. How can anyone say that is a fair and 
equitable use of the taxpayers' dollars? Dairy producers my State of 
New Mexico rank 7th in the Nation in milk production but are 28th in 
Federal MILC payments.
  Some of the supporters of this $1 billion boondoggle say that dairy 
farmers need a safety net. However, I hope all Senators know dairy 
producers already have a safety net, one that has been in place for 
over 50 years. It's called the Federal Price Support Program, and it 
was extended in the 2002 farm bill. So this $1 billion program subsidy 
program is really just a case of some dairy farmers trying to double 
dip at the taxpayers' expense.
  Another argument I have heard is that MILC helps the family farms. 
Nearly all dairies in this country, regardless of size, are family 
farms; that

[[Page S14157]]

is, owned and run by families. The families who run New Mexico's 
dairies are strongly opposed to extending MILC.
  Finally, a recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows 
the MILC program actually lowers prices paid to diary farmers. This 
shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, it is just basic economics. Taxpayer 
subsidies invariable lead to excess production, which pushes prices 
down. In my opinion, this is a simple case of an unnecessary and 
counterproductive program that should have been left to die.
  I understand President Bush made a campaign promise last year to 
support extending the MILC Program. But at hearing on October 27 in the 
Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, where I am a 
member, the deputy trade representative, Ambassador Allgeier, stated 
the administration would prefer MILC not be extended because of the 
possible impact on the President's ongoing world trade negotiations. 
MILC is a huge trade-distorting subsidy, and extending it now sends the 
wrong signals to our trading partners.
  I didn't sign the conference report, and I plan to vote against this 
budget reconciliation bill because I do believe this bill is a missed 
opportunity to establish spending priorities and deal with the nation's 
burgeoning deficit.
  This bill sets aside $1 billion for an unnecessary subsidy to benefit 
mainly Northeast and Midwest dairy farmers, while at the same time 
making deep cuts to essential health care and housing initiatives. 
Agriculture spending for farmers and ranchers has had to be cut an 
extra $1 billion to pay for the MILC subsidy. Our country is in deep 
financial trouble which requires us to make difficult choices and set 
priorities. In my view, we have laid out the wrong priorities in this 
bill.
  Decisions that cost the taxpayers a billion dollars shouldn't be made 
on the basis of partisan politics. Section 1101 in this reconciliation 
bill will cost taxpayers $1 billion over the next 3 years. That means 
$1 billion more that has to be borrowed; another $1 billion added to 
the deficit.
  New Mexico's family-owned dairies are some of the most efficient in 
the Nation, and they should be free to compete without this costly and 
totally unnecessary subsidy program. I do believe it is bad policy to 
put an extra $1 billion of the taxpayers' money into this unnecessary 
MILC subsidy.
  Groups that oppose this 2-year extension of the MILC subsidy include 
the International Dairy Foods Association, the American Conservative 
Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens against Government Waste, 
Freedom Works, and the National Taxpayers Union.
  In addition to the letter from AARP previously mentioned, I ask that 
letters expressing major concerns and opposition to the conference 
report from 35 organizations that are part of the Consortium for 
Citizens with Disabilities, the American Cancer Society, the National 
Council of La Raza, and an organization representing 2,500 police 
chiefs and other law enforcement leaders be printed in the Record.
  I also ask unanimous consent that a recent article opposing extending 
MILC by Thomas Schatz, president of the Council for Citizens Against 
Government Waste, and John Berthoud, president of the National 
Taxpayers Union, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                         AARP,

                                                December 19, 2005.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, D.C.
       Dear Majority Leader Frist: AARP strongly opposes the 
     budget reconciliation conference agreement scheduled to come 
     before the Senate for a vote today. Rather than reflecting 
     the rational provisions of the Senate reconciliation bill, 
     the final conference agreement is irresponsible policy.
       The final conference agreement does not ask for shared 
     sacrifice to achieve budgetary savings. Rather it protects 
     the pharmaceutical industry, the managed care industry, and 
     other providers at the expense of low-income Medicaid 
     beneficiaries and Medicare beneficiaries who will foot the 
     bill.
       AARP members and your other constituents will question why 
     members of the Senate would vote for a bill that would:
       Make it harder for Americans needing long-term care to 
     qualify for Medicaid;
       Force some Americans to forfeit their homes in order to pay 
     for long-term care services;
       Require all Medicare Part B beneficiaries to pay higher 
     premiums;
       Reopen the MMA, not to make improvements in the new drug 
     benefit, but to require those with more income to pay higher 
     Part B premiums sooner; and
       Force low-income Medicaid recipients to pay more for their 
     care--and if they cannot afford to do so--to potentially be 
     denied care entirely.
       The conference agreement systematically undermines the 
     critical protections built into both the Medicaid and 
     Medicare programs. If the conference agreement becomes law, 
     then over the course of the next few weeks and months we will 
     make sure that our members across the country fully 
     understand the impact of this conference agreement on them 
     and on their families.
       We urge the Senate to oppose the reconciliation conference 
     package and urge Congress to instead return to the fair and 
     responsible policies of the original Senate package.
           Sincerely,
     William D. Novelli.
                                  ____

                                           Consortium for Citizens


                                            With Disabilities,

                                                December 20, 2005.
       Dear Senator: We are writing as members of the Consortium 
     for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD). We strongly urge you to 
     opposes the budget reconciliation conference report because 
     of the serious harm it would cause the 9.2 million children 
     and adults with disabilities and others who rely on Medicaid 
     for essential health and long-term services. Unlike the 
     Senate-passed budget reconciliation package, the conference 
     report achieves budget savings in ways that would weaken 
     critical Medicaid protections upon which people with 
     disabilities and other low-income beneficiaries rely. This 
     includes cost-sharing provisions that will only lead to 
     necessary services being denied and effectively punishing 
     people with disabilities who have extensive health and long-
     term services needs. Changes to the EPSDT requirement can 
     only lead to a bifurcated system that will impose formidable 
     barriers for children in Medicaid trying to access the full 
     range of covered services. The home- and community-based 
     services provisions permit enrollment caps and waiting 
     lists--the very policies that currently prevent Medicaid from 
     meeting the needs of all people with disabilities otherwise 
     eligible for community services. The asset transfer policies 
     also go beyond the consensus reforms in the Senate bill and 
     will make it harder for some seniors with disabilities to 
     qualify for Medicaid--even if they do not have substantial 
     incomes or were not purposefully divesting assets to qualify 
     for Medicaid.
       CCD is also very concerned about the negative impact of the 
     TANF provisions on people with disabilities and oppose the 
     inclusion of these provisions in the conference report.
       While we are supportive of the Family Opportunity Act and 
     the Money Follows the Person demonstration, these provisions 
     alone do not justify supporting a Medicaid and TANF reform 
     package that is excessively harmful to people with 
     disabilities.
       Sincerely,
       Academy for Educational Development
       American Association on Mental Retardation
       American Association of People with Disabilities
       American Foundation for the Blind
       American Congress of Community Supports and Employment 
     Services
       American Council of the Blind
       American Network of Community Options and Resources
       American Therapeutic Recreation Association
       APSE: The Network on Employment
       Association of University Centers on Disabilities
       Brain Injury Association of America
       Council of State Administrators of Vocational 
     Rehabilitation
       Easter Seals
       Epilepsy Foundation
       International Association of Business, Industry and 
     Rehabilitation
       LDA, Learning Disabilities Association of America
       Lutheran Services in America
       National Alliance on Mental Illness
       National Association for the Advancement of Orthotics and 
     Prosthetics
       National Association of Social Workers
       National Association of School Psychologists
       National Association of State Head Injury Administrators
       National Disability Rights Network
       National Down Syndrome Congress
       National Mental Health Association
       National Organization of Social Security Claimants' 
     Representatives
       National Spinal Cord Injury Association
       NISH
       Paralyzed Veterans of America
       Research Institute for Independent Living
       The Arc of the United States
       Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance
       United Cerebral Palsy
       United Spinal Association
       Volunteers of America.
                                  ____


