[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24326-24350]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    DEFICIT REDUCTION OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the minority leader 
is recognized.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, just a couple of days ago, my son Leif called me and 
indicated that his lovely wife Amber was going to have another baby. 
That will be our 16th grandchild.
  Mr. President, I have been in public service a long time. Never have 
I been so concerned about our country. We have gas prices that are 
really unbelievable. This year, gas prices have been over $3 in the 
State of Nevada. Diesel fuel is still over $3 a gallon in Nevada.
  The majority leader of the House of Representatives is under 
indictment. The man in charge of contracting for the Federal Government 
is under indictment. We have deficits so far you can't see them. The 
deficits have been basically run up by President Bush's administration 
these last 5 years.
  We are the wealthiest nation in the world, but we are very poor as it 
relates to health care. We have an intractable war in Iraq. Is it any 
wonder that I am concerned about my family, my grandchildren?
  This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the 
Vice President's Chief of Staff, also on the President's staff, a 
senior adviser to the President.
  Mr. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 
135 years. Is it any wonder that I am concerned about my grandchildren?
  This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this 
administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national 
security and were morally repugnant. A decision made to place U.S. 
soldiers, our military, into harm's way, I believe, is the most 
significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress and 
in the President. The Libby indictment provides a window into what this 
is really all about: how this administration manufactured and 
manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted 
to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.
  These are not just words from Harry Reid. COL Larry Wilkerson, Colin 
Powell's former Chief of Staff--Colin Powell, of course, was Secretary 
of State--this man was Chief of Staff for 4 years. Here is what he said 
about the war in Iraq.
  In President Bush's first term some of the most important decisions 
about U.S. national security, including vital decisions about postwar 
Iraq, were made by a secretive, little known cabal, made up of a very 
small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense 
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But the secret process was ultimately a 
failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions.
  That is what I am here to talk about today. As a result of its 
improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this administration. This 
cloud is further darkened by the administration's mistakes in prisoner 
abuse, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous 
agencies throughout this administration.
  Unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this 
Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this 
Republican administration accountable for its misdeeds on these issues.
  During the time we had a Democratic President--8 years--and when the 
Democrats were in charge of the committees, we were in the majority, 
oversight hearings were held covering the gambit of what went on in 
that administration. Today, there is not an oversight hearing held on 
anything.
  Let's take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq. The 
record will show that within hours of the terrorist acts of 9/11, 
senior officials in this administration recognized those attacks could 
be used as a pretext to invade Iraq. The record will also show that in 
the months and years after 9/11, the administration engaged in a 
pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who 
had gotten in its way as it made its case for attacking, for invading 
Iraq.
  There are numerous examples of how the administration misstated, and 
manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. The administration's 
statements on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons capability and ties with 
al-Qaida represent the best examples of how it consistently and 
repeatedly manipulated the facts. The American people were warned time 
and time again by the President, the Vice President, the current 
Secretary of State in her other capacities, about Saddam's nuclear 
weapons capabilities. The Vice President said:

       Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear programs.

  Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these 
officials and others raised the specter that if left unchecked Saddam 
could soon attack America with nuclear weapons. Obviously, we know now 
that their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is 
the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the 
administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities 
were false--the situation very similar with respect to Saddam's links 
to al-Qaida. The Vice President told the American people:

       We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear 
     weapons and we know he has

[[Page 24327]]

     a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups 
     including the al-Qaida organization.

  These assertions have been totally discredited--not a little bit, 
totally discredited. But again the administration went ahead with these 
assertions in spite of the fact that the Government's top experts did 
not agree with these claims. Again, Wilkerson is a person in point.
  What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to 
the administration's manipulation of intelligence that led to this 
protracted war in Iraq? Nothing.
  Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional 
obligations to conduct oversight? No.
  Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the 
answers to many important questions? No.
  Did it even attempt to force this administration to answer the most 
basic questions about its behavior? No.
  Unfortunately, the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled 
Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities was not limited to 
just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prison abuse scandal. We see 
it with respect to Katrina. We see it with respect to the cronyism and 
corruption that permeates this administration. Time and time again, 
this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its 
political interests ahead of our national security. They have 
repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than 
to get to the bottom of what happened and why it happened.
  There is also another disturbing pattern; namely, about how this 
administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Often 
this administration's activity sought to attack and undercut those who 
dared to raise questions about its preferred course. For example, when 
General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be 
needed in Iraq, his military career was ended, he was fired, relieved 
of duty, when he suggested it would take 200,000 troops. Well, it has 
taken a lot more than that.
  When the OMB Director Larry Lindsey suggested the cost of this war 
would approach $200 billion, he was dumped, fired.
  When the U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the 
conclusion about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, the 
administration simply pulled out its inspectors.
  When Nobel Prize winner and head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei raised 
questions about the administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear 
capabilities, the administration attempted to remove him from his post.
  When Ambassador Joe Wilson stated there was no attempt by Saddam to 
acquire weapons from Niger, the administration not only went after him 
to discredit him, they launched a vicious and coordinated campaign, 
going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA spy. 
These people now have 24-hour protection, fearing for their own safety.
  Given this administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge 
its misstatements--and I have only mentioned a few--what has been the 
response of the Republican-controlled Congress? Absolutely nothing. And 
with their inactions, they provide political cover for this 
administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who 
continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.
  Everyone may think the troops in Iraq are 100-percent Republican. I 
have met a friend, a marine. He was over there when the elections were 
held 10 months ago. He said where he was, he never even went to the 
bathroom without a rifle. Wherever he was on duty, all over this area, 
he said he could not find anyone who was happy with the way the 
elections turned out. The Republicans will do anything they can to keep 
the truth from people such as my marine friend. I would give you his 
name except he is stationed right here in the Marine Corps.
  This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as 
it is solemn. More than 2,000--2,025 now--Americans have lost their 
lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the month 
of October alone, the fourth deadliest month in this ongoing 3-year 
war. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain over 
there in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices have been made and continue to 
be made.
  We have had soldiers and marines from Nevada killed, from Ely, from 
Las Vegas, from Henderson, from Boulder City, from Tonopah. Every time 
one of these deaths occurs, it is a dagger in the heart of that 
community.
  This behavior is unacceptable. I am a patient man, Mr. President. I 
am a legislator, and I know things don't happen overnight. I am a 
patient man. But the call from my son has put this in perspective. I am 
worried about my family. The toll in Iraq is as staggering, I repeat, 
as it is solemn. The troops and the American people have a right to 
expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice.
  For example, more than 40 Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed 
letter to the President asking four basic questions about this 
administration's Iraq policy, and we received a four-sentence answer in 
response:

       Thank you for your letter to the President expressing your 
     concerns with Iraq. I shared your letter with the appropriate 
     administration officials--

  Remember, we wrote it to the President--

     and agencies responsible for formulating policy 
     recommendations in this area. Please be assured your letter 
     is receiving close and careful attention. Thank you for your 
     comments. Candy Wolff.

  That is a letter that duly elected Senators of the United States 
Senate wrote to the President of the United States, and we get a letter 
from Candy Wolff saying: Thanks, we're working on it.
  America deserves better than this. They also deserve a searching, 
comprehensive investigation into how the Bush administration brought 
this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include: 
How did the Bush administration assemble its case for war against Iraq? 
We heard what Colonel Wilkerson said.
  Who did the Bush administration listen to and who did they ignore?
  How did the senior administration officials manipulate or manufacture 
intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?
  What was the role of the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a group of 
senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking 
down its critics? We know what Colonel Wilkerson says.
  How did the administration coordinate its effort to attack 
individuals who dared challenge the administration's assertions? We 
know what happened to them. I listed a few.
  Why has this administration failed to provide Congress with the 
documents which will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements? 
Unfortunately, the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in 
providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of 
the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine these 
questions more than a year and a half ago, he has chosen not to keep 
that commitment. Despite the fact that he restated the commitment 
earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing 
except to assemble a few quotes from Democratic and Republican Senators 
going back to the first Iraq war.
  We need a thorough investigation that that committee is capable and 
tasked to do. At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to 
put politics ahead of our national security.
  If he does anything at this point, I suspect it will be playing 
political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of 
these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this 
analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from this 
administration.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Key facts about the Intelligence Committee's phase II, June 
4, 2003: Intelligence Committee commits to bipartisan review of the 
deeply flawed intelligence on Iraq WMD phase I.
  February 12, 2004, Intelligence Committee commits to phase II 
investigation looking at five areas, including

[[Page 24328]]

whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence.
  July 9, 2004, committee publishes phase I report on the intelligence 
agencies' mistakes on Iraq. Senator Rockefeller says publicly that 
phase II is as yet unbegun. Republican Chairman Roberts says it is one 
of my top priorities.
  July 11 on ``Meet the Press,'' Republican Chairman Roberts says:

       Even as I'm speaking, our staff is working on phase II and 
     will get it done.

  Fall of 2004, House Intelligence Committee, after no follow through 
on the Iraq WMD investigation, the House announced on May 2003 no final 
report.
  Republican Committee Chairman Porter Goss is selected as CIA 
Director. Regarding the question of the Valerie Plame leak, Goss 
previously said: ``Show me a blue dress and some DNA and I will give 
you an investigation.''
  November 2004, we had the Presidential election.
  March 2005, the President's hand-picked WMD Intelligence Committee 
says the intelligence agencies got the intelligence dead wrong, but 
says that under the President's terms of reference we are not 
authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence 
assessments they received from the intelligence community.
  March 31, 2005, Senator Roberts says it would be a monumental waste 
of time to replow this ground any further. Replow?
  April 10, 2005, on ``Meet the Press,'' Senator Roberts commits to Tim 
Russert that the review will get done.
  September 2005, committee Democrats file additional views to their 
authorization bill blasting the committee for failing to conduct phase 
II.
  There have been letters written to the committee. A press release was 
issued even saying they were going to go forward with this.
  Mr. President, enough time has gone by. I demand, on behalf of the 
American people, that we understand why these investigations are not 
being conducted. And in accordance with rule XXI, I now move that the 
Senate go into closed session.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I second the motion.
  Ms. STABENOW. I second the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion has been made to go into closed 
session, and it has been seconded. The motion having been made and 
seconded, the Senate will go into closed session.
  The Chair, pursuant to rule XXI, now directs the Sergeant at Arms to 
clear all galleries, close all doors of the Senate Chamber, and exclude 
from the Chamber and its immediate corridor all employees and officials 
of the Senate who, under the rule, are not eligible to attend the 
closed session and who are not sworn to secrecy. The question is 
nondebatable.
  (At 2:25 p.m., the doors of the Chamber were closed.)


                          Legislative Session

  (At 4:33 p.m., the doors of the Chamber were opened, and the open 
session of the Senate was resumed.)
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now resume 
open session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my 
remarks Senator Roberts be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes, to 
be followed by Senator Rockefeller for up to 15 minutes, with the time 
yielded from the pending deficit reduction measure; further, that 
following that time Chairman Gregg or his designee be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are back in open session, and I believe 
shortly--in about 40 or 45 minutes--we will be back on course on a very 
important bill that our Nation cares about, which we are on track to 
complete this week; that is, the deficit reduction bill.
  Over the next about 30 or 35 minutes, however, we will be clarifying 
some of the intention, scheduling, and language with regard to the 
completion of the report on Iraq prewar intelligence which has been 
under a great deal of discussion in the past within the Intelligence 
Committee, and, indeed, a subject of discussion between the chairman 
and the vice chairman, both of whom will have the opportunity to 
express their ideas here shortly.
  Let me say that I think it is absolutely critical as we move forward 
on this important issue that we get partisanship out of these 
discussions of intelligence--important matters, important to this 
country, important to the American people--and anything and everything 
we can do to keep these discussions above partisanship is absolutely 
critical.
  We have been in a closed session, and I want all Members to 
familiarize themselves with what that actually means as we have seen 
because we were in that session for a little over 2 hours. It is very 
important that people do not talk about what happened during that 
session. Again, we will all have to go back because it is very unusual 
to go into these closed sessions, and, in fact, I think unprecedented, 
the way we went into this session, which we will probably talk about a 
little bit more later. I was very disappointed the way we entered into 
this session, which was a total surprise to me.
  Let me also say I have absolute confidence in our Intelligence 
Committee and in what they are doing in terms of this important work 
and Senator Roberts as chairman.
  The one thing that is important for us to mention, for the benefit of 
our colleagues, is an agreement between the leader and myself to the 
following three points: that the majority leader and the Democratic 
leader will appoint three members from their respective parties. This 
task force of six Senators will meet and report back to leadership no 
later than the close of business on November 14 the following: The 
Intelligence Committee's progress on the phase II review of the prewar 
intelligence and its schedule for completion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, our representatives will be Senators 
Rockefeller, Levin, and Feinstein.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, at this 
point we have 15 minutes set aside--for up to 15 minutes--for Senator 
Roberts, followed by Senator Rockefeller, and after that we will 
recognize Chairman Gregg or his designee. And with mutual discussion 
between the Democratic and Republican leaders, we very much, after the 
comments by the chairman and vice chairman, want to get back on the 
deficit reduction bill.
  We have a time agreement to complete discussion on that bill by 6 
o'clock tomorrow night. There are a lot of Members who want to talk 
about this very important issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Kansas is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I think the best face I could put on this--after this unfortunate 
situation which was totally unexpected by myself, or my staff, or the 
Republican members on the committee, for that matter, the Republican 
leadership--is that we have agreed to do what we already agreed to do; 
that is, to complete as best we can phase II of the Intelligence 
Committee's review of prewar intelligence in reference to Iraq.
  I think it is very important to point out that the Intelligence 
Committee has had an absolutely outstanding record working with Senator 
Rockefeller and my colleagues across the aisle to produce the original 
review in regard to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate prior to 
the military activities into Iraq, and also as to whether Saddam 
Hussein had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction. That was a 
17-to-0 vote. We had some differences, but that report came out. It was 
a good report. It was a seminal report. As a matter of fact, I take 
pride in saying that it was a bipartisan effort that was agreed to by 
the 9/11 Commission, by the WMD Commission that was later

[[Page 24329]]

formed, and made about 93 or 94 recommendations to the administration 
of which probably 93 to 94 out of 95 have already been implemented. So 
we worked in a bipartisan fashion to do that.
  We also at the same time--and I am basically quoting from the 
statement the vice chairman and I made on February 12 of 2004--agreed 
we would go to something called phase II. There has been a lot of talk 
about phase II. What is phase II? Why is it that has been delayed, if 
in fact it has been delayed?
  There was some talk on the floor that got a little personal, and I 
regret that. It seems to me it was rather convenient because it was 
only yesterday our staff was working with the staff of the minority 
indicating that not this week but next week we would spend as much time 
as possible, 5 or 6 days, to complete our work in regard to phase II. 
It isn't as though it has been delayed. As a matter of fact, it has 
been ongoing. As a matter of fact, we have been doing our work on phase 
II. It is difficult, as I will indicate in a minute, while I go through 
these provisions on what we agreed to do.
  So it seems to be a little convenient all of a sudden to go into a 
closed session of the Senate and call for a full Senate investigation 
of phase II when the committee is already doing its work. I think that 
basically is an unfortunate stunt. I would call it something else, but 
I think probably I will simply leave it at that.
  Let me tell you what phase II is all about. Again, let me point out 
that we took a look at whether Saddam Hussein did reconstitute his 
weapons of mass destruction. That took us a long time. It is a 511-page 
report. It is a seminal report. It is a good report, and it signifies 
what we can do in the committee when we at least let one another know 
what is going on and we work in a bipartisan fashion.
  This is what phase II is all about. That is what we will begin as we 
have planned to do and what our staff has indicated to the other side's 
staff in regard to what we were going to do as of next week--that we 
will start next week, and we will hope to continue that effort. We will 
cancel all other hearings until we can reach some sort of an 
accommodation. Now, if we can do this on the WMD report, certainly we 
can do it in regard to phase II.
  My good friends across the aisle are people of good faith. We had 
strong differences of opinion then. I suppose we will have it in regard 
to phase II as well. We have seen that happen time and time again. As a 
matter of fact, we brought up phase II on May 17 of this year.
  The biggest issue is as follows. There are five things in phase II: 
Whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by 
U.S. Government officials made between the gulf war period and the 
commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by 
intelligence information. In other words, the public statements made in 
the administration and the public statements made by public officials, 
whether they be in Congress, whether they be in the administration, or 
whatever, Congress, because we voted for regime change and we voted to 
go to war. Obviously, the administration, because they looked at the 
intelligence and thought our national security was in danger, we went 
to war.
  Were the public statements backed up by intelligence or were they 
backed up by flawed intelligence? We have that material. We were 
supplied about 300 to 400 names by my colleagues across the aisle from 
all sorts of statements made by people in the administration. We took a 
good look at what Members of Congress have said about the same 
intelligence. I must say, at this point, some of those statements are 
even more declarative and more aggressive than those made in the 
administration.
  That is the big issue: the use of intelligence. Whether somebody in 
the administration or somebody in the Congress made a statement that 
they thought was based on intelligence that was later proved wrong and 
somehow we are suppose to get in their head and ask: Why did you make 
that statement? Is that credible?
  On May 17, in the spring, we started down the list of statements. We 
took names off of the statements because I didn't want it to be a 
situation, in terms of naming who made the statement, because I thought 
it might perjure or affect how people would vote in the committee. We 
started down that road. We didn't get very far. We had requests on the 
total progress of phase II, other portions of phase II.
  So we started again on the first statement. Does that first statement 
match up with the intelligence? We didn't get very far. We started 
phase II in May, and we went back to work to see what we could get 
done, where we would agree and come back to the ``use'' question, when 
that would be possible.
  There are five issues to phase II. Let me read them. The postwar 
findings about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their weapons 
programs and the links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar 
assessments. That was done by Charles Duelfer and David Kay. Those two 
paragraphs are already written. You can simply say that Charles Duelfer 
and David Kay did not find WMD. That was their conclusion. They made 
some statements about it. It was commensurate, exactly, with what our 
WMD report said. There shouldn't be any problem with that. That should 
be adopted by the committee with hardly any dissent or any discussion.
  The third issue is prewar intelligence about postwar Iraq. That is 
not necessarily true today. It is post-insurgency Iraq. That was my 
suggestion, saying if the intelligence community at least could figure 
out what we expected to find in Iraq postwar, post the military action. 
Where was the intelligence? That is ongoing. That is ongoing because we 
have what we think is a pretty good report, but we can make it more 
concise. I can say right off the bat that intelligence was as flawed as 
the intelligence in regard to the WMD report. We can agree with that. 
So there are two we can agree on.
  Let me go to the next one. Any intelligence activities relating to 
Iraq conducted by the policy counterterrorism evaluation group and the 
Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Undersecretary of 
Defense. This involved a question as to whether Under Secretary Douglas 
Feith had a special intelligence group that had undue influence in the 
2002 National Intelligence Estimate and whether or not that group and 
that intelligence had an undue influence on the administration's 
decision to go to war.
  We had Under Secretary Feith before the committee. Then we were going 
to have him up again. And then my good friends across the aisle wanted 
more information. In the midst of that, there was a statement made by 
the vice chairman--I will not get into that because it tends to be 
personal, and I don't want any remarks of mine to be personal, 
especially after what happened on the Senate floor in regard to this 
issue. Basically, there was a statement made that what was going on in 
the Office of Special Plans could be illegal. When that happened, 
everyone down there at the Office of Special Plans got lawyered up or 
at least thought about seeking legal representation.
  The cooperation between that particular department and our committee 
was not nearly as good as it was. We can clear that up because we have 
asked the Department of Defense inspector general to come back and tell 
us if there was anything wrong in regard to what the Office of Special 
Plans was doing. We will rely on that. We will put that in the report. 
We can believe the inspector general of the Department of Defense.
  Finally, the use of the intelligence community of information 
provided by the Iraqi National Congress. Now, remember back when the 
Congress was talking to members of the Iraqi National Congress. Mr. 
Chalabi was the head of that group. I had Senator after Senator come to 
me and ask, Why don't you have Mr. Chalabi appear before the committee? 
The people supporting him wanted to vote and eventually did vote for 
regime change.
  Then the pendulum swung the other way and people said, Wait a minute. 
We

[[Page 24330]]

are not really sure about his position or, for that matter, what he has 
said in the past, what are you doing, and the question of the INC. The 
whole question again was, how much effect did the Iraqi National 
Congress and Mr. Chalabi have on the input to the administration as to 
whether or not they would go to war.
  We have found, basically, as far as I am concerned, there is very 
little evidence, if any, that would take place.
  I wouldn't think that would take too much time, as well.
  So those are the five things we had to do in regard to phase II.
  Let me repeat, again, yesterday our staff talked with my colleagues' 
staff across the aisle and their staff--not my colleagues across the 
aisle but their staff--and said the chairman wants to move on this next 
week. My conversation in regard to the distinguished vice chairman, I 
think it was last Wednesday, and let me say it was in the middle of a 
hearing and let me say it was not exactly clear in terms of any kind of 
a date, but I did talk to Senator Rockefeller and indicated we had to 
move, we had to get this done.
  He will doubtlessly say they have written letters and they have tried 
to get me to move and this, that or the other, but we have been doing 
this all along. Staff has been working on this very diligently. 
Consequently, I think we are very close. I am very pleased to announce, 
on schedule, exactly what we planned to do, we will start next week. We 
will start on Tuesday, and I will announce the time in the morning. 
Members of the Intelligence Committee will know Tuesday, Wednesday, 
Thursday, Friday, how long it takes, working in good faith. We will 
look into phase II and see what we can do and finish that product.
  I said a long time ago on the Intelligence Committee we had to work 
in a bipartisan fashion. I said a long time ago that whatever ended up 
on the fan, we were going to have to clean it up. I said a long time 
ago we will let the chips fall where they may, and that went for phase 
II as well as the WMD special inquiry.
  I ought to say one other thing. There was a memo that was highly 
publicized back about a year and a half ago. That memo, which was not 
provided to Republicans--obviously, it was a Democratic memo--and 
paragraph four caused a big fuss. It caused us about a month to sort of 
walk gingerly around one another and smother each other with the milk 
of kindness and say, Well, let's see if we can't work things out. And 
we did. I credit a lot of that to Senator Rockefeller. He is not a 
partisan man.
  Here is the paragraph:

       Be prepared to launch an independent investigation when it 
     becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully 
     collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an 
     independent investigation any time, but we can only do so 
     once. The best time to do so will probably be next year.

  Well, the trigger has been pulled today with an executive session of 
the Senate that is not needed, not necessary, and, in my personal 
opinion, was a stunt. I plead with my colleagues across the aisle and 
my colleagues, all Republicans on the committee, next week when we 
start this, on Tuesday--we will go through Tuesday, Wednesday, 
Thursday, Friday--I have no illusions, we will have differences, but I 
plead with you, as we have done in the past, for the good of our 
national security, and to finish the inquiry on whether or not Saddam 
Hussein had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction, we were able 
to do that, and it became the seminal study for intelligence reform and 
where we are now with the Director of National Intelligence.
  If we can get back to that mode instead of this surprising stunt on 
the floor to go into executive session, we will be better off.
  Phase II, yes, you bet, we have been on phase II, and we will do it 
exactly as we planned to do it as of next week. I see from the 
expression of the distinguished President's face my time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer. For 
the past 30 years, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been 
remarkably bipartisan. It has performed a terrific oversight factor for 
the Senate. The resolution creating the committee mandates an oversight 
role. We are not there watching clouds drift by. The resolution that 
creates the committee mandates an oversight role of the U.S. 
intelligence community and a responsibility to carefully review our 
Nation's most sensitive national security programs. It is very broad 
and widespread in the handling of highly classified secrets. The 
committee is designed to be nonpartisan. That is why I am called a vice 
chairman. That is not true in any other committee. But it is meant to 
work.
  We have reached an agreement that shows what has happened today, in a 
somewhat abrupt manner, but nevertheless we have reached an agreement 
on what we will do. That is a large step forward. I congratulate all 
involved in that.
  For the most part, the history has been a good one. Over the past 2 
years, I have to say, in all honesty, I am troubled by a concerted 
effort by this administration to use its influence to limit, to delay, 
to frustrate, to deny the Intelligence Committee's oversight work into 
the intelligence reporting and activities leading up to the invasion of 
Iraq.
  In June, 2003, the Senate Intelligence Committee began a formal 
investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq. The primary focus 
of the investigation was to evaluate the intelligence reporting 
underlying the claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction 
and that Iraq had ties to terrorist groups. Although the Senate 
resolution establishing the Intelligence Committee intelligence clearly 
states in Senate resolution 400 we are to look at the ``use'' of 
intelligence, the majority on the committee initially rejected attempts 
by myself and by others to add to the investigation--that is, to add to 
phase I--how administration officials used or potentially misused 
intelligence and public statements leading up to the war which maybe 
helped lead up to the war. Only after considerable insistence by 
committee members and protracted discussions did the majority 
leadership of the committee agree to add to the scope of our 
investigation the issue of how intelligence was used prior to the Iraq 
war. It is a huge uncovered subject.
  On February 12, 2004, the Intelligence Committee unanimously agreed 
and publicly announced that five issues would be added to the 
investigation, phase II. One, whether public statements, records and 
testimony regarding Iraq by Government officials made between the gulf 
war period, end of gulf war I and the commencement of Operation Iraqi 
Freedom, whether those statements by Government officials were 
substantiated by intelligence information.
  Prewar intelligence is No. 2, prewar intelligence assessment about 
postwar Iraq.
  Three, any intelligence activities related to Iraq within the Office 
of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, headed by one Douglas Feith.
  Four, the use of the intelligence community of information provided 
by the Iraqi National Congress.
  Five, the postwar findings about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction 
and weapons programs and links to terrorism.
  Remember, this was constantly being thrown at us, links to terrorism 
and how they compare to the prewar assessments.
  The committee press release explained all of that. Everyone agreed to 
it, and it added the resolution adopted unanimously today that 
illustrated the commitment to all members to a thorough review to 
learning the necessary lessons from our experience with Iraq and 
ensures that our Armed Forces and policymakers benefit from the best 
and most reliable intelligence that can be collected.