American Cancer Society Speaks Out Against Conference Report Provisions 
   That Increase Cost Sharing and Limit Benefits in Medicaid Program

                                                 December 19, 2005
       Dear Senator: The American Cancer Society is disappointed 
     in House passage of provisions in the Reconciliation Spending 
     Cuts

[[Page S14158]]

     Act Conference Report (H.R. 4241) that will have an adverse 
     impact on access to care for Medicaid beneficiaries who have 
     cancer or are at high risk for cancer. Specifically, we are 
     deeply concerned about the provisions which achieve budget 
     savings by increasing cost sharing and putting benefits 
     packages at risk. We urge the Senate to stand up for a 
     reconciliation package that minimizes the negative impact on 
     beneficiaries by deleting these provisions, as reflected in 
     the Senate bill (S. 1932).
       Cancer is a disease where up front financial costs are 
     substantial, timely treatment is absolutely critical upon 
     diagnosis, and treatment modalities vary widely. We know that 
     access to screening and quality cancer care can have a 
     substantial impact on outcomes. Therefore policy changes, 
     such as imposing undue financial barriers or reducing 
     benefits that inadvertently limit Medicaid beneficiary access 
     to screening, treatment, and follow up care can be a 
     particular problem for those with cancer.
       The Society is greatly concerned about cost-saving 
     provisions in the conference report that seek to secure most 
     of its required savings by eliminating the guarantee of 
     coverage, increasing cost sharing and allowing for changes in 
     benefits packages that could negatively impact those who are 
     most vulnerable--particularly low-income individuals with or 
     at greatest risk of chronic diseases such as cancer. We 
     believe that Medicaid beneficiaries' existing access to 
     specialty services and covered cancer protections, including 
     ``optional'' benefits like screenings, cessation services, 
     and prescription drug coverage, should be protected, and not 
     diminished.
       The Congressional Budget Office estimated that much of the 
     savings from these provisions in the conference report would 
     be achieved by beneficiaries foregoing critical health 
     services or participation in coverage altogether. The Senate 
     has voted in the past to achieve its savings through both the 
     Medicare and Medicaid programs by limiting fraud, waste, and 
     abuse, and by reducing drug prices and other payments--
     savings which are less likely to hurt beneficiaries. The 
     Senate again expressed its intent to protect beneficiaries in 
     overwhelmingly passing a Motion to Instruct on Medicaid last 
     week. The Society stands in support of this bipartisan 
     approach for achieving cost-savings while protecting access 
     to care for Medicaid beneficiaries.
       The Medicaid program plays a significant role in providing 
     access to cancer prevention, screening and early detection, 
     treatment, and follow up care for the nation's most 
     vulnerable populations, and we applaud Congress for providing 
     this safety net for Hurricane survivors.
       While we recognize the fiscal constraints faced by states 
     and the federal government in controlling overall health care 
     costs in addition to administering the Medicaid program, we 
     believe that reforms must be achieved while continuing 
     quality coverage and comprehensive access for cancer patients 
     and those at risk for cancer in the Medicaid program. 
     Therefore, we ask that you support provisions that maximize 
     protection of Medicaid beneficiaries and delete provisions 
     that increase cost sharing, jeopardize benefits, and 
     eliminate the guarantee of coverage. If you have any 
     questions, please contact Kelly Green Kahn, Senior Federal 
     Representative at 202-661-5718.
           Sincerely,
     Daniel E. Smith,
       National Vice President, Federal and State Government 
     Relations.
     Wendy K. D. Selig,
       Vice President, Legislative Affairs.
                                  ____



                                  National Council of La Raza,

                                                December 19, 2005.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Council of La Raza 
     (NCLR), the largest national Hispanic civil rights and 
     advocacy organization in the United States, I write to 
     strongly urge you to oppose current budget reconciliation 
     legislation, the ``Deficit Control Act of 2005'' (S. 1932). 
     This budget reconciliation would cut vital programs that were 
     established to protect the economic security of low-income 
     families, including Latinos.
       S. 1932 will move our nation in the wrong direction. In the 
     past, when hardworking Latino families faced economic 
     hardship, they could count on temporary relief such as 
     Medicaid or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to 
     sustain their households until they could ``get back on their 
     feet.'' The reconciliation package would weaken the ability 
     of federal programs to provide effective services that help 
     Americans move up the economic ladder by cutting services, 
     increasing costs to beneficiaries, or severely compromising 
     program structure.
       Today there are more than 41 million Hispanics in the U.S.; 
     more than 19 million are in the labor force making 
     contributions to the nation's prosperity and economic growth. 
     With respect to federal budget and tax priorities, six in ten 
     (61%) of registered Latino voters say they would rather pay 
     higher taxes for a government to provide more services. 
     Three-quarters (74%) say the government is spending too 
     little on education and a similar share (76%) say we as a 
     country should spend more to provide health insurance for 
     everyone who needs it, even if it means raising taxes. Yet, 
     Congress is following the opposite route. In addition, this 
     proposal would bring us no closer to a balanced budget.
       More troubling, the budget reconciliation proposals 
     continue to be described, in some cases, as an effort to pay 
     for disaster relief and in others as must-do legislation to 
     reduce the federal budget deficit. While NCLR agrees that 
     providing relief to disaster victims and improving the budget 
     deficit are critical, we believe that the budget 
     reconciliation package would shift the burden to other low-
     income families while failing to balance our nation's budget. 
     To close the deficit gap, Congress should seriously consider 
     strategies to raise revenues. Tax cuts increased the budget 
     deficit; low-income families should not now have to pay for 
     them.
       Much is at stake for Latinos in this budget reconciliation. 
     We hope that the Senate will send a clear message to Latinos 
     and all Americans that Congress is serious about enhancing 
     life opportunities for working families. This budget 
     reconciliation package fails to send that message. Thus, NCLR 
     urges you to VOTE ``NO'' on the budget reconciliation 
     package. NCLR will recommend that the National Hispanic 
     Leadership Agenda include votes associated with this 
     legislation in its Congressional Scorecard.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Janet Murguia,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                  Fight Crime: Invest in Kids,