[[Page 24331]]

  These five areas of inquiry commonly referred to as phase II were 
authorized well over a year and a half ago, in February of 2004. It has 
been 20 months since the committee committed to all Members of the 
Senate and to the American public a thorough review.
  My colleague, the chairman of the committee, has referred to all of 
the things that have been done. In fact, we have had one hearing. And 
he referred to work that would take place next week. I didn't know 
about that. All of a sudden everyone will plow into phase II. I am not 
critical of that because I think today has helped to create that kind 
of momentum which I think is important.
  Since the committee identified these five issues as a high priority 
in February of last year, I and other Democrats on the committee have 
repeatedly urged completion of the review--we agreed to it 
unanimously--and had been assured by the chairman, time and time again, 
that the committee will fulfill this commitment.
  Yet, despite these repeated assurances, it is clear that only token 
work, at best, has been done on phase II since it was authorized. That 
is unacceptable. We have had only one business meeting on phase II, and 
no report has been written for members to review--nothing.
  The public pronouncement of Chairman Roberts earlier this year that 
phase II was ``on the back burner'' has been, unfortunately, accurate. 
Do I enjoy saying this? Not particularly, true. But let people know.
  The disturbing question is, why has the chairman relegated the phase 
II investigation to the back burner? Why did he do that?
  The fact is--and I hope folks will listen closely--that any time the 
Intelligence Committee pursued a line of inquiry that brought us closer 
to the role of the White House in all of this, in the use of 
intelligence prior to the war, our efforts have been thwarted time and 
time again.
  When it was reported that the Vice President's Chief of Staff Scooter 
Libby and the National Security Council prepared a draft speech making 
the intelligence case against Iraq and sent it to the CIA for Secretary 
of State Powell to give before the United Nations in February of 2003, 
my staff asked that the committee obtain the NSC, National Security 
Council, document as part of our ongoing review of how the Powell 
speech was formulated. Our requests were denied by the majority. Why?
  Because of this denial, I personally wrote to the Director of the 
Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. Tenet, requesting the Libby/NSC input 
into the Powell speech--it was important to have that information--and 
other documents in October of 2003. Director Tenet did not respond to 
my letter, nor did he respond to my two subsequent letters for the NSC 
paper in January and March of 2003. Why?
  Perhaps the answer can be found in last week's National Journal 
article, which reports that Vice President Cheney and his Chief of 
Staff Libby overruled White House lawyers and withheld this 
information--withheld these documents--from us, and other documents 
from the Senate Intelligence Committee.
  When, during the committee's Iraq investigation, my staff requested 
that the committee interview the White House speechwriter who wrote the 
President's 2003 State of the Union Address to better understand how 
the debunked claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger made it 
into the President's speech--how it got in there, when the same claim 
was removed, at the CIA's insistence, a few months earlier in 
Cincinnati--our request was denied by the majority. Why?
  When we requested that the committee obtain a copy of the one-page 
summary of the Intelligence Community's National Intelligence Estimate 
on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs that was prepared for 
the President in October 2002, our request was denied by the majority. 
Why?
  And why has the committee's phase II investigation been moribund 
since February of 2004? When the committee told the American people it 
would conduct a thorough review, was the promise a hollow one? What 
other conclusion?
  Could it be that the administration has made it clear it does not 
want the Congress to examine whether intelligence was accurately 
presented to the American people in the rush to war?
  Could it be that the administration has made it clear it does not 
want Congress to examine the role that Pentagon policy officials under 
Douglas Feith played in circumventing the intelligence community and 
preparing an alternative analysis to the White House that drew a link 
between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11 that the intelligence did not 
support?
  Could it be the administration has made it clear it does not want 
Congress to examine the claim that the Iraqi National Congress made to 
the Senate Appropriations Committee in June of 2002 that it was 
providing intelligence information directly to the Vice President's 
office--to Mr. Hadley, I believe--and the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense? Chalabi passed all intelligence agencies in our Government 
directly into the White House.
  The administration's ability to head off any line of inquiry into 
matters of appropriate congressional oversight is not limited to the 
Intelligence Committee's Iraq investigation. Despite repeated attempts 
by me and other Intelligence Committee members to initiate a detailed 
review of fundamental legal and operational questions surrounding the 
detention, interrogation, and rendition of suspected terrorists held in 
U.S. custody--important national security measures that fall squarely 
within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee--the committee's 
majority has refused to conduct such an investigation. What are we to 
do?
  The Intelligence Committee's obligation under Senate Resolution 400--
``to provide vigilant oversight of the intelligence activities of the 
United States''--requires us to not only answer questions related to 
cases of detainee abuse, but to examine the effectiveness of the 
methods used in interrogations.
  But, again, it is apparent to me that the White House has sent down 
the edict to the majority--and I could say more--that the Congress is 
not to carry out its oversight responsibilities in detention, 
interrogation, and rendition matters, or some of the previous matters I 
discussed, as it would bring uncomfortable attention to the legal 
decisions and opinions coming from the White House and the Justice 
Department in the operation of various programs.
  Finally, the delay in completing the remaining portion of the 
Intelligence Committee's Iraq review is inexcusable. Sadly, the 
committee's delinquency in completing an investigation that it 
unanimously voted to undertake over 20 months ago has diminished the 
committee's credibility as an effective overseer of the intelligence 
community.
  But what disturbs me the most is that the majority has been willing, 
in this Senator's judgment, to take orders from this administration 
when it comes to limiting the scope of appropriate, authorized, and 
necessary oversight investigations. This is a very strong statement. 
The very independence of the Congress as a separate and coequal branch 
of Government has been called into question.
  We need to not only complete the second phase of the Intelligence 
Committee's investigation, we need to reopen the first part of the Iraq 
report we released in July of last year, to find out what role the 
White House played in denying the committee documents it needed to 
carry out its investigation. That is not a part of the agreement, I 
fully and freely admit.
  It is time the Senate, as a body, own up to our oversight 
responsibilities and provide the American people the answers we 
promised we would give them over 20 months ago.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senators yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield.

[[Page 24332]]


  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from West 
Virginia a question.
  Has the joint agreement of February 12, 2004, been made a part of the 
Record?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator 
from Michigan, I have the same document and ask unanimous consent that 
be printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, also, there was a reference in the chairman's remarks 
as to events that went on in the Douglas Feith matter, and he referred 
to ``lawyering up.'' There is a very clear, easy, simple answer to 
that, and I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record, also.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 [From the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Feb. 
                               12, 2004]

   Chairman Roberts and Vice Chairman Rockefeller Issue Statement on 
    Intelligence Committee's Review of Pre War Intelligence in Iraq

       Washington, DC.--Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), Chairman, and 
     Senator Jay Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Vice Chairman, of the 
     Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, today announced that 
     the Committee unanimously agreed to refine the terms of 
     reference of the Committee's ongoing inquiry into pre war 
     intelligence with regard to Iraq. The new terms are as 
     follows:
       A. The matters set forth in the joint release of the 
     Chairman and Vice Chairman on June 20, 2003:
       1. The quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi 
     weapons of mass destruction programs, ties to terrorist 
     groups, Saddam Hussein's threat to stability and security in 
     the region, and his repression of his own people;
       2. the objectivity, reasonableness, independence, and 
     accuracy of the judgments reached by the Intelligence 
     Community;
       3. whether those judgments were properly disseminated to 
     policy makers in the Executive Branch and Congress;
       4. whether any influence was brought to bear on anyone to 
     shape their analysis to support policy objectives; and
       5. other issues we mutually identify in the course of the 
     Committee's review;
       B. the collection of intelligence on Iraq from the end of 
     the Gulf War to the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom;
       C. whether public statements and reports and testimony 
     regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the 
     Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information;
       D. the postwar findings about Iraq's weapons of mass 
     destruction and weapons programs and links to terrorism and 
     how they compare with prewar assessments;
       E. prewar intelligence assessments about postwar Iraq;
       F. any intelligence activities relating to Iraq conducted 
     by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and 
     the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under 
     Secretary of Defense for Policy; and
       G. the use by the Intelligence Community of information 
     provided by the Iraqi National Congress (INC).
       Sen. Roberts said, ``Today's agreement reflects a 
     refinement and to a great extent a restatement of the 
     Committee's ongoing review of pre-war intelligence. The 
     resolution adopted unanimously today illustrates the 
     commitment of all members to a thorough review, to learning 
     the necessary lessons from our experience with Iraq, and to 
     ensuring that our armed forces and policymakers benefit from 
     the best and most reliable intelligence that can be 
     collected. I believe that the report which we are currently 
     reviewing will have a profound impact on the future of our 
     Intelligence Community. My hope is that we be able to release 
     our initial report soon and then continue our review as we 
     work toward recommendations. I congratulate all members for 
     their willingness to work together toward these goals.''
       Sen. Rockefeller said, ``This agreement reflects a 
     difficult and lengthy process, but in the end, we were able 
     to reach consensus on the need to expand the investigation 
     into several key areas.''
       ``We will address the question of whether intelligence was 
     exaggerated or misused by reviewing statements by senior 
     policy makers to determine if those statements were 
     substantiated by the intelligence,'' Rockefeller said. ``We 
     will take a closer look at the shortfalls in our intelligence 
     collection. We will compare pre-war estimates to the 
     situation in postwar Iraq, and we will pursue a better 
     understanding of what role the Policy Counterterrorism 
     Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans played in 
     pre-war intelligence. There are definitely a few outstanding 
     issues, but we've made a lot of progress, and it's clear that 
     we're moving in the right direction.''
                                  ____


      Response to Department of Defense Letter Regarding Senator 
            Rockefeller's Statement on Under Secretary Feith

       In July 2004, officials at the Department of Defense took 
     exception to my characterization of the activities of the 
     office of Under Secretary of Defense Doug Feith. The Senate 
     Intelligence Committee has been investigating these 
     activities as part of its ongoing review of prewar 
     intelligence related to Iraq. After much delay, we received 
     thousands of pages of documents from the Defense Department 
     and conducted several interviews as we have sought to 
     determine the nature and extent of the intelligence 
     activities of this office. At the time of my public 
     statements, our review of these activities was still ongoing 
     and as part of the second phase of the Committee's work on 
     prewar intelligence.
       In describing that part of our review I stated that we were 
     seeking to determine if Under Secretary Feith was running a 
     private intelligence operation not authorized in law. For 
     example, Section 502 of the National Security Act of 1947 
     requires the heads of all departments and agencies of the 
     U.S. government involved in intelligence activities ``to keep 
     the congressional oversight committees informed.'' This 
     requirement relates to the activities of any part of the 
     government not just intelligence agencies. The Committee 
     review is intended to determine if the activities within 
     Under Secretary Feith's office were unauthorized intelligence 
     activities in contravention of this and perhaps other legal 
     requirements. The Committee unanimously agreed to review 
     ``any intelligence activities relating to Iraq conducted by 
     the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the 
     Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under 
     Secretary of Defense for Policy.'' Implicit in that statement 
     is the possibility that unauthorized intelligence activities 
     may have taken place.
       A letter from Assistant Secretary of Defense Powell Moore 
     in July 2004 expressed surprise at my description and asked 
     for an apology. I did not suggest that Mr. Feith has broken a 
     criminal statute. My concern, and that expressed in the 
     Committee's resolution authorizing its investigation, is that 
     some activities of his office may have been unauthorized. The 
     Committee has not reached a conclusion. And cannot reach a 
     conclusion without further investigation.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, one additional unanimous consent request. I 
ask unanimous consent that it be noted in the Record that items C 
through G in the February 12, 2004, press release setting forth the 
agreement be noted as being phase II of the agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we actually now return to the deficit 
reduction bill, which some of my colleagues may have forgotten. But 
just to remind them, this bill saves $39 billion off the deficit, and 
is the first major attempt in 8 years to try to accomplish savings 
through the process of reducing the rate of growth of our entitlement 
accounts.
  In that context, we have a number of amendments, and we are glad 
Members have been coming forward with them. We cannot formally agree 
right now on what the sequence will be, but to outline what we think 
the sequence will be, it will be Senator Lincoln going now--we can be 
sure of that--followed by Senator Inhofe, followed by Senator Nelson, 
followed by Senator Lott this evening. And tomorrow morning, the first 
two amendments will be Senator Cantwell, dealing with ANWR, and then an 
amendment by Senator Grassley, dealing with agriculture programs. That 
is the game plan.
  Now, the understanding is that at 8 o'clock tonight we will complete 
our business today relative to the Deficit Reduction Act, and we will 
reconvene tomorrow, I believe, at 9 o'clock. Or is it 8:30? I am not 
sure. In any event, we will formalize that understanding in a few 
minutes, hopefully, after both sides have had a chance to review those 
amendments which I outlined.
  I now yield to the Senator from North Dakota to yield such time as he 
may.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this matter before us, just to remind 
people after this interruption we have had, is about the so-called 
reconciliation project. It is part of the budget agreement that was 
reached earlier this year. On our side, we do not believe this has 
anything to do with deficit reduction. As we see it, this budget 
increases the deficit dramatically, and expands the debt. In fact, 
under the 5

[[Page 24333]]

years of the terms of this budget agreement, the debt will increase by 
more than $3 trillion--$3 trillion. That is not my calculation; that is 
the calculation of those who have prepared this budget. So to be 
talking about deficit reduction here, I think, is utterly misleading.
  Now, it is true the matter before us at the moment--and I call it 
``chapter 1'' of reconciliation. ``Chapter 1'' is called deficit 
reduction. That is because it slices spending by some $35 billion over 
the next 5 years. During the same time, the debt is going to go up by 
$3 trillion. But what is to come next week is the second chapter. The 
``chapter 2'' is to reduce revenues by $70 billion. If you put the two 
together, the deficit is going to go up.
  But ``chapter 3'' is to increase the debt of the United States by 
$781 billion--$781 billion. If you couple that with the debt increases 
that have already occurred under this administration's watch, they will 
have increased the debt of the country, in just 5 years, by $3 
trillion. In the next 5 years, under this budget agreement, they are 
going to increase the debt another $3 trillion. In this very short 
period of time, they will have accounted for half of all of the debt 
accumulated by this country over 228 years. That is truly stunning.
  Now, the next amendment on this side is offered by Senator Lincoln, 
and I yield such time as she may use for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time I think we can reach unanimous 
consent on what at least the next three amendments will be. I ask 
unanimous consent that the next three people to be recognized for 
amendments will be Senator Lincoln, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Nelson. 
The next amendment after Senator Nelson we expect to be offered by 
Senator Lott. The other side has not had a chance to review that 
amendment yet, so we reserve on Senator Lott. I further ask unanimous 
consent that tomorrow morning we will begin with an amendment from 
Senator Cantwell, followed by an amendment by Senator Grassley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. No objection on this side. That is exactly what we worked 
out, and the chairman states it very well. And we may be able to slip 
in another amendment later today.
  That is the order we have contemplated at this point and the 
unanimous consent request is entirely in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 2356

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, over 2 months ago, devastating natural 
disasters occurred in our Gulf Coast States, things that were 
absolutely out of our control, Mother Nature. Since that time, I and 
many of my colleagues have tried our hardest to get health care relief 
to those who were impacted by the tragedy. I say that because I am so 
saddened, as we have strived so diligently to look at a commonsense way 
that we could bring health care needs, meeting the health care needs of 
the victims of that region with absolutely very little success.
  In the week following the tragedy, I came to the floor and offered an 
amendment to the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. I withdrew 
my amendment because so many people said: We need to do this. Let us 
work out a bipartisan effort. Let us work together to meet the needs 
that exist in this devastated region of the Nation. I withdrew my 
amendment after working with Senators Grassley and Baucus to come up 
with a bipartisan compromise, with the assurance that we would allow a 
bipartisan compromise to come forward and provide the kind of relief 
our good neighbors in the Gulf State region needed.
  The compromise, the Emergency Health Care Relief Act, which was S. 
1716, received overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. But 
each time we came to the floor and tried to pass it, there was a 
handful of Members who objected. We have tried to bring it to a vote at 
least five times that I am aware of. We listened to the concerns of the 
Senators who objected. We have scaled back the legislation time and 
time again, first taking out one piece, then the other, trying to see, 
accordingly, what we could do to accommodate their concerns, without 
completely gutting the purpose of providing the kind of relief our 
fellow Americans need in the gulf region. That scaled-back version was 
one that Senator Baucus offered in the Senate Finance Committee markup 
last week, and it failed along party lines, with the understanding, 
many Members said, that there was a need to get something out of 
committee.
  I know how important it is to keep the trains running, but how well 
do we understand here in this body the needs of our fellow Americans 
who have been devastated, whose families have been torn apart, whose 
homes have been demolished, their children's lives and schools 
destroyed, who have been displaced and put into strange places to go to 
school? We think about people who have lost their jobs, who have lost 
their memories in many instances, family albums, wedding albums, things 
that can devastate you, depress you, and put you in a frame of mind 
that says: I need someone to embrace me and make me feel like a part of 
the family again.
  Here we are attempting a budget reconciliation. A lot of people 
across this country think: Oh, budget reconciliation, what is that, yet 
one more big, long term the Senate uses for something they try to 
accomplish.
  You know what, Mr. President, working American families reconcile all 
the time, now probably more so than ever before. Their wages are 
stagnant. The price of gasoline is out of control. The price to heat 
their homes this winter, the price of health care in general is out of 
control. They look at all of the things they are surrounded by and what 
do they do? They reconcile their budgets. They reconcile their 
household budgets, and they sit down and say to themselves: What is 
essential to keep our family whole? What is it this family needs to be 
able to maintain itself as a family, to not become dysfunctional or 
separated or torn apart, to not be hungry or cold? What is it this 
family needs? How do we reconcile the fact that our wages have been 
stagnant, our costs are going out the roof?
  What do they do? They sit down and look at the essentials that are 
necessary. They make a list of what their essentials are, and they 
address those essentials first. Then they move on to the things that 
may not be as essential, things that they want to do, but they deal 
with the essentials of life first. They deal with food, shelter, health 
care needs, education for their children. These are the decisions 
working families all across this great Nation are dealing with.
  Here we find ourselves in the Senate doing the very same thing for 
our American family. When I reconcile my budget at home, I try very 
hard to think of those individuals who my children and I pray for every 
night when we say our prayers and we say: God bless those people who 
are homeless, who are hungry, who have lost their homes, who have 
suffered from natural disasters. I think as we reconcile this budget 
here, we need to look at our American family and what it is we find 
essential, that we find as a priority.
  I come to this floor to say my sisters and brothers in the gulf coast 
region are a priority in this American family. Their needs have to be 
met. We don't need to wait another 8 weeks or 4 months or another year 
before we make it a priority. We need to reconcile it in this budget in 
our minds and in our hearts right here today. And if people have a 
problem with it, then let them pick it apart. Let them come down here 
and say: We will cover pregnant women, but we are not going to cover 
the childless adults who have lost their homes and been displaced from 
their families. We are not going to provide for those individuals.
  Let them come down and pick it apart and nickel-and-dime what it is 
we can do for our American family. Because I have to say, I think a 
huge part of this Nation's values is represented in the priorities we 
choose. The priorities

[[Page 24334]]

we choose have an important impact on the choices we make. We are here 
to reconcile the choices to be made at this time in our Nation. We are 
consumed with enormous debt. We are consumed with obligations 
internationally, with troops whose lives are on the line today in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. We have unbelievable choices.
  But we can't forget about the other choices, the precious children we 
saw last night trick-or-treating. What is their future? Are they going 
to have the education they need to be competitive? Are they going to 
have an economy that is strong? Are they going to have a nation that is 
well-respected? The heart of it goes back to how we as Americans treat 
one another. Those are the values we have to begin to look at, 
particularly in a document such as this.
  The underlying bill does contain some assistance for Katrina 
survivors. I thank the Finance Committee chairman, Senator Grassley, 
and my colleague, Senator Lott from Mississippi, who is on the 
committee. But the truth be told, it is not enough. The hospitals and 
providers of Louisiana have told us it is not enough. They have told us 
they can barely keep their hospital doors open past Thanksgiving. How 
in the world could we imagine that people are going to move back in to 
the communities of the gulf region to rebuild their homes, rebuild 
their businesses, bring their children back into school systems, if 
there is no medical care? I ask my colleagues, would you do that? Would 
you move your family back into communities where the hospitals are 
closing their doors? Would you ask your employees to come back to a 
business where no medical services could be provided? Is that how we 
treat our American family and the members of our American family?
  It is beyond me why it is that we would nickel-and-dime our sisters 
and brothers in the gulf region. Chairman Grassley himself admitted in 
the committee that the limited relief in the underlying bill is only a 
downpayment. I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to do more 
than just a downpayment for people whose lives have been destroyed, 
their families displaced, their homes obliterated, their jobs, Heaven 
knows what kind of jobs they might have to go back to.
  We can provide real relief because we are Americans. We can do better 
than that by our American sisters and brothers. We are a family. As a 
family, we can do better than that. We can do better than a downpayment 
that might keep them open until Thanksgiving. I know we can do better 
than that. I urge my colleagues to do so.
  I am sure the administration and my colleagues who oppose this 
amendment will say there is money out there for relief. And they are 
correct that there is money out there. But where is the relief? 
Congress has passed over $60 billion in FEMA funding, and where has it 
gone? Who knows? Through October 19, FEMA had placed only $18.2 billion 
into the Hurricane Katrina disaster relief fund, roughly one-quarter of 
the available funding, and had reported spending only around $4.1 
billion. Nearly 2 months after the hurricane devastated the Gulf 
States, FEMA has provided only about $2.9 billion out of the $60 
billion to individuals and families affected by such a monumental 
tragedy to a region in our Nation. That is one-tenth of the funding 
available that has gone to help hurricane survivors.
  Even President Bush has realized that the money is not being used 
appropriately and has proposed reallocating $17 billion of it to do a 
variety of things, including reconstructing military bases, offering 
job training, building affordable housing, repairing the wetlands, 
among many other items. All of these things are great. But will 
families move back, will companies come back, will schoolchildren come 
back if there is no health care? Every day we drag our feet, it will 
cost us more, more to rebuild hospitals, more to bring providers into 
the region, more to make sure the health care infrastructure is there, 
whether it is medical schools, hospitals, clinics, ambulance service, 
all of the necessary needs that come through medical care.
  What about health care for the thousands of Katrina survivors who 
aren't getting their basic health care needs met or for the hospitals 
and health care providers that came to their aid and States that have 
already been strapped and now have even more pressure on their budgets?
  I do not understand why we continue again to nickel-and-dime these 
families who have been through so much. Can we not put ourselves in 
their shoes to understand the devastation they have experienced?
  Maude Jordan is an example I used from an article out of the 
Economist. She is one of the Louisianans who isn't getting her basic 
health care. She survived on the top of her refrigerator for 3 days to 
avoid the flood. Then when she was finally taken to Baton Rouge, she 
made it to a relief center there and was told she didn't qualify for 
Medicaid because she is a childless adult, and the program doesn't 
cover childless adults.
  All we are asking is to temporarily cover the Maude Jordans who have 
been devastated by this natural disaster--temporarily cover them. And 
if people on the other side think that is just too bold of an expansion 
of the program, then let's take it out. If they want to take it out, 
let's take it out. Let's not cover the Maude Jordans. I want to, and I 
think there are others who do, too. But if people think that is just 
too much sharing and they can't handle it, too much community, let's 
take it out. Let's just cover the normal people under Medicaid with 100 
percent so that Louisiana, when they finally begin to get their feet on 
the ground, will not have to buckle from the burden of what we will lay 
upon them in covering their share of this devastation.
  Katrina health care in this budget reconciliation bill will not help 
the Maude Jordans of the world or the thousands of survivors who simply 
don't have children. And maybe that is what people want to do. If it 
is, I hope they will come to the floor and make those recommendations.
  But what about our health care providers. Last week, an Associated 
Press article illustrated the dire situation with Louisiana hospitals, 
saying that the entire hospital system is only a step away from 
financial disaster. One of those executives is the one I quoted 
earlier:

       We're out of money, roughly after Thanksgiving.