                                Washington, DC, December 19, 2005.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the 2,500 police chiefs, 
     sheriffs, prosecutors, and victims of violence who constitute 
     the anticrime group, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, we urge you 
     to support investments in kids proven to reduce crime, and 
     reject proposed bills--which may be considered sometime 
     today--that would reduce those investments. The research 
     confirms what the law enforcement leaders of Fight Crime: 
     Invest in Kids have seen on the front lines; investments in 
     kids like safe foster care homes for abused and neglected 
     children, high-quality early care and education, and 
     comprehensive screenings and treatment through Medicaid help 
     prevent later crime and violence.
       We thus urge you to reject the House/Senate Conference 
     Report on Reconciliation (S. 1932), expected to be considered 
     later today by the U.S. Senate, which--unlike the original 
     Senate-passed S. 1932--would cut low-income, at-risk kids' 
     access to Medicaid, foster care and child care assistance.
       Also, we urge you to reject the Defense Appropriations 
     conference report--to be considered by the Senate in the next 
     day or two--which would make indiscriminate (so-called 
     ``across-the-board'') cuts that would, in 2006, leave 25,000 
     more low-income at-risk children out of Head Start, and would 
     deny 11,000 more low-income at-risk kids the assistance their 
     parents need to access quality child care.
       Please reject these two fiscally-shortsighted conference 
     reports, which would reduce children's access to proven 
     programs that cut crime, save lives and save money.
       Medicaid
       Unlike the original Senate-passed S. 1932, the 
     Reconciliation Conference Report would cut many low-income 
     children from the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and 
     Treatment (EPSDT) program that can help reduce later 
     delinquency. Currently, EPSDT provides comprehensive early 
     screening and treatment to help identify and treat behavioral 
     and emotional problems and mental illnesses while children 
     are young, preventing more serious problems later that 
     increase a child's risk of involvement with the juvenile 
     justice system. Studies show that behavior problems in young 
     children are linked to later antisocial behavior. For 
     example, an estimated 7 percent or more of preschoolers have 
     levels of disruptive, aggressive behaviors severe enough to 
     qualify for a mental health diagnosis and approximately 60% 
     of these children will later manifest high levels of 
     antisocial and delinquent behavior. Eliminating the state 
     requirement to offer EPSDT services would limit at-risk kids' 
     access to proven treatment that can help keep them on the 
     right track and away from the road to crime.
       The Reconciliation Conference Report would limit kids' 
     access to mental health treatment that can reduce the risk of 
     repeat involvement with the juvenile justice system, Medicaid 
     pays for over 50% of public mental health services, helping 
     cover evidence-based, intensive individual and family therapy 
     programs. For example, Functional Family Therapy (FFT) works 
     individually with troubled, delinquent youths to change their 
     behavior and break the peer connections that lead to crime. 
     FFT cuts re-arrest rates in half, while saving money; the 
     public saves over $26,000 for each youth treated. By 
     eliminating the EPSDT benefit guarantee for many low-income 
     children, the Reconciliation Conference Report would also 
     allow states to adopt benefits packages that would clearly be 
     inadequate for many at-risk children in need of intense 
     mental health intervention. For example, in Colorado, kids 
     could be limited to 20 outpatient mental health visits per 
     year. Mental health treatment under Medicaid helps kids get 
     the care they need, while making our communities safer.
       Unlike Senate-passed S. 1932, the Reconciliation Conference 
     Report would eliminate affordability guarantees for millions 
     of children on Medicaid (those with incomes just above the 
     poverty line), leaving low-income children subject to new and 
     sometimes unaffordable costs that experts expect will

[[Page S14159]]

     prevent these children from receiving necessary care. 
     Currently, federal law exempts Medicaid-eligible children 
     from cost-sharing and premiums. As a result, low-income 
     children covered by Medicaid are even more likely than low-
     income children with private insurance to have a well-child 
     visit, helping ensure that children get off to a good start 
     in life. Participation in health insurance programs has been 
     shown to drop to fewer than one in five eligible people when 
     premiums reach the levels allowed under this proposal) 
     however, suggesting that fewer children would receive needed 
     care--care that prevents crime and saves money.
       Foster Care
       Unlike Senate-passed S. 1932, the Reconciliation Conference 
     Report would limit the ability of relatives to care for 
     abused and neglected children in need of a safe foster care 
     home, increasing pressure on the already inadequate number of 
     non-relative foster care homes and potentially leaving more 
     children in dangerous homes. Reversing the Rosales court 
     decision would limit federally IV-E foster care reimbursement 
     to some relatives who can now receive these reimbursements. 
     The proposal would also limit federal Title IV-E funds for 
     case management and other services for children living with 
     relatives under certain circumstances. This cut in federal 
     foster care support will decrease the likelihood of safe 
     foster care homes being available for all of the abused and 
     neglected children who need them, resulting in re-abuse and 
     later crime.
       The Reconciliation Conference Report would put new limits 
     on funding that would restrict states' ability to support 
     prevention services for kids ``at imminent risk of removal 
     from the home'' and limit caseworkers'' ability to perform 
     crucial case management roles. Limiting the ability of states 
     (under certain circumstances) to support prevention services 
     for kids at high risk of entering the foster care system 
     would increase child abuse and neglect and foster care 
     placements, as well as later crime. Restricting caseworkers' 
     ability to help with family reunification and other case 
     management when children are transitioning between foster 
     care and juvenile institutional placements would place an 
     additional burden on the already underfunded juvenile justice 
     system, diverting funding that would otherwise support 
     effective violence prevention programs for at-risk kids and 
     intervention programs for kids who have already committed a 
     criminal or delinquent act.
       Early Care and Education
       Unlike the original S. 1932, the Reconciliation Conference 
     Report ''Child Care and Development Block Grant'' (CCDBG) 
     provisions would cut 255,000 low-income children from child 
     care in 2010 (compared to 2004). The Defense Conference 
     Report would, this year alone, deny tens of thousands of low-
     income at-risk kids access to CCDBG and Head Start. CCDBG and 
     Head Start support the type of quality early childhood care 
     and education programs that have been proven to prevent 
     children from turning to crime. For example, a study of the 
     High/Scope Perry Preschool program showed that three- and 
     four-year-olds from low-income families who were left out of 
     the program were five times more likely to become chronic 
     offenders by age 27 than those who were in the program, and 
     the program saved $17 for every $1 invested. The 
     Reconciliation Conference report provides such a small 
     increase in CCDBG funding over five years that it doesn't 
     account for: (1) inflation; (2) increased work requirements 
     in the proposed Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 
     reauthorization; (3) the need to increase quality; or (4) 
     current unmet need (only 1 in 7 eligible children is now 
     served). The two Conference Reports. together, would limit 
     CCDBG and Head Start funding, thus preventing hundreds of 
     thousands of children from receiving quality early childhood 
     care that can help them become productive citizens rather 
     than criminals.
       We urge you to reject conference reports that include any 
     of these harmful provisions. Cutting Medicaid, foster care 
     and early care and education now will only lead to higher 
     crime rates and far greater criminal justice system 
     expenditures down the road. The United States Senate must not 
     allow a rush-to-adjournment to result in enactment of bad 
     laws. Your constituents--and the Nation--deserve better.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Miriam A. Rollin,
     Vice President.
                                  ____


                        Deal Milks Taxpayers Dry

                (By Thomas A. Schatz and John Berthoud)

       The dairy-farm lobby is at it again. With the assistance of 
     several key lawmakers, the industry is using must-pass year-
     end legislation to gain additional subsidies.
       The latest shenanigans involve the milk income-loss 
     contract (MILC), a costly program that expired Sept. 30.
       The dairy lobby's objective is to resurrect the MILC 
     program by attaching it to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 
     which is supposed to reduce spending by about $50 billion 
     over the next five years. Adding insult to injury, the House 
     Republican leadership is making back-room deals to help the 
     dairy lobby secure its subsidy.
       To garner the votes necessary to pass the Deficit Reduction 
     Act, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) promised a 
     number of Republican lawmakers that he would ``instruct House 
     conferees to secure an extension of a MILC program through 
     September 2007.'' This would be accomplished by receding to 
     the Senate, which included a renewal of the MILC program in 
     its version of the Deficit Reduction Act. The failure to vote 
     upon down on the program in the House is a betrayal of the 
     taxpayers.
       Congress did the right thing when it allowed the MILC 
     program to expire at the end of September. During its 
     existence, the MILC scheme perpetuated economic distortions, 
     created inefficient markets and unnecessarily harmed 
     taxpayers and consumers.
       When MILC was created as part of the 2002 farm bill, the 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the four-
     year price tag would be ``only'' $1.3 billion. Since the 
     program's inception, however, taxpayers have been tapped for 
     more than $2 billion. Now, the estimate for a scaled-back, 
     two-year version of MILC is $998 million. If the CBO is as 
     wrong now as it was in 2002, this new two-year concoction 
     will cost taxpayers closer to $1.5 billion.
       Whether the actual cost turns out to be $1 billion or $1.5 
     billion or even more, there is no justification for bringing 
     the MILC program back to life, particularly as part of the 
     Deficit Reduction Act. Taxpayers have already taken too many 
     forced trips to this milking machine.
       The industry is currently subsidized through the dairy-
     price support program, which cost taxpayers an average of 
     $500 million per year from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 
     2004 for the purchase of surplus products.
       The absurdity of MILC is evident in its own past history. 
     Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which 
     oversees the program, agrees that the costly subsidies simply 
     aren't working and have produced unfortunate and unintended 
     consequences.
       A comprehensive study released by the USDA last year 
     concluded that the MILC program leads to expanded output 
     through production-linked subsidies. Then, incongruously, the 
     federal government purchases the surplus milk production 
     caused by the MILC program through the price supports. In 
     short, taxpayers shell out for the same unneeded milk not 
     once but twice.
       The MILC program was based on the failed Northeast Dairy 
     Compact, which was also the product of a back-room deal, and, 
     like the late price cartel, MILC primarily benefits certain, 
     less efficient dairy farms.
       In rewarding and perpetuating such inefficiency, the MILC 
     program is not just expensive for taxpayers but at the end of 
     the day is simply bad, backward policy. Particularly at a 
     time of staggering federal deficits, it would seem hard to 
     justify spending an additional $1 billion to resuscitate a 
     program that never worked in the first place.
       Aside from the problems inherent in the program itself, 
     using the Deficit Reduction Act to reconstitute MILC is 
     another example of the way in which Washington has grown ever 
     more beholden to special interests. After all, legislation 
     that would have extended the MILC program failed to move 
     ahead earlier this year in either the House or the Senate. 
     Attempting furtively to funnel MILC into legislation that is 
     meant to save tax dollars, not squander them, is deplorable 
     and pathetic.
       After more than 70 years of meddling in the U.S. dairy 
     industry, Congress was right to begin phasing out our 
     convoluted system of antiquated subsidies by allowing the 
     MILC program to sunset. They ought at least to protect this 
     victory for taxpayers by keeping the menace of MILC out of 
     the Deficit Reduction Act.
       More important, the House leadership ought to show 
     taxpayers respect, rather than using deficit-reduction 
     legislation to create new government programs and making 
     back-room deals that milk the taxpayers dry.


               revisions to payments for therapy services

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I would like to raise an issue of 
clarification regarding section 5107, Revisions to Payments for Therapy 
Services. It is my understanding that this provision retains the 
therapy limitation of $1,740 for outpatient physical therapy and 
speech-language pathology and $1,740 for outpatient occupation therapy 
but provides an exception process for services that are needed by a 
beneficiary over this amount. This exception process is expressly to 
permit services above the cap that are medically necessary. Mr. 
President, I ask the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee whether 
this interpretation is correct.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is correct.
  Mr. ENSIGN. In addition, there should be no delay in implementing the 
exceptions process. CMS should work diligently to develop a process to 
determine whether a service is medically necessary. This process could 
include a ``code modifier'' and standard audit review of medical 
necessity and reflect similar processes that currently exist. It is my 
understanding, based on the language, that if CMS does not develop a 
process, a request for therapy services will be deemed medically 
necessary if CMS does not act on the request within 10 business days. 
Further, the language also appears to permit a beneficiary to request 
medically necessary coverage outside the caps at the

[[Page S14160]]

outset of treatment. If CMS does not develop a process and fails to act 
within 10 business days, then the beneficiary can receive covered 
therapy services in excess of the cap. I would hope that further 
information from CMS regarding the exceptions process is laid out as we 
approach January 1, 2006, when the therapy caps go into effect. Senator 
Grassley, do you agree with these statements?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree that CMS needs to develop a process to permit 
medically necessary Part B therapy services that exceed the cap in a 
timely manner. I also believe that this process should not result in 
the delay of needed therapy services. I would hope that CMS would 
provide an outline as to how they envision the exceptions process to 
work so that beneficiaries needing therapy services beyond the $1,740 
caps receive the therapy they need if medically necessary.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in follow-up with respect to the 
education provisions in the conference report on the pending bill, it 
is important to note that the Senate bill included $6 billion for Pell 
grants, to do more to ensure that every talented student who has the 
opportunity to go to college can afford to do so. In addition, the 
Senate bill included a further $2 billion for college students studying 
math and science.
  By contrast, the conferees' bill reduces spending in the student loan 
programs by $13 billion and allocates only $3.75 billion to new grant 
aid. That's $13 billion in tax giveaways for the wealthy and only a 
meager $3.75 billion increase in grants to help students go to college.
  It gets worse. In order to receive the funds that are available, 
students must jump through multiple hoops. As a result, only a very 
small percentage of students will ever see the aid. In fact, based on 
an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, our estimates show only 
about 10 percent of the students who currently receive Pell grants will 
receive additional assistance under this bill--hardly a commitment to 
educational opportunity for all students.
  We need to provide incentives for students to study math and science. 
But it makes no sense to do so at the expense of other students. As the 
cost of college rises and Pell grants remain stagnant, it's wrong to 
take $13 billion in savings from the student loan program and not give 
a single penny to 90 percent of the students struggling to make it 
through college.
  Senator Gregg pointed to the loan forgiveness provisions in this 
conference report. I strongly support those provisions and urged their 
inclusion in the Senate bill. But these provisions are merely an 
extension of current law. They ensure that we won't now eliminate the 
incentive we've been providing for teachers who agree to teach in high-
need fields in high-poverty schools. Loan forgiveness is an extremely 
important program, but it does nothing for the almost 170,000 college-
ready students, who each year fail to go to college because they can't 
afford the upfront costs of doing so. These students need additional 
grant aid--even if they choose to be teachers and not scientists and 
engineers.
  Senator Gregg also said that the fixed interest rate structure in 
this conference report will cost students $5 billion. In fact, the 
fixed interest rate structure actually saves about $6 billion more than 
the variable rate structure proposed by Senator Gregg and included in 
the House bill.
  Instead of the variable interest rate capped at 8.25 percent, as 
proposed by Senator Gregg, the Senate bill kept the current law 
structure of 6.8 percent fixed rate, which is obviously better for 
students than an 8.25 percent rate. The Federal Reserve has increased 
interest rates in each of its last 13 meetings. The Senate bill was 
designed to protect more students from the current trend of increasing 
rates.
  I had proposed a variable rate capped at 6.8 percent--the option 
supported by the student groups. But our Republican colleagues refused 
to accept this option.
  Many of us wanted to do even more for students than we achieved in 
the Senate bill. Instead, we were forced to find $7 billion in 
savings--now $13 billion in this final version--so that this Republican 
Congress and the Bush administration can provide greater tax giveaways 
to the wealthy.
  Our Senate bill opened the doors of opportunity for many more young 
people. We took the fat out of bank profits and put most of it back 
where it belongs--helping the nation's neediest students. This 
conference report puts an additional $6 billion into tax cuts for the 
wealthy--on top of the $7 billion in the Senate bill--while doing 
nothing for 90 percent of those struggling to pay for college. Those 
are the wrong priorities, Mr. President, and I very much regret that 
our Republican colleagues have insisted on turning a good Senate bill 
into a shameful retreat on aid to college education.