  What a great holiday gift we would provide the people of Louisiana 
who have lost their hospital system, do not have anywhere to take their 
children or elderly if they should choose to move back to their home 
and try to be there during the holiday season. There is no safety net 
in a hospital, no ability to be reassured that should they need it 
during the holidays it would be there.
  Across the border, Mr. President, in my home State of Arkansas--I 
have been so proud of Arkansans. I believe they have exhibited the 
values that we all believe are strong in America, the values of being a 
good neighbor. They answered the call. They answered the call to be a 
good neighbor and provided a tremendous amount of care without asking 
how or when or if they would be repaid.
  My hometown, in one of the poorest counties in the country, that had 
to set up its own health foundation to keep the infrastructure of its 
health care in place and moving and operating and doors open, took out 
of that foundation to provide for the evacuees who were coming in, up 
the Mississippi River Delta and into our communities. And God bless 
them for doing it, for showing us that this spirit is still alive in 
this great country; that neighbors do mean something to neighbors and 
community is important. God bless them for doing it without being 
asked.
  Yet what about us sitting here, not answering their call when they 
ask, does our American family have those same values? Are they going to 
come through for us when we have come through for our neighbors? 
Louisiana's Medicaid Program is considering making big cuts because 
they don't have the funding to keep it going. Those cuts could result 
in 100,000 people losing their prescription drug coverage. Over 100,000 
low-income children and 2,500 pregnant women could be left

[[Page 24335]]

without any Medicaid coverage. And Arkansas is operating under a waiver 
that the administration contends will make them whole. But even the 
administration admits that they need congressional action to get it 
done.
  How many stories do we have to share, and how many lives have to be 
impacted before Congress will act? We have to do something now--today. 
I think it is so critically important as we see American families 
reconciling themselves in their family budgets, as we looked last night 
at the importance of community. I don't know about you all, but seeing 
precious children in our own neighborhood walking alongside my own, 
learning great things about being part of the community, how to say 
thank you, how to meet your neighbors, how to be part of a group in a 
community, it is time for us now to recognize the role we play in this 
great American community and this great American family and exhibit the 
values that are so important to Americans: that we would share with one 
another, that we would look after one another, that we would take care 
of our sisters and brothers in the Gulf State region.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Not just yet. Thank you.
  The whole idea of community has been lost. Unfortunately, I think it 
is because there has been this attitude created, a sense or a feeling 
that makes Americans afraid to share. What does that mean? It just 
means we are all concerned about ``me.'' But what makes us strong as a 
country? It is the ``we.'' It is the ``we'' in Americans. It is when we 
work together, we not only do better, we do our best. And I think this 
amendment is a way that Americans can show their best. They can show 
how important it is to reach out and to take care of our neighbors and 
a big part of our American family.
  My grandmother used to tell me when I would feel down and out: When 
you feel bad, and you feel like you could do better, she said, stop. 
She said: Think of somebody who needs something, and go do it for them.
  Mr. President, I think America feels down right now. I think they 
wonder who we are and what we are all about. I think this is the time, 
as we reconcile whatever it is we are here to do, that we stop and 
think about who needs us right now and we go do something for them. I 
happen to think that my brothers and sisters in the gulf region need 
something. I think it will show all of us the biggest and the best 
America that we can possibly be.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I actually need to yield to my colleague here.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate that the Senator will not yield. I was going 
to ask the Senator for a copy of the amendment. Out of courtesy from 
this side of the aisle, I decided to let her go forward. I appreciate 
she won't yield to us to find out what her amendment is about.
  Mrs. LINCOLN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this point I yield time from our side to 
the chairman of the Committee of Finance.
  Mrs. LINCOLN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to speak against the 
amendment by the Senator from Arkansas, but I want to make clear that I 
do not object to the substance of the amendment. I am in a position 
where I have to have a reconciliation. I want to show sympathy for what 
she is talking about but defending what I have in my mark and also 
express--and I am summarizing now--that I hope somewhere between now 
and the final consideration of the reconciliation we are able to take 
out Katrina relief that I have in mine, do it more broadly, as Senator 
Baucus and I have tried to do, but right now I am not in a position to 
do that. I hope to move that along, and so today I am a little bit 
opposite of the Senator and a little bit opposite of Senator Baucus.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Will the chairman yield for a brief comment?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, I will.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to yield 1 minute.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. That is fine.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. For a question or comment.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Earlier, I complimented the chairman on the incredible 
devotion to this issue and hard work in trying to bring about a 
compromise, and I am grateful to him.
  I would like to apologize to the Senator from New Hampshire who 
seemed upset that I hadn't put forth my amendment here in writing, but 
I have it here for him. I thank the chairman for all his hard work.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for 
her kind remarks. As I explained, because things have to be compromised 
in order to get anything done here, it tends to be the majority party's 
responsibility to move along reconciliation. In that vein, I am 
somewhat different from the Senator from Arkansas, even though I have 
sympathy and even though I have spoken in support of it and even though 
I have worked with Senator Baucus on what she wants to accomplish.
  So momentarily and throughout this reconciliation bill I have to 
oppose the amendment by my friend and colleague from Arkansas.
  We, of course, Mr. President, were all deeply moved by many of the 
stories that we have heard on the floor, particularly the stories that 
the senior Senator from Louisiana tells us about. And it is not only 
her State but Mississippi and Alabama, stories about people who have 
lost everything--their homes, their jobs, and, worst of all, more than 
1,000 people have died. I am keenly aware that those who have suffered 
the most are our most vulnerable citizens: the infirm, the displaced, 
the disabled, and families on welfare. Our hearts go out, as well, to 
all the others who have suffered so much as a result of this terrible 
disaster.
  I understand the need to act, and my colleague, Senator Baucus, and I 
came together very quickly--now I think 2 months ago almost--well, at 
least 6 weeks ago--very quickly, in a bipartisan way, in response to my 
own leader's desire that we move very quickly to respond to this, as he 
had a news conference the Wednesday after Labor Day, on behalf of those 
most vulnerable individuals and families who have suffered so greatly.
  You know that it is a priority for me to assist those affected by 
Hurricane Katrina, and I think Senator Baucus and I came up with a very 
good package, and I remain committed to it.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Go ahead.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield just to make an apology to the 
Senator from Arkansas? It appears my staff did have this amendment. I 
was misinformed. I apologize to the Senator from Arkansas at this point 
for having stated we didn't have it. I didn't know what was in it; I 
still don't know what is in it. I presume somebody has it because the 
Senator from Iowa would not be opposing it if he didn't know what was 
in it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Let me say here that for those people who don't see 
everything that is going on in the Chamber, we just had a Democrat 
apologize to a Republican, and a Republican apologize to a Democrat. 
Everything here is not everybody at each other's throat. And I say that 
to the public at large because we do get along even though we disagree 
sometimes.
  Anyway, I had this reconciliation package come out of my committee, 
and we are going to it now. And in the provision that we passed we were 
able to include what I consider a downpayment of what the Senator from 
Arkansas and the Senator from Louisiana want to accomplish. In their 
judgment, it is not enough, but it is moving the ball down the road in 
a way I hope that will get some help to people who need it.
  This provision in the reconciliation legislation then makes that 
downpayment to respond to the health care

[[Page 24336]]

needs of low-income families affected by Hurricane Katrina. This is a 
placeholder for spending on the hurricane victims because I believe it 
is extremely important that we address the needs of those so affected. 
The legislation provides $1.8 billion to protect Medicaid benefits in 
Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The legislation provides targeted 
temporary relief to parishes and counties affected by the hurricane.
  The legislation reimburses States fully at 100 percent of their share 
of Medicaid costs for any claim paid for medically necessary health 
care for evacuees. This Federal Medicaid funding increase is temporary. 
It begins on August 28, 2005, the day the hurricane hit, and ends on 
May 15, 2006. This is targeted relief for 1.9 million people. It 
focuses its assistance to the people who need it the most.
  I want to be clear, I would prefer to do our full bill on the Senate 
floor outside the reconciliation process in what we call emergency 
measures. I remain deeply disappointed in the people who have stood in 
our way, and they are on my side of the aisle. In my judgment, this 
administration's stand as well on this has just been plain wrong, and I 
have said that in committee, and I have said that in news conferences.
  Would I like to do more? Certainly. But to do more means that you 
must pay for it. Frankly, I am concerned about how the Senator from 
Arkansas is paying for this amendment. While I support taking funds out 
of FEMA to pay for Katrina relief, doing so on a reconciliation bill is 
not germane.
  So, Mr. President, the provisions in the reconciliation bill provide 
assistance for the next 8 months for 1.9 million people, and that is a 
very good start. It is crucial that we do it this way, and we will get 
it done this way. At least this much will get done.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this provision in my bill and, 
consequently, I ask them to vote against the amendment by the Senator 
from Arkansas.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I continue to yield to the Senator from 
Arkansas for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request and also 
for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request that we go to her 
amendment, that her amendment be before the body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 2356

    (Purpose: To provide emergency health care and other relief for 
                    survivors of Hurricane Katrina.)

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment to offer the amendment about which I have just 
spoken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], for herself, Ms. 
     Landrieu, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2356.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I apologize. I guess we brought this 
amendment to the floor and to the committee so many times I just 
assumed my colleagues knew what it was. I apologize for any confusion 
in that regard.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time that has been 
used in the debate on this amendment be charged against the amendment 
so that it does not get charged against any of my colleague's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, I presume the time used by 
the Senator from Arkansas will be charged to the Democratic side and 
the time used by the Senator from Iowa and myself will be charged to 
the Republican side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I yield to my good friend and my 
colleague from the gulf region, Senator Landrieu from Louisiana.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold for just one 
moment so I might inquire? I think it will be useful for us to know 
where we are in terms of the time at this point on the amendment and on 
the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the amendment, the minority has consumed 22 
minutes. On the amendment, the majority has consumed 9 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. And can we also have the time left on the bill for today?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 1 hour 28 minutes remaining. 
The minority has 1 hour 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONRAD. To further understand, the yielding of time to the 
Senator from Louisiana is off the amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GREGG. Parliamentary inquiry: I am presuming, just to make sure 
everybody is on the same wavelength, even though the time is off the 
amendment, the time is also off the underlying 20 hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, now that we have the amendment offered 
and the time straight, I wish to thank the Senator from Arkansas for 
her extraordinary leadership on this issue because this is not the 
first time she has come to the Senate floor. She has spent hours on the 
Finance Committee and hours on this floor trying to describe to our 
colleagues the critical nature of this situation.
  She comes from a State that was not directly hit by the hurricane but 
was, nonetheless, impacted, as so many other States were that had the 
goodness, the graciousness, the wherewithal, and the inclination to 
take on thousands and thousands of people from Louisiana and 
Mississippi, truly tens of thousands of people who fled for safety, for 
security, for food, and for shelter.
  It has been 64 days since Katrina hit and about 50-some-odd days 
since Rita hit, two of the deadliest storms in U.S. history. But it was 
not just the storms that did us in, not just the category 4 or category 
5 storms of 175-mile-an-hour winds that did us in. It was the 17 levee 
breaks in one of the largest cities and metropolitan areas in the 
United States. And not just any city--an international city, an 
international region, the heart of the energy coast, the city that 
secures the mouth of the Mississippi River and, may I say, the parishes 
that surround the great city of New Orleans--Jefferson, St. Tammany, 
Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and to the south we have parishes such as 
Vermillion, and along the southwestern part of the State, Calcasieu, 
and Cameron that were hard hit by Rita. There were over 2 million 
people displaced because of the storms and the subsequent levee breaks. 
It was the largest catastrophe, natural disaster in the history of the 
Nation.
  Our frustration--the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Montana, 
and other Senators from the Democratic side, and even Senator 
Grassley--is that it has been very difficult for people in Washington, 
particularly members of the administration and the majority party, to 
understand the desperate and unprecedented nature of this disaster and 
what it has done to people--poor, middle income, and wealthy.
  Let me share a statistic in terms of doctors that is quite startling. 
Doctors are not usually in a poor category, nor are they really in any 
government program in a sense. Most doctors make a considerable amount 
of money, and most doctors live in very nice homes. They have studied 
hard, and they have worked hard. Most doctors would not be in a 
Government program. But just to give a sense of the displacement, there 
were 6,000 active patient care