                      UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate convenes on Wednesday, December 21, it immediately resume debate 
on the conference report to accompany S. 1932; provided further that 
all time be considered expired under the statute other than 5 minutes 
each for the chairman and ranking member; further, that following that 
time, Senator Conrad be recognized in order to raise a Budget Act point 
of order against the conference report and that immediately after the 
point of order is raised Senator Gregg be recognized in order to make a 
motion to waive.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following the vote on the 
waiver, Senator Conrad be recognized to make a further point of order 
and Senator Gregg be recognized immediately in order to move to waive 
for his point of order; provided that the only Byrd rule points of 
order in order be from the list that is currently at the desk and that 
if both points of order are waived, the Senate proceed to a vote on the 
adoption of the conference report, with no intervening action or 
debate; further, that if either motion to waive is rejected and the 
Chair sustains either point of order following the votes on the motions 
to waive, the Senate then immediately vote on the motion to concur in 
the House amendment with the Senate amendment as provided under the 
Budget Act, again with no further intervening action or debate, and 
that there be 4 minutes equally divided before each point of order 
vote.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I direct 
these remarks as much to myself as to all other Senators.
  Tomorrow is an extremely important and very difficult day. I ask all 
Senators to be patient, not be upset if things don't go the way they 
think they should. It is going to be a hard day tomorrow. With a little 
bit of good luck, we should be able to finish everything tomorrow. But 
I hope all Senators would understand that getting to the point where we 
are is very difficult. And tomorrow, I hope everyone will, as I have 
said, be considerate of others and try to move through this with the 
understanding that we are all trying to get out of here. Everyone 
understands that there are a lot of things going on. We are also doing 
the people's business, and we need to focus attention on that.
  I have no objection.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, just on the 
one point we probably need to clarify, that after the point of order I 
make, Senator Gregg be recognized to make a motion to waive, that our 
understanding is that would be a motion to waive on the specific items 
which I have raised.
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague, and I thank the Chair. I will not 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will return later tonight to make further 
announcements about the schedule for tomorrow. I wish to emphasize what 
the distinguished minority leader has said. There will be a lot of 
votes tomorrow. We will begin voting around 10 minutes after 9 
tomorrow. Thereafter, we are going to have a whole series of votes, 
with the goal of getting people out sometime tomorrow. It is going to 
take everybody's patience and cooperation. We will start bright and 
early. I will have more to say on that later.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S14161]]

                         Defense Appropriations

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, tomorrow morning we will consider the 
Defense appropriations conference report with very little debate. It is 
an important measure. Earlier I came to the floor to speak about one 
aspect of the bill which relates to drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. It is a large bill, about 1,000 pages. It contains 
many things. I would like to address the other elements that are 
included in that bill.
  This conference report provides $453 billion in defense spending, 
money for body armor, armored vehicles, protective equipment for our 
troops that they need and haven't always had. The conference reports 
includes $1 billion for equipment for National Guard and Reserve units.
  In Illinois, our National Guard units have been forced to leave their 
equipment behind in Iraq for use by the units that follow. Other 
States' National Guard and Reserve units have done the same. Leaving 
their equipment thousands of miles away makes it difficult to train our 
guardsmen in my State and many others. It also makes it harder for 
Guard and Reserve units to respond to civilian disasters here at home. 
We saw that in Hurricane Katrina. I voted for the Leahy amendment, 
offered by the Senator from Vermont, to increase funding for Guard and 
Reserve equipment by $1.3 billion. I am pleased that most of this 
funding is included in this final conference report.
  The bill also adds $10 million for the Rock Island Arsenal to ensure 
that this important military-owned-and-operated facility is ready to 
make the equipment our troops need when they need it. That Rock Island 
Arsenal proved its value to America when we needed to retrofit the 
humvees with armor plating to protect our troops. The men and women of 
the Rock Island Arsenal worked 24/7 to meet that need. It provides $20 
million to purchase or refurbish the heavy construction equipment 
needed by the Navy Seabees and Army Guard and Reserve engineer units. I 
am proud that we make this gear in Illinois.
  It includes more than $20 million for upgrades to Navy and Marine 
Corps FA-18 fighter aircraft because our pilots deserve the best 
equipment there is. This conference reports also includes $29 billion 
for Katrina disaster relief. It is important to note that not one dime 
of this $29 billion is new money; $5.1 billion is from the 1-percent 
across-the-board cuts in this bill as well as other rescissions. The 
rest, $23.4 of the $29 billion total, was already earmarked for FEMA. 
FEMA programs are being cut to pay for Katrina relief. Would you 
believe that this conference reports actually cuts FEMA's preparedness, 
mitigation, recovery, and response programs by $2 million? It cuts 
Federal programs, funds for programs such as catastrophic planning and 
planning for mass evacuations. It is hard to imagine, in the wake of 
Hurricane Katrina, that we are reducing spending in this bill for 
planning for mass evacuations. God forbid we face another one in the 
near future.
  Inadequate resources clearly was not the only reason FEMA was 
overwhelmed by Katrina. The main reason was cronyism and incompetence 
at the top. But does anyone seriously believe that cutting FEMA's 
disaster prevention and preparedness programs is the right way to 
respond to Katrina? It isn't. Of the $29 billion for Katrina relief, 
one-tenth of that total, $2.9 billion, is for Army Corps of Engineers 
projects including levee repairs. I am glad the administration has 
acknowledged the need for the Federal Government to take the lead to 
rebuild the levees. Homeowners can't rebuild, business owners won't 
relocate until New Orleans' levees are safe and rebuilt.
  Let's be clear, $2.9 billion is a very small downpayment on what is 
needed to rebuild the levees and restore the wetlands. Estimates of 
what it will cost range from $18 billion to $32 billion to reach 
category 5 hurricane protection. Restoring the wetlands could cost an 
additional $18 billion. As any good environmental engineer will tell 
you, strong levees and restored wetlands are needed to fully protect 
New Orleans and the surrounding areas. In his nationally televised 
speech from New Orleans' Jackson Square in mid-September, President 
Bush promised the Federal Government would help New Orleans and 
Louisiana make the flood protection system stronger than it has ever 
been. The $2.9 billion in this bill is a small downpayment on that 
promise. We will look for the next installment next year.
  The President should also make it clear right now that New Orleans' 
levees will be rebuilt to withstand a category 5 hurricane. If we don't 
want New Orleans to turn into a permanent ghost town, the people have 
to know that it is safe to return. Assurance from the President would 
make that difference.
  What is missing in this bill? Unfortunately, several critically 
important provisions have been stripped out behind the closed doors of 
the conference committee. Let me tell you one that has become a 
perennial. The Reservist Pay Security Act, which the Senate has now 
passed four different times--I have sponsored this bill and it passed 
in the Senate four different times--is one of the measures that should 
be in this bill but always gets stripped out in conference. The same 
Senators who stand here and vote proudly for it can't wait to get 
behind closed doors and strip it out. Four straight years. What is it 
about? When Guard and Reserve members of top companies such as Sears, 
GM, and Home Depot are called to active duty, companies they work for 
make up their difference in pay. They can worry about defeating 
terrorism and don't have to worry about missing mortgage payments.