[[Page 24337]]

physicians in this region before the storm. Sixty-five days ago, there 
were 6,000 active patient care physicians. Over two-thirds, 4,486 have 
basically been displaced out of 3 central New Orleans parishes that 
were evacuated.
  Not only do we not have hospitals or clinics, our doctors are gone 
and our nurses are gone. The system is literally collapsing as we 
speak. That is why Senator Lincoln has been here not just today but 
almost every one of these 64 days trying to get this body and Congress 
to understand the magnitude of the disaster, the unprecedented nature 
of the disaster, and why it is important for us to provide a few 
billion dollars to help us keep the lights on, get our doctors back, 
our nurses back, keep what hospitals we can standing up, because an 
unprecedented number of people have not just lost their homes but have 
lost their jobs and, as a result, have lost whatever health care, 
whatever access to good care they needed.
  Let me make one other point. The point I want to make in my short 
time--the ranking member of the Finance Committee is here--as Senator 
Lincoln said, this is about choices. I believe we as a Congress can 
make better choices. We can do better. We can do better by the people 
we serve.
  The reason I say that is because the majority party is in a position 
to write the rules. We are writing a rule today that basically says we 
are going to provide $70 billion for tax-cut extensions. Some of them 
may be good, but we are deciding as a Congress that we are going to 
give $70 billion in tax cuts for 5 years. That is $14 billion a year. 
Yet when Senator Lincoln and Senator Baucus come to the floor to say we 
need $6.2 billion to just help people who have lost their homes, lost 
their churches, lost their schools, lost their neighborhoods, and lost 
their jobs, to just give the poorest of the poor access to health care 
so they can take care of their cancer or diabetes or even desperate 
mental health situations just for a few months or a year, we are told 
that we cannot afford that.
  It is about choices. It is about the choices we are going to make on 
spending and tax cuts. We are basically told: I am sorry, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama. The only thing you rate is $1.8 billion for 
health care. That is all you rate, and that is all this will do, is 
take care of just the Medicaid Program that was only in the 13 
parishes.
  But what I have to explain to people is, because New Orleans is the 
largest city in Louisiana, because this region is the largest economic 
contributor--it is a profit center to the State--our State budget is 
now struggling with a $1.5 billion to $3 billion shortfall in the State 
general fund. As a result of the loss of revenue due to this 
catastrophic event, our entire program is struggling, not just in the 
parishes in which the hurricane hit, where the wind blew, the waters 
rose, the trees fell, and the homes collapsed, but our whole State is 
struggling. That is why Senator Lincoln and Senator Baucus come to the 
floor and say: We thank you for the $1.8 billion, but it is not enough 
to keep our program up and running this year.
  This is not just any program. This is not a program that Louisiana 
thought about. This is a Federal program. It is in the essence of a 
Federal-State partnership, as you know, Mr. President, from your work 
in Tennessee. The Federal Government puts up 70 percent, and the State 
government puts up 30 percent. What I am here to tell you is the State 
partner has experienced a great setback. The State partner is going to 
have a very hard time, if not impossible time, putting up the 30-
percent match to keep our children and our poorest citizens, as well as 
those who are vulnerable, in health care for the year.
  So we come here 65 days after the storm, when we are spending money 
on everything we can imagine--from new programs, expansion of programs, 
tax cuts--to say, please consider a basic service of health care, not 
just for the parishes that were affected and the counties in 
Mississippi but for the whole States of Louisiana and Mississippi that 
are struggling.
  Particularly in Louisiana's case, we were harder hit, we had more 
levees break, our major city was flooded. Jackson was not flooded. New 
Orleans was flooded. Our major economic base, from our ports to our 
energy industry, have been directly impacted and revenues have fallen 
off precipitously.
  Let me share one other statistic and then I am going to wrap up. I 
asked my staff to give me something so I can explain to people what the 
losses are. They went back to 2003. Now, this is only 2 years. This is 
an average of people who are unemployed in Louisiana. We work hard just 
like everyone else. We averaged about 135,000 people unemployed in June 
of 2003. Let us pick June of 2004: We had 119,000 people receiving 
unemployment. Let us go to January 2005: We had 119,000 people. Right 
before the storm in August of 2005, we had 122,000 people unemployed.
  So I think one can say over the last 2 years we have had roughly an 
average of 120,000 people unemployed. In one month, our number jumped 
from 122,000 to 227,000 people--100,000 people in one month are seeking 
unemployment. That is how desperate people are. It has never happened 
in these 2 years. I bet if we went back and looked at it for the last 
20 years, the only spike that one would find like this is maybe in the 
1980s when the oil industry collapsed and almost everybody in Louisiana 
lost their livelihood. We have not seen this in so long, we do not 
remember a time such as this.
  I do not know why we are having a hard time explaining this to an 
administration and to the majority about how desperate the situation 
is. We are not ungrateful for the steps that have been taken. We are 
not ungrateful for the FEMA money that is slowly getting to us. What we 
are saying is we need to do better.
  Today, how do my colleagues think I felt watching the President of 
the United States stand up and tell everybody that he was going to 
allocate $8 billion for the avian flu? I do not know where he is 
getting the $8 billion for the avian flu. All we are asking for is $6.2 
billion to keep a health care system of the whole State standing up 
until we can figure out what we might need to do because we do not have 
all the answers. It has only been a few weeks. Our system has basically 
collapsed. It is going to take us a little bit more time to figure out 
what the long-term solution is.
  For the people that Senator Lincoln talked about that stayed on their 
refrigerator for 3 days, for Mr. Albert Bass, who was a painter in the 
ninth ward, who went to the hospital with a 104-degree fever, his 
Medicaid application has been denied; he needs help now. For Ms. 
Stewart, who lives in Jefferson Parish, she was a teacher; she has been 
denied Medicaid. She is 51. She is married. Her husband receives Social 
Security. She was diagnosed with cancer. Her cancer is back. Her health 
situation is worsening. She has no more income. I need to tell Mrs. 
Stewart what her outlook is.
  What I am going to tell her is, we are going to find money for the 
avian flu, we are finding money for Iraq, we are finding money for a 
tax cut, we are going to raise $4 billion more by selling off spectrum, 
but I am sorry, we cannot get you into a hospital.
  The final thing I am going to say, maybe the majority does not like 
that it is a Government program. So Senator Lincoln, Senator Baucus, 
Senator Grassley come up and say, well, let us have some way for the 
businesses that had people on unemployment--I mean insurance, the 
businesses have collapsed, but these businesses are valiantly trying to 
keep people on their insurance program because they know the desperate 
situation of their employees.
  I cannot say what most businesses are going through. Business owners 
are taking money out of their own pocket, going into their own savings 
account, trying to pay their employees with no money coming in the 
front door. These businesses have been in business 30 years. These 
employees have been loyal to them. They have showed up for work every 
day. Talk about public-private partnerships. This amendment is an $800 
million fund that is not a new program. It goes to our insurance 
commissioner to try to help work with small businesses and businesses 
so that people can keep their health insurance, so

[[Page 24338]]

that they do not fall onto the Government payroll, so they do not 
become wards of the State.
  This is self-help. This is partnership. This is self-reliance. With 
all of that, we have been told, no, come back later.
  We are going to continue to come back because while we are grateful 
for the $1.8 billion, it is so far short of what we need to stabilize 
our health care system. For a State that is 4.5 million people, that 
has literally been punched in the gut and is rolling back, this 
administration has got to do better by the people of Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and the gulf coast. Charity starts right at home. Strength 
begins right at home. Our war is right at home in the Gulf Coast 
States. When one is fighting cancer, it is about as tough as it gets. 
When one has their son or daughter dying of a fatal disease, it is 
about as tough as it gets. That is a private war that people are going 
through. We keep walking away from it, pretending that it is going to 
go away. Well, it is not going to go away. I am not going to go away. 
The Louisiana delegation is not going to go away.
  Finally, we will realize that this is not a regular hurricane. This 
was an unprecedented catastrophe that has taken a major economic center 
to its knees, and it is going to take more than whitewashing and press 
conferences and a little bit of money drabbed here and there to stand 
us up so that we can continue to be the great region we are, pay taxes 
to this country and contribute to the economic benefit.
  As I said, we are not a charity case. We have contributed billions of 
dollars to this Government and will continue to. In our hour of need, 
we have to come and ask for pennies on the dollar. So I hope that we 
can do better. We must. We can. There is most certainly room in this 
budget on the spending side or the tax side to do better.
  We are grateful for the $1.8 billion, but we need Senator Lincoln's 
amendment, we need the leadership of Senator Baucus. I thank Mr. 
Grassley, the Senator from Iowa, the Republican leader of the Finance 
Committee, who has been a champion on this issue. If he had a little 
more support from his caucus and from the administration, we might get 
more than a Band-Aid, because we are hemorrhaging.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I do not know who is yielding the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Arkansas 
controls the time.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. What is the time remaining on our side, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains on this side 
of the aisle on this issue?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 51 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LOTT. Has the Senator from Montana spoken on this subject?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Not yet. I plan to speak now.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to speak on the subject also, but I 
would defer to the ranking member of the committee, and then hopefully 
I could speak right after that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I yield time to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 9 weeks ago yesterday, Hurricane Katrina 
hit the gulf, killing over 1,000 people, displacing over 1 million 
people, leaving the region with a cleanup bill that might reach $200 
billion. Katrina left a gaping need in health care in the affected 
States and those that are hosting States. I do not know how to say it 
any other way but that the devastation is biblical.
  I visited the area 5 or 6 weeks ago. Other Senators did, too. I do 
not think there is any Senator who actually visited who would come up 
with any other feeling or belief that it is biblical. Unfortunately, 
very few Members of this body have actually been there. Unfortunately, 
very few Members of this body have actually seen the area, seen what is 
left, and it is not much, whether it is in Louisiana, New Orleans or 
the Gulf States. It is incredible how much the area has been destroyed. 
People who are alive do not have jobs, do not have homes, do not have 
schools, do not have their lives. It is absolutely incredible, and it 
is devastating. It is biblical. I do believe firmly, if every Senator 
in this institution were to see the areas affected, see the people, see 
what is happening, there would be a different result.
  We have become too academic around here. We read too many memos. We 
talk too much among ourselves. There is too much sort of theory, not 
enough actual on the ground, what really is going on. If Senators were 
to see it, feel it, taste it, smell it, there is no doubt in my mind 
that this amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas would pass, it 
would pass unanimously, and we would not be debating it. We would be 
probably asking how could we help some more.
  So in the meantime, how has this Congress responded? To be fair, it 
has not. Incredibly, it has not. In the hurricane's wake, the chairman 
of the Finance Committee and I drafted a bill to cover evacuees under 
Medicaid for a short period of time, 5 months, to help provide health 
care to low-income people who do not have their jobs anymore, who do 
not have health insurance anymore, who do not have a place to put their 
kids in school, do not have homes--just temporary health care, 5 
months. That was the bill we offered, a bill that Senator Grassley and 
I put together.
  Who supported it? Everybody in the affected States, Republicans, 
Democrats, Senators, Governors, supported it. Did we get it passed? No. 
We cover evacuees below the poverty level of $9,500. Think of that. 
People who earn that low income need help, particularly in the 
circumstances faced by the people in the aftermath of this destruction 
of the hurricane.
  Our amendment also would cover pregnant women and kids at twice that 
income level. That is not a lot of money. That is about $19,000 a year. 
That is all. Pregnant women and kids with incomes above that much would 
not get covered by our amendment but up to that level, $19,000 a year, 
that is all, pregnant women who only earn $19,000 a year. We say let's 
help them out for 5 months but at least help them out. That bill did 
not pass.
  What else did Senator Grassley and I provide for? Well, an $800 
million fund for health care providers' uncompensated care cost. What 
is that all about, uncompensated care? What does that mean? That means 
help to those hospitals, those doctors, who gave free medical care out 
of the goodness of their hearts. Free medical care to people, 
regardless of what it cost, they just gave it; it is uncompensated 
care. Because those folks did not have insurance coverage, they did not 
have ways to pay the bills. It was free care. So we are saying, those 
hospitals are Good Samaritans, those doctors are Good Samaritans. They 
were not compensated at all for their care, so let us give them a 
little bit, $800 million--that is all. I know that the true 
uncompensated care cost is many times that. We are saying, let's help 
those Good Samaritans and show them that we care.
  And who is ``we''? We are the American people who pay taxes. We are 
Members of the Senate saying, OK, we represent our people back home. 
Those of us offering this amendment say we believe that our people in 
our States want to help out. They want to help these people who do not 
have health care, who have lost their jobs, lost their health 
insurance, help people who are in desperate need of help.
  Indefinitely? No, for 5 months. For a long time? No. For a huge 
amount? No, a little bit. We think the American people want to help 
give some care to those people who need it and who are good Samaritans. 
But this body so far has said we are not going to help those good 
Samaritans. We are going to leave them out in the cold.
  Senator Grassley and I also suggested giving 16 months of full 
Federal funding to the beleaguered Federal programs of the affected 
States. What does that mean? That means for 16 months we, as Americans, 
are going to help