  Thirty State governments do the same thing. They believe their 
workers who sacrifice to defend America are worth a helping hand. I 
introduced the Reservist Pay Security Act with a bipartisan team of 
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, including my lead cosponsors 
Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Senator George Allen of Virginia, 
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and others who believe the Federal 
Government should make the same commitment to the troops that other 
employers make. One out of every ten Guard and Reserve members is a 
Federal employee. Yet they don't have the same salary and income 
protection as those in the private sector. How can you possibly explain 
that? How can we say, as a Federal Government, we won't stand behind 
our troops when the private sector does, when State governments do, 
when local governments do?
  Again and again that is passed on the Senate floor. We pat ourselves 
on the back and it heads to the conference committee and disappears. 
Think about this: The Department of Defense hands out awards to 
companies that stand behind the Guard and Reserve. The Federal 
Government should hand out a demotion to those in the Senate who 
consistently vote for this on the floor with a big smile on their 
faces, head to the conference committee and kill it every time. If they 
think they are getting even with me, that isn't what it is about. It is 
about helping our troops.
  On a bipartisan basis, Members of the Senate have said it is time to 
get this done. This bill doesn't do it. The Department of Defense 
claims that it would cause disparity and discord if an activated 
reservist is being paid more than an Active-Duty soldier. Active-Duty 
soldiers don't stand around comparing pay stubs and what they are 
making back home. The Reservist Pay Disparity Act doesn't create 
disparities, it reduces them, by ensuring fewer soldiers have to 
sacrifice a substantial part of their income to serve the Nation. We 
talk all the time about supporting our troops. It is interesting, we 
support it when there is a rollcall on the floor. When it gets to the 
darkness of a conference committee, that support has been taken out 
time and time again.
  I hope we will have a chance to pass this in the next session. I will 
offer it again. This time I hope the conference committee will give us 
a helping hand instead of turning its back on our guardsmen and 
reservists.
  I am also deeply disappointed this defense conference report contains 
no relief funds for farmers who suffered serious income losses this 
year because of drought and other natural disasters. The year 2005 was 
a tough year for farmers from coast to coast. Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita, the drought in the Midwest, the flooding in the upper Midwest, 
all of these things have taken their toll on my State and so many

[[Page S14162]]

others. Year in and year out we have had a disaster assistance program 
for farmers. This year we need it and we need it badly in Illinois and 
many other States. When Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota offered a 
$1.6 billion amendment in the conference committee to restore the 
disaster assistance program, it was defeated on the House side. The 
House Republican leadership refused to agree to an agriculture disaster 
assistance relief program. That is unfortunate. I hope that the 
Congressmen who represent farming areas will come back to Washington 
after the first of the year and encourage their colleagues to pass 
this.
  We need it so a lot of farmers will have the resources they need to 
get back to work and back to farming this next year. What is also 
missing is this: At least 300,000 innocent people have died in the 
genocide in Sudan. The number may be 400,000. Nobody knows for sure. 
Two million people have been driven from their homes and 500 people die 
every day in refugee camps. We missed an important opportunity to stop 
or slow down that genocide in this conference report. We refused to 
help the work of the African Union Mission in Sudan in this bill. The 
United States provides approximately $8 million a month in support of 
the African Union Mission in Sudan. That amounts to one-third of their 
total funding. These funds are vital to the African Union peacekeeping 
troops in Darfur.
  The Senate included $50 million in our version of the bill, the 
Foreign Operations appropriations bill, to support the African Union, 
which was dropped in conference. Secretary Rice said these funds are 
critical. She requested they be included in this Defense appropriations 
bill. The Secretary noted the State Department already had to reprogram 
$13 million that was intended to train the new Afghan Army and use it 
instead for our commitments in Africa.
  United States funds for Africa will run out January 1. Without 
additional funding, the State Department will have to choose between 
diverting funds from other important priorities and making this 
genocide situation worse in Darfur. I will quote from Secretary Rice in 
a letter she sent to Congress:

       We now face a critical juncture in supporting the African 
     Union Mission in Sudan. . . . Through reprogramming of other 
     peacekeeping monies, the administration has found a way to 
     fund our contribution to AMIS through the end of this year. 
     But the FY2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act provided 
     no funding for this peacekeeping mission. We are in critical 
     need of funding to continue this mission at a robust level 
     into 2006.

  She continued:

       To meet ongoing operational costs and to provide adequate 
     logistical and communications support, we are seeking at 
     least $50 million for AMIS.

  She went on to say:

       I have discussed this matter with others in the 
     administration and can assure you that taking immediate 
     action to meet this unanticipated expense is of the highest 
     priority.

  Those are her words--``highest priority.''
  Despite the urgency of the situation, the House Republican leaders 
removed the funds for the African Union Mission in Sudan from this 
conference report.
  Just a few weeks ago, I was with Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas in 
Rwanda. We stayed in that hotel in the movie ``Hotel Rwanda.'' That was 
the hotel that 11 years ago was a refuge for Rwandan victims of the 
genocide. At the direction of the manager of that hotel, he managed to 
secrete away and protect hundreds of people who otherwise would have 
been hacked to death and killed in the Rwanda genocide.
  I remember that genocide as a Member of the House of Representatives, 
because my senior Senator and close friend, the late Paul Simon, was 
one of the few Senators to speak out. He said to the Clinton 
administration: What is going on in Rwanda is terrible. Whether you 
call it a genocide or not, with a few American troops, we can bring 
stability to the area and save innocent lives. Senator Simon's request 
fell on deaf ears. The Clinton administration did not respond and the 
genocide continued.
  The death toll, when it was all over, is estimated at 800,000 people. 
I went to a Catholic church a few blocks away from this hotel in 
Rwanda. The church looked like an ordinary church, filled with people 
who came to worship at 6 a.m. in the morning. I learned later that a 
thousand people were hacked to death in that church. They came in there 
for refuge. They were, unfortunately, turned over to the rebels and 
killed on the spot. They thought they were saving a church.
  That is what genocide is all about, the wanton killing of people. 
President Bill Clinton, when he does his assessment of his 
administration and lists the liabilities or negatives, is usually going 
to put at the top of the list his failure to respond to the Rwanda 
genocide. He deeply regrets the fact that our Nation didn't speak up 
and stand up to stop that genocide.
  Fast forward now 9 or 10 years to the situation in Darfur in Sudan. 
We have a new President, George W. Bush; we had a new Secretary of 
State, Colin Powell; and now it is Condoleezza Rice. They were able to 
say the word about Darfur in Sudan which the Clinton administration 
would not say about Rwanda. They said we are dealing with a 
``genocide.'' That is a word you have to use very carefully. It has 
happened rarely in the history of the world, but when it has, it has 
had cataclysmic consequences. So our administration, our Government, 
our country has declared that a genocide is occurring in Darfur in 
Sudan. The obvious question to us and those people around the world who 
care is: What are we going to do? We have not committed any American 
troops. Maybe we never will, but at the least we should be supporting 
the African Union troops who are trying to bring order there on the 
ground.

  This bill we are going to consider tomorrow took out the money for 
these African Union troops, despite the pleas of Secretary of State 
Rice, despite the knowledge that we are dealing with a genuine genocide 
where innocent people are being killed, raped, and displaced every day. 
We could not find $50 million in a multibillion dollar budget to keep 
these troops there to protect the poor people in this region. It is 
unthinkable, yet it is a fact.
  Earlier this year, the Senate unanimously approved the Darfur Peace 
and Accountability Act, calling for the rapid expansion of the African 
Union force. That legislation stated that if the AU Mission fails to 
stop the ongoing genocide, ``the international community should take 
additional . . . measures to prevent and suppress acts of genocide in 
the Darfur region.''
  In recent months, the violence has worsened. Some aid groups are 
leaving the region because of security concerns. Even the African Union 
troops have been the target of violence.
  With the resurgent violence of Darfur, the Sudanese Government and 
its partners, the jingaweit militias, appear to be testing the resolve 
of the African Union, the West, and the United States of America. Not 
providing these funds--$50 million for troops to protect these innocent 
people--is inexcusable. It is a signal to the perpetrators of these 
atrocities that we cannot be bothered. We cannot afford to come up with 
$50 million to stop a genocide.
  Mr. President, $50 million for AMIS won't resolve the crisis there, 
but it will enable the African Union to maintain its current size and 
scope of operations. It would allow this Nation, America, to stand on 
the right side of history against the repression and genocide in 
Darfur.
  How can we in good conscience vow ``never again'' and then cut the 
funds needed to keep that promise? How can we watch genocide in our own 
time and refuse to do what is needed to stop it? What if a God-fearing, 
caring Nation such as America declares there is a genocide and does 
nothing? That is what we are up against in this bill.
  I hope that men and women of conscience in the Senate on both sides 
of the aisle, as soon as we return in January, will do something 
immediately to provide the assistance they need in Darfur to provide 
the African Union the support they need.
  I spoke earlier about ANWR. I will not go into that any further, 
other than to say it is truly unfortunate that a bill of this 
importance and this magnitude is being dragged down the road in an 
effort to provide this giveaway to the State of Alaska and to oil 
companies. Of all of the things we should be doing, this is the last--
to be drilling for oil in a wildlife refuge set aside almost 50 years 
ago to be protected for generations, so some oil company can make a 
profit and the State of Alaska can end up benefiting.

[[Page S14163]]

  This conference report contains also a huge gift of nearly unlimited 
immunity for the pharmaceutical industry, one of the wealthiest 
industries in America. When I first came to Congress, I would have to 
say the strongest lobby on Capitol Hill in the 1980s was the tobacco 
lobby. You could not beat them. I know because I tried several times 
unsuccessfully before I passed a bill banning smoking on airplanes. It 
was the first real loss they ever had on the floor of the House. And 
when it came to the Senate, Senator Lautenberg led the fight here and 
we won. It made the news because nobody beat them. The tobacco lobby 
was unbeatable. Now they have been replaced as the king of K Street. 
That distinction now goes to the pharmaceutical industry. Hardly a bill 
passes through here where the pharmaceutical industry and drug 
companies don't end up getting some little favor that has been offered 
by the majority in the Senate.
  The Republican leaders in Congress exploited in this bill a real need 
to push through a big favor for wealthy special interests. To prepare 
for a potentially deadly breakout of avian flu, Senate Democrats, 
including Senators Obama, Harkin, Reid, Kennedy, and others, sought 
twice to add as much as $7.9 billion for the avian flu prevention and 
response efforts.
  In response, the President requested $7.1 billion for avian flu. This 
conference report provides $3.8 billion for avian flu, a little bit 
over half of what the President requested. How in the world will we 
answer our critics when they come forward and say, Did anyone speak out 
here in the face of this potential devastation from avian flu, that the 
funding in this bill was inadequate to the task? We know it is in 
Congress; the President knows it is. But when it comes to the 
conferees, they have decided: Let's save some money here. It is a false 
savings if this pandemic strikes the United States and endangers the 
lives of innocent citizens.
  It also includes something that was not in the President's plan nor 
in the Senate Democrats' plans, and that is where the pharmaceutical 
companies come in again. It includes sweeping immunity protections that 
would shield pharmaceutical companies from legal responsibility, even 
when their mistakes result in injury and death.
  In the middle of the night, after conferees were assured that the 
controversial liability immunity provision would not be included in the 
bill, after the report had been signed, after all of that, the 
Republican leadership added 47 new pages to the bill.
  These new liability protections are not limited to avian flu vaccine, 
which is what the press releases said. Oh, it is all about creating a 
market for new vaccines to be made. Nope. These immunity provisions are 
so broad that they include drugs such as Tylenol, Advil, even Vioxx.
  The Republican proposal would shield the drug industry from legal 
accountability for sickness, disability, and even death resulting from 
vaccines, drugs, and other products. The only exception is in cases of 
willful misconduct. Do you know what it takes to prove willful 
misconduct? You have to prove a drug company knew its product would 
injure or kill someone and went ahead and sold it anyway.
  That is an unrealistically high standard, and it just means fewer 
people will have a day in court. If that is not bad enough, even if a 
drug company acts with willful misconduct, it is still shielded from 
immunity unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the 
Attorney General initiates an enforcement action. If no such action is 
taken, a drug company could knowingly kill hundreds or thousands of 
Americans and still not be held liable.
  There are other loopholes. The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
can declare an emergency at any time. These declarations would also 
shield drug companies from legal accountability. They are not subject 
to appeal or to independent judicial review. This bill overrides State 
laws.
  Supporters of this proposal claim it establishes a compensation fund 
for victims. However, the fund is operated under regulations 
established by the Secretary alone. It includes caps on compensation. 
There is no guarantee Congress will provide sufficient funds to make 
certain that victims receive any compensation. It could turn out to be 
nothing more than empty promises.
  Think about the fact that virtually anyone in America, with two 
exceptions now, is held responsible for the products they sell. And if 
those products cause harm to individuals, they can be held accountable. 
That kind of standard is used for all of America and for all 
businesses, for the products, the goods and services they sell.
  Just a few months ago, we decided to create the first exception. We 
decided that people who manufacture firearms should not be held 
responsible if those firearms injure someone or kill them. That is 
right, firearms. The gun lobby came in here, pushed the bill through, 
and the President signed it gleefully. Now comes the next one, the 
pharmaceutical industry, that they will not be held liable for the 
drugs and vaccines they sell in the ordinary course of business if they 
have been negligent in preparing those drugs or misrepresenting what 
those drugs will do to the American public.
  Let's get down to business. None of these protections in this bill 
are really needed. The Federal Government already has authority to 
waive liability during a public health crisis. That authority is part 
of the President's pandemic influenza plans. These protections are not 
needed to lure drug companies into the vaccine. This is a lucrative 
market. Roche, the company that makes Tamiflu, estimates that sales of 
its antiviral will reach $1 billion this year, four times the 2004 
level--$1 billion. And we are building into this law protections for 
drug companies that are so profitable when, in fact, they are not being 
held as accountable as other businesses.
  Other biotech firms are competing to develop improved vaccines and 
see their stock value soar in the process. The most profitable sector 
in the American economy has scored another big one. It is Christmas on 
K Street for drug company lobbyists. I am sure there are big parties 
this week as they can't wait for this bill to be signed into law and 
escape liability.
  Why has this bill been stuck into this conference report at the last 
minute? Here is a hint. Big PhRMA, the pharmaceutical companies, is the 
single largest influence operation in Washington today. They spent $123 
million lobbying Congress in 2004, according to the Center for Public 
Integrity. Since 1998, pharmaceutical companies have contributed $87 
million to Federal candidates, nearly all Republicans, but not 
exclusively, according to the same center. This is the worst kind of 
special interest dealmaking.