[[Page 24339]]

those States meet their Medicaid bills--for 16 months. But our bill has 
been blocked. It has been blocked by a small group of Senators on the 
other side of the aisle.
  What do these Senators on the other side of the aisle say? What is 
their reason for blocking this bill, this little, small bill that helps 
some people for a short period of time? What do they say? That our bill 
provides an open-ended expansion of Medicaid. It is the camel's nose 
under the tent. It is a theoretical, ideological argument.
  They argue also that the Government, that is HHS, Department of 
Health and Human Services, can take care of this crisis without 
congressional action. They say you don't need that, Congress. We, the 
administration, can take care of this. That is what they say. They also 
argue that our legislation is unnecessary spending. They keep those 
same arguments in effect today.
  Let me take those points on one by one. On the first, the amendment 
before us provides, as did the bill Senator Grassley and I offered, 
temporary 5-month Medicaid coverage. It is not indefinite; it is 
temporary, 5 months. We also suggest the President can renew that 
coverage for an additional 5 months, but that is it. It is not an open-
ended Medicaid expansion. It is getting help to those who need it; not 
down the road, not forever, but now, because people need health care 
now. That is not something they can postpone. When you need health 
care, you need it right now. What about the argument that the 
administration, HHS, can take care of this problem without 
congressional action, that the administration can take care of Katrina 
health needs through something called Medicaid waivers?
  Simply put, that is not true. It is simply not true. They cannot do 
that under the law. They need a change in the law to do that. They 
cannot do that on their own. Last week in the Finance Committee, HHS 
testified they do need legislation to provide additional funds for the 
States to meet Katrina health needs. They admitted it before the 
Finance Committee. They also said the plan to provide only $100 million 
for new funds for uncompensated care costs--that $100 million is a 
paltry pittance compared to what is needed in the State of Louisiana 
alone.
  I might say, too, legislation is needed to address these needs, but 
the President still has not asked Congress to pass the legislation to 
make that happen. We provide it in this amendment, but they do not.
  Finally, Senators on the other side of the aisle argue that this bill 
constitutes wasteful spending; since we have already appropriated $60 
billion through FEMA, two-thirds unspent, we should use those funds 
first. These same Senators argue we should scale back the bill's 
pricetag.
  I have listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. 
Senator Lincoln has listened to them. Senator Landrieu has listened to 
them. We want to get legislation passed. We want to help people in some 
way.
  Guess what. In the spirit of compromise we scaled back our bill, 
offsetting it with unspent FEMA funds. That is, we are doing what the 
Senators wanted us to do. The amendment before us reduces the cost of 
the Katrina health package by giving 12 months of State Medicaid relief 
instead of 16 months; it removes the reductions in 29 State Medicaid 
programs--that bothered them, we removed that part--and by using 
unspent FEMA funds to offset its costs, the amendment does what the 
White House advocated last week.
  As you know, last week the White House proposed redirecting $17 
billion in unspent FEMA funds to help rebuild the gulf coast. Let's 
look at that $17 billion. Of that $17 billion, $3.3 billion would go to 
reconstruct military bases--not health care needs but military bases--
and $2.3 will be spent on highways and bridge construction.
  I am speaking perhaps out of place here, but I visited the military 
bases that have been the subject of this amendment here. Yes, there is 
damage there, but it does not begin to compare with the other damage, 
the damage to the homes and the roads and the bridges, the lost jobs 
and health care needs. There is no comparison. I don't know why we are 
spending $3.3 billion to reconstruct a military base but not spending 
the money to help people with their health care needs.
  Mr. President, $410 million would help farmers remove debris and 
rehabilitate the land. Those are good causes. But the President's 
request doesn't ask for increased health care funding. It does not help 
those hospitals or doctors who were Good Samaritans by providing 
uncompensated care relief. It does not help States care for evacuees 
through their overburdened health care programs, and it doesn't help 
patients now.
  As I say, this amendment, to remind my colleagues what one of the 
opponents on the other side argued for a moment ago--it does it. What 
is that? When trying to move this bill through the Senate, a Senator on 
the other side, on September 30, said, and I quote him:

       The question is not whether we should or want to provide 
     assistance. But we want to make sure we do it in a way that 
     ensures that resources get where they are most needed and in 
     a way that takes advantage of the $45 billion or so that has 
     already been appropriated but has not been committed yet.

  Guess what. That is what this amendment does. It uses unspent funds 
to meet the urgent health care needs of Katrina victims. More than 9 
weeks after this major national disaster hit our shores, we are still 
waiting for this Congress and the President to act on Katrina health 
care needs. The reconciliation bill we are considering provides some 
help for victims, but the $1.8 billion in the bill is not enough. It 
has been called a downpayment. It is not a downpayment; it is an end 
payment in the minds of the administration and those on the other side 
of the aisle. It is a last payment; it is not a downpayment. Why is it 
not a downpayment? Because they are saying no to extra funds being 
suggested here. So it is not a downpayment. That is flat inaccurate. It 
sounds nice, but it is inaccurate.
  We need to provide more Federal funds to help the affected States. 
Louisiana is in very dire financial straits. It will have to cut its 
Medicaid program by an estimated 40 percent if that State doesn't get 
funds by the end of this year. Think of that. It has to cut Medicaid by 
huge amounts if it does not get the needed funds.
  We also need to provide the funds for uncompensated health care costs 
to ensure providers--doctors, hospitals, health centers, the Good 
Samaritans--are recognized. And we need to ensure that low-income 
survivors get the health care they need, whether or not they meet 
Medicaid's rigid eligibility rules.
  In Louisiana alone, half of those who have applied for Medicaid have 
been turned away because they don't meet those standards. Think of 
that. Half the people in Louisiana have been turned away. They have 
health care needs. It is diabetics, cancer patients, people with dire 
needs who are turned away. We are not talking about high-income levels. 
Currently, a single mom who makes more than $2,500 a year would not get 
covered. Think of that. We are raising that to $9,500 a year. Right 
now, in the view taken by the other side of the aisle, a single mom who 
makes more than $2,500 a year would not get coverage. She would not get 
any help.
  What are we saying? Let's raise it up to $9,500 at least. That is not 
a lot of money; $9,500 a year. That is not a lot of money. If she makes 
more than that, she doesn't get help, but if she makes up to that 
level, she does get some help.
  This is not right, that this amendment is not being passed. It will 
not be agreed to. It is clear by the tone of this debate here. The 
Senator from Louisiana said we are going to keep working until we get 
something passed. Why? Because it is the right thing to do.
  I see the chairman of the Budget Committee is sitting there, deeply 
pondering, his chin on his hand there. I am saying to the chairman: 
There is a way to do this. The way to do it is to pay for it out of 
unspent Katrina appropriated dollars. There is a way to do this.

[[Page 24340]]

  I know the chairman is very concerned about total costs. He should be 
concerned about total costs. That is his job. But there is a way to do 
this and that is through this amendment. It is through the already 
appropriated dollars that are unspent. It does not add to the deficit, 
does not add to the budget woes the chairman is worrying about. There 
is a way of doing this.
  I am calling upon all of us as Senators to find a way to do this. We 
all know it is the right thing to do. We all know it is the right thing 
to give temporary health care assistance to people in the affected 
areas. We all know that. We all know it is the right thing to do to 
help some of those hospitals and doctors who have been Good Samaritans 
get a little bit of help because all America wants to help. We all know 
that. All America wants to help those doctors and those hospitals a 
little bit.
  I say to my good friend from New Hampshire, find it in his head and 
in his heart to help make this thing work because it is so important to 
so many people who are counting on us to recognize them, give them a 
little bit of hope--that is the very least we can do--and support the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. I will yield to the Senator from Mississippi such time as 
he may use off the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, the 
manager of this important legislation, for yielding at this time. He 
has been very patient as this amendment has been discussed. And the 
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma certainly has been patient, 
thinking he was going to have to wait 5 or 10 minutes after this 
amendment, so I will try to be brief.
  Let me say there is no question in my mind about what our needs are 
in Mississippi and Louisiana. The people I love the most, my neighbors, 
my family, and constituents I have represented for 33 years, are 
hurting. They need lots of help.
  Right across the hall now are 12 superintendents from south 
Mississippi saying: Help us, please, and do it quickly because FEMA is 
not delivering trailers for our employees. We are open because we want 
to get our children back in school, but we need operating expenses, we 
need help right away. Not just rebuilding, we need help to keep 
operating because the tax base has been destroyed--no ad valorem tax, 
no sales tax, nothing in some of the counties that are affected.
  Look, I know firsthand how bad this situation is. Every time I go 
home it breaks my heart again. Fortunately, the people there are 
resilient and determined to come back. They appreciate any help we give 
them. They don't whine a lot, from my neck of the woods, they just keep 
working.
  I agree with what has been said here in a lot of areas. First, this 
Senate has not done enough to help the people, and what we have done is 
being slow-rolled by the Office of Management and Budget and FEMA. The 
list of horror stories, if I put them in the Record, would stagger my 
colleagues here.
  A good job is not being done--yet. The money we passed, $63 billion 
almost, probably--maybe $40 billion has been spent. Meanwhile, some 
contractors have not been reimbursed; schools have not gotten a nickel; 
the Mississippi Department of Transportation is not being reimbursed 
for the money they have already spent. There are horror stories of what 
Congress has not yet done in terms of changing the law. There is a bill 
pending right now at the desk from the Government Affairs and Homeland 
Security Committee, S. 1777, that would do an awful lot to help our 
people in a lot of areas by changing the laws, by removing caps. It 
would not necessarily cost a lot more money. It would extend the time 
for unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 39 weeks, and so on and so 
on. There is a lot we could be doing. We ought to do it.
  But what is this bill we are working on? This is the deficit 
reduction legislation, I thought. I thought this is where we found 
places where we could make savings where money is not being properly 
spent, or spent to the best effect. Several committees have worked to 
come up with the savings we have. And, by the way, gee whiz, we came up 
with more money than the budget required. So, ``Gee, where can we spend 
it?''
  Yes, I am one of the ones who is trying to do that. I supported the 
effort of Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus to get a bill 
through--I don't know, 6 weeks ago--that would have provided $8.5 
billion, I think it was, for Medicaid. I didn't cosponsor it because 
there were things in there I was uncomfortable with, but I thought we 
needed to take action quickly.
  So we came down to this. Now it is $1.8 billion. How did we get $1.8 
billion for Katrina in the deficit reduction bill? I don't want to brag 
too much; I am not even particularly proud of it. But I said if you 
don't put that in there, I won't vote for the bill, and if I didn't 
vote for it, it wouldn't have passed because, unfortunately, we have to 
do it with all Republican votes.
  Democrats won't help us at all. That is why it is in here. But it is 
not enough. It is not all we need. The plate has been passed. We got a 
little help. Now I am going to come back and say give me another $2 
billion, $3 billion, or $4 billion. That is going to depend on how we 
add to the deficit. This is not all it is going to be. But this is a 
good start, $1.8 billion.
  I have gotten to the point where I am saying I don't want it all, 
just help me a little. This is responsible, what we have done here--
$1.8 billion to increase the Federal match for Medicaid in the FEMA 
disaster counties. That is an important differentiation.
  One of my problems I keep arguing about is I have people in northwest 
Mississippi who are not in the disaster area. We shouldn't increase the 
eligibility for them. They weren't hit by the hurricane.
  I would be perfectly willing to just say: Governors of Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Arkansas, we are going to give you X dollars for 
Medicaid, and you make sure it gets to the people who really need it. I 
have not been able to sell that. A lot of what we need can be done by 
OMB without us doing a thing. They could take it out of the $60 
billion-plus that we passed.
  But I don't think we should use deficit reduction or the need for 
Medicaid help to immediately increase eligibility. I don't think we 
ought to provide 100 percent FMAP to all of Mississippi and Louisiana, 
including in those areas that were not affected. We may need to 
increase eligibility, but this is supposed to be to help people who 
were hit by the disaster, who were displaced by the disaster, or live 
in the area and lost everything.
  I tried to make a point to my colleagues when they said we have to be 
fiscally responsible. I say help me explain to the people in Hancock 
County, MS, who lost their job, their house, their car, their truck, 
their boat, their dog, that we have to make sure we are fiscally 
responsible. I am not going to do that. We are going to help that 
person. That person has a slab, a mortgage, and no job. We are going to 
help them or I am not going to be part of an institution or government 
that will not help people in America who are hurting like that.
  I can get just as passionate. I lost my house. I am emotional about 
that. Everybody around me lost their houses. And people who worked all 
their lives and saved everything, they have lost it all. This hurricane 
is a great equalizer. If you are poor and you lost everything, you have 
nothing. If you are middle income and you lost everything, you have 
nothing. If you are a retired doctor and you lost your home and your 
car, you ain't got much left.
  We need to do more. There is no question about that. But we do the 
right thing here by raising the FMAP 100 percent for those areas that 
are affected. We need to do more in this uncompensated care area, and 
we are going to do more.
  But I ask my colleagues--I know how heartfelt this is for my 
colleague from Louisiana and the Senator from Arkansas. They are trying 
to do the right thing. But I am just saying, let us not pursue the 
perfect at the expense of the