  It is unfortunate that, once again, we are saying to the American 
people that we are creating a special class in America--a class of 
businesses that cannot be held accountable for their wrongdoing.
  We are also saying to the victims of their wrongdoing: Sorry, you 
can't go to a jury in your neighborhood and in your community and ask 
them to judge whether you have been wronged improperly.
  A third provision that ought not to be included in this bill is in 
the Katrina relief package. It would create the first national 
education voucher program. Under this proposal, a disproportionate 
share of school funding would go to private and religious schools at 
the expense of public education. At the same time, the bill removes all 
prohibitions against using Federal money for religious education and 
sectarian activity.
  Using public education dollars for religious purposes is contrary to 
our Constitution, it is contrary to the feelings of most Americans, and 
it is contrary usually to the will of the Senate. The Senate version of 
the Katrina education proposal, which I supported, and I know Senator 
Landrieu supported it as well, contained assurances that Government 
funds would not be used ``for religious instruction, proselytization, 
or worship.'' That language was stripped out of the House bill.
  This is a sad pattern in Congress. For example, the House version of 
Head Start reauthorization would repeal the longstanding civil rights 
protections that prohibited Head Start teachers and staff from being 
discriminated against based on their personal religious belief.
  House amendments to the Workforce Investment Act would also repeal 
the important civil rights protections that prevent employment 
discrimination based on religion.

[[Page S14164]]

  In the same manner, there is no language in the House conference 
report that bans schools that receive these funds under the Katrina 
relief provisions from practicing employment discrimination. If the 
private and religious schools refuse to hire people who don't share 
their religious belief, according to this bill, that is just fine.
  The bill also says if your family is forced from your home because of 
Hurricane Katrina, and your child is now attending a religious school 
because it is the only option available where you are now living, your 
child will receive religious instruction unless you opt out. It places 
the burden on the parents. Yet there is no language in this bill 
requiring that parents and students be notified of the right to opt out 
of religious instruction.
  We can have a debate about using public school dollars for private 
and religious schools, but to use an unprecedented disaster to in a 
backhanded way include religious school vouchers in the Federal budget 
without adequate public debate is just wrong. When you combine these 
back-door cuts to public schools, the 1-percent across-the-board 
reductions in educational programs designed to help poor children and 
children with disabilities, this bill makes a mockery of the promise to 
leave no child behind.
  There was recently an editorial, a column in the Chicago Tribune on 
Monday, written by Dennis Burns, in which he was arguing for the 
teaching of intelligent design in public schools. He believes 
Government should require that to be taught. He argued that faith-based 
belief is not inconsistent with science, and he felt the Government 
should step in and make it clear that you can include religious 
education as part of a public school curriculum.
  What was interesting was the column next to it. It was a column by 
Charles Krauthammer, and it was about the President of Iran. If you 
have been following the lunatic ravings of the President of Iran about 
the fact that he believes there was no Holocaust and he believes that 
the Israelis have no right to their own homeland, you will find that 
his crazed beliefs are grounded in his strong religious convictions.
  That tells us for a moment of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who 
understood the important necessity of separating church and state in 
America.
  Our Constitution is explicit. It says that one has the right to 
believe what they want to believe, and if they want to believe in no 
God, they have that right in America, too. It is a matter of personal 
conscience. I believe they were absolutely right in that regard.
  The second thing they said is this Government will not choose a 
religion, this Government will not have an official religion. That, 
too, was a very incisive and wise observation by those who founded this 
country.
  I hope that many people who are now trying to force religious issues 
into appropriation after appropriation and issue after issue should 
consider for just one moment what they are doing. This time of year, 
when many of us turn to our religious belief to enrich this holiday 
season, I hope that everyone will say a little prayer that the 
intelligent design of the Constitution of the United States of America 
will be respected by the Congress.
  Finally, this conference report includes a 1-percent across-the-board 
cut in all Federal programs except veterans and spending on the wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. Managing the Federal budget is supposed to be 
about making responsible and moral choices. A calculator can cut 
everything by 1 percent, but not every line item in the budget is of 
equal importance. We have been sent here to use some judgment. Cutting 
every program is an abdication of responsibility and no way to manage a 
budget.
  We could spend hours listing examples of why this thoughtless 
approach to budgeting is bad government, but in the interest of time, I 
will simply highlight a few, based on the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities.
  To really understand what these across-the-board cuts mean to the 
people and the programs, we need to compare this year's funding with 
the 1-percent cut to the funding level in 2005 adjusted for inflation. 
That is the budgetary baseline of the Congressional Budget Office.
  When we look at the funding levels we have already appropriated and 
in some cases already cut for each program in 2006 and then impose an 
additional 1-percent cut, the results are troubling. Let me go through 
them quickly. In education, a 1-percent cut in elementary and secondary 
education amounts to $1.2 billion cut in education for poor children, 
special education, school improvement efforts, and vocational and adult 
education. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa today told us that this is the 
first time we have lost ground in special education in recent memory. 
We will have less money to educate the children who are born with 
special needs and disabilities. In my State of Illinois, we will lose 
$49 million for those kids.
  A 1-percent cut in child and family services means $350 million less 
for Head Start, less for services for abused and neglected kids, less 
for adoption-related services, less for abstinence education, less for 
services for homeless children and other programs. Funding for early 
education and health care through Head Start will be cut by $195 
million, and that means 25,000 more children will not be included in 
Head Start next year. Childcare development block grants helping lower 
and moderate-income families afford childcare face a 1-percent cut, 
meaning 11,000 fewer children from low-income families, working 
families, trying to make sure their kids are in a safe environment, 
will not be helped because of this 1-percent cut. In my State of 
Illinois, we will lose $16 million.
  In housing, the section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program is the 
Federal Government's main rental assistance program for low-income 
families. A 1-percent across-the-board cut means approximately 65,000 
fewer low-income households receive rental assistance next year. Think 
of the struggle of working families in lower income categories to find 
decent housing. Section 8 is one of the fewer programs that helps them. 
We are going to make sure that 65,000 fewer people are helped next 
year. In my State of Illinois, we will lose 3,300 vouchers.
  Community development block grant--a 1-percent across-the-board cut 
means $777 million lost. That is nearly 16 percent below this year's 
funding level. Illinois losses $24 million.
  The Environmental Protection Agency provides Federal funding to 
States to improve water quality to construct and improve drinking and 
wastewater treatment. If we cut these programs by 1 percent, or $243 
million, it means we are cutting them 12 percent below current levels. 
Illinois loses $11 million.
  These examples are only the beginning. If one thinks these cuts are 
absolutely essential, remember that we will come back next year and 
consider another bill by this administration and by the Republican 
leadership in this Congress to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people 
in America. In the midst of a war, facing the biggest deficit in our 
history, with Hurricane Katrina and its responsibilities looming over 
us, we are cutting basic programs for education, health care, 
childcare, and environmental protection to provide tax cuts for the 
wealthy. Those are the priorities of the Republican leadership, 
priorities reflected in this bill. Real fiscal discipline requires 
thoughtful choices. Across-the-board cuts simply hack away 
indiscriminately at all programs.
  I know the hour is late, and I thank my colleagues for their 
patience. I thank those in the Senate, the staff in particular, as we 
draw closer to the holiday season, and they are all wishing they could 
go home, and I am, too. I hope we will consider these bills tomorrow. I 
hope the votes in the Senate will reflect the priorities and values of 
America.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________