[[Page 24341]]

good. I was a part of the deal. I got all I could. I will come back at 
the next round in conference and try to get more.
  When we get through this, we will be back trying to get what we need. 
But to my colleagues from the affected States and those who want to 
help us, I want to remind them that when you ask for more than you are 
really entitled to, or when you ask for things not in the hurricane-
affected area, or for people not in the affected area, you are hurting 
your credibility. When you ask for a huge number and include things 
that maybe are not in the area, and I could do that, then our 
colleagues say: Wait a minute. We have to make sure we help those 
people who really need it, but we don't do things under the cover of 
the hurricane that can't be justified on behalf of the American 
taxpayer.
  Having been critical about the recovery, let me just say to 
everybody--to volunteers, to the military, to the private sector, to 
the faith-based groups, to this institution, to so many people who have 
helped us when we have been on our knees--we appreciate it. We have to 
do a lot more. But I don't think we are in a position to be looking a 
gift horse in the mouth.
  Let us do this now, and let us keep working because we have a long 
way to go.
  This hurricane was so overwhelming, the damage is so monumental that 
it overwhelmed Federal agencies. Nobody can really appreciate what we 
are dealing with here. It is just more than we ever dreamed, including 
people like me. I have been through six hurricanes, two tornadoes, an 
ice storm, and a flood. I have never seen anything like this.
  We are not going to fix this tonight, in a week, in a month, or in 
many months. It is going to take years.
  I want to make sure, my colleagues, that I come back to you again and 
again and say: We need this help. I have done my homework. It is 
justified, and we need you to do it on behalf of these people.
  Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, what is the time agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has no time 
remaining. There is 50 minutes remaining in opposition.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, the 
understanding was that we move on to the Inhofe amendment and to the 
Nelson amendment. And although it wasn't agreed to, I believe it can 
now be agreed to that the amendment in order after the Nelson amendment 
will be the Lott amendment, except if we end up going into tomorrow, 
the first two amendments will be Senator Cantwell's amendment followed 
by Senator Grassley's amendment.
  If Senator Lott's amendment or Senator Nelson's amendment do not come 
up tonight, we follow those two amendments. Is that correct?
  Mr. CONRAD. The chairman, as always, has it exactly right.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that be the order of business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, 
because we have a half dozen Senators or more on this side who have 
asked to have time to speak on the bill, let me send a message in this 
way, if I can, to our colleagues and the staff who are listening. 
Obviously, the events of this afternoon have blown a hole in the time 
on the budget bill. What was the game plan before this afternoon has 
clearly been altered. Now, we have tried to lay out a schedule of 
amendments, as the chairman has just indicated. Next, we will go to 
Senator Inhofe.
  Could Senator Inhofe give us a picture of how long he might require?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes. I respectfully say I can do mine in probably 15 
minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Then there may be some discussion on the Inhofe amendment 
on this side. Then we would go to Senator Nelson. That would be in 
approximately 20 minutes, perhaps, for the information of Senators.
  How long would Senator Nelson require?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Ten minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. We will have a response, I presume. That is another 20 
minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Then we go to Senator Lott.
  Maybe that helps, for the information of our colleagues, as we try to 
go through this bill with some efficiency as we get toward the end of 
this day. We will close, by prior agreement, at 8 o'clock.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, may I inquire? There are two 
amendments that I will be offering in tandem. What is the procedure 
that the Senators would like me to use in offering those amendments? 
They deal with the same subject.
  Mr. GREGG. I don't think the agreement reflected two amendments; it 
reflected one amendment. Let us take a look at it while the amendment 
of Senator Inhofe is going forward and see if we can work it out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent agreement is for one 
amendment.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2355

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside for the purpose of considering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. INHOFE], for himself, and 
     Mr. Chambliss, proposes an amendment numbered 2355.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To cap non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending at 
       the previous fiscal year's level, beginning with FY 2007)

       ``Beginning with fiscal year 2007 and thereafter, all non-
     defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending shall not 
     exceed the previous fiscal year's levels, for purposes of the 
     congressional budget process (Section 302 et al. of the 
     congressional Budget Act of 1974), without a \2/3\ vote of 
     Members duly chosen and sworn.''

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of observations. I 
happen to be one of the very first Members of the Senate to go down 
after Katrina to Louisiana and Mississippi. In fact, actually, we went 
all the way from New Orleans to Alabama in a helicopter. The 
devastation that took place is incredible. It reminded me a little bit 
of the tornadoes we have seen in Oklahoma. The difference is a tornado 
normally will affect about 5 square miles as opposed to a couple 
thousand square miles.
  I certainly wouldn't want anything that I say to imply that we are 
not deeply sympathetic to the problems of the people of Louisiana and 
Mississippi, and to a lesser degree in Alabama. But I have to observe, 
as I have been listening to this debate, that you can always pour more 
money on a problem. This is something we have seen in government 
forever.
  The Senator from Montana outlined a lot of things on which we need to 
spend more money, as did many others over here. You can always do that. 
I would question whether it is the Federal Government's responsibility 
to take care of everything that happens when a disaster occurs. We 
didn't expect that in Oklahoma, and I don't think it should be 
expected. For one thing, we couldn't do it.
  The other day, there was an op-ed piece by the senior Senator from 
Alaska, Mr. Ted Stevens. He talked about the 1964 earthquake and the 
devastation. He actually had to go out and repair his own house and do 
a lot of this work, and not even 10 percent of that was taken care of 
by the Federal Government. We have a mindset now that somehow the 
Federal Government has deep enough pockets to take care of all of these 
problems. Frankly, it is just not right.
  It is not true. You can't have it. We are going to have to get a 
handle on this thing, and I want to help.

[[Page 24342]]

  I can say them in a relatively short period of time. I have been 
working on a solution to this problem with an amendment for quite some 
time. I have actually wanted to offer it previously on appropriations 
bills. But to do that, I would have to initiate a program of negating 
paragraph 4 of rule XVI of the rules. I don't think that is 
appropriate. It has been done three times in the last couple of weeks 
by three of the Democrat Senators. I don't criticize them for it, but I 
think if I do this on the Republican side it would be the first time 
that procedure would have been exercised, and it would not be 
appropriate.
  Last Thursday or Friday, toward the end of the week, I had a colloquy 
on the floor with Senator Frist, and we specifically discussed bringing 
up the amendment that I have in mind on the budget reconciliation bill. 
I am not naive. It could be that there will be a budget point of order 
against it. It doesn't really make any difference. We are going to get 
a vote on this bill.
  This is a very simple solution to a very complex problem. I 
understand a bill is going to be introduced which is going to eliminate 
all earmarks. That sounds real good. There is a big population out 
there that thinks this is going to solve the problem. But it doesn't 
solve the problem.
  I mentioned this the other day when my junior Senator brought up a 
bill to do away with a bridge up in Alaska. I said: Look, you are 
looking at something where one of the few things that really works well 
in Washington is the way we handle the Transportation bill. What we do 
is determine by a formula that no one thinks is fair. Because you 
always want more in your own State, you take into consideration highway 
mortalities, the number of road miles, the donee status, and then you 
come up with a formula. That formula will allocate to the States an 
amount of money. This money, I might add, is money that has been paid 
in taxes at the pumps so that it goes to improving our transportation 
system. When you do this, if you send that to the States and they say, 
all right, you in the States determine the priorities that you have in 
the State of Florida, or in the State of New Hampshire, what do you 
think is the proper thing? That is either done by the elected 
representatives or by the local people.
  In my State of Oklahoma, we have the transportation commission with 
eight commissioners in eight geographic areas of the State. They 
prioritize projects, and it is done very well.
  With have earmarks to lock in these projects. That can be done, and 
these decisions are made locally.
  There is a mentality in Washington that if a decision is not made in 
Washington, it is not a good decision. It is a little bit arrogant to 
say, Yes, the money has gone out to these States, but we in our wisdom 
do not think it should be spent on those projects that they think it 
should be spent on in this State--in this case, the State of Alaska, 
the well-known bridge, so-called Bridge to Nowhere, when, in fact, that 
bridge was a bridge that was for economic development, according to the 
Alaska Department of Transportation. They said out of 100 projects, 
that was No. 4 from the top because they want to develop that area and 
they cannot develop the area because people cannot get to the area. I 
am not sure whether I agree with that, but I don't care; that was their 
decision, not our decision in Washington to make.
  If we were to pass a bill to eliminate all earmarks--it is not going 
to save money in the Transportation bill; almost all of that was below 
the line in formulas--all it would say is if you eliminate that 
earmark, then you are going to have to go back and decide what you want 
to spend that money on. The money is not going to be saved. The money 
is going to still go to some projects, but we will have dictated that 
from Washington, DC. I am not saying this critically, because some of 
my closest friends and good conservatives believe if you eliminate 
earmarks, you will resolve a problem. You are not going to resolve it.
  But there is a way to do it. I have a very simple amendment that will 
do that. The White House has been looking at ways to cut unnecessary 
spending. The White House, to their credit, proposed a package of $2.3 
billion in cuts. On October 24, 2005, Scott McClelland briefed the 
press regarding the White House's efforts, stating that certainly an 
area we have been looking at is rescinding spending increases, and 
congressional leadership has been looking at this for a long time.
  There is a simple solution to this. I have a one-sentence amendment 
that I will offer to the reconciliation bill. A lot of people think you 
have to get long and involved verbiage before you can do something 
good. When I was in the House in 1994 on the issue that ended up being 
considered the greatest single reform in the history of the House of 
Representatives, that was my amendment. It was one sentence. You do not 
have to have long, complicated sentences.
  I will read the one sentence that is in this amendment. I know one of 
the cosponsors of this is the Presiding Officer. It says:

       Beginning with fiscal year 2007 and thereafter, all 
     nondefense nontrust fund discretionary spending shall not 
     exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a two-thirds 
     vote.

  Why a two-thirds vote? Something like Katrina comes along, something 
that is unanticipated, sure, two-thirds of the people may decide we 
should do something. That is not going to happen very often.
  Let me be a little bit partisan because I have heard a statement--not 
a misquote but certainly taken out of context--one of the Republican 
Senators saying that all Senators are big spenders; they are all big 
spenders equally.
  Frankly, that just is not right. Yet we do have a solution to this 
problem. I will show that spending is a partisan issue. This chart 
shows the Democrat amendments we have seen so far. I can update this. 
The bottom line is that it is $530 billion--half a trillion--for these 
Democrat amendments. They are from Senators Bingaman, Stabenow, Byrd, 
Akaka, Harkin, Kennedy, Dayton, Dorgan, Biden, Clinton. It goes on and 
on. These are amendments that were offered. These are amendments that 
were defeated--most of them. All the amendments were considered. If you 
add up all those amendments by the Democrats in this Senate, that is 
what you get--half a trillion. If you carry that out to the end of a 
10-year period, it is over $1 trillion. Those are specific amendments 
offered.
  We stood in the Senate a few minutes ago and listened to several 
Senators talk about how much more money we should be spending on these 
programs. We are going to hear it. I am sure tonight and tomorrow we 
will hear it. Nonetheless, that is a fact. My solution will not get 
into entitlements. That will be addressed with reconciliation. There 
are other ways of doing that.
  Of course, right now the defense spending will have to stay up 
because we went down in our defense spending during the 1990s. We have 
to rebuild the military. We all understand. I believed the primary top 
functions that should be performed by Government would be national 
defense and infrastructure.
  In the case of infrastructure, that is money people have paid. That 
is a moral issue. Most people believe that when they pay the high taxes 
at the pumps, somehow that will get into building roads and repairing 
roads. It should. Unfortunately, the highway trust fund has been 
robbed. The aviation trust fund and other trust funds have been robbed. 
They need to be kept intact.
  However, this very simple solution is one that should pass this 
Senate. Because of a procedural vote, it might be a budget point of 
order and need 60 votes to pass. However, if you look at what many of 
my colleagues on the Democrat side have said--Senator Biden said 
specifically on more spending cuts:

       If I had designed a deficit reduction plan, I would have 
     done it differently.

  Senator Dorgan says that we need to provide spending cuts in a 
significant manner.
  Senator Feingold says:

       We also need to continue to cut spending in Federal 
     programs . . .

  Senator Levin stated how we need to cut spending. The last thing he 
says in

[[Page 24343]]

the 1993 reconciliation, the same thing we are talking about today:

       Discretionary spending is frozen for 5 years.

  He advocated freezing discretionary spending. That is exactly what my 
amendment does.
  It says:

       Beginning with fiscal year 2007 and thereafter, all 
     nondefense nontrust fund discretionary spending shall not 
     exceed the previous fiscal year's level without a two-thirds 
     of majority vote.

  It is very simple, cut and dry, something that can pass. And there 
will be a vote on this, whether it is a procedural vote or a vote on 
the content. I hope those individuals who have a more complicated 
approach to this will recognize this is something that is doable.
  I have had the unfortunate experience this year of trying to find 
every bill that comes up that is over either the budget or last year's 
spending, and I have opposed that because this is the only way we will 
get this back in order.
  I recognize this is a time when we are going to have deficits. The 
American people understand that. We do know we had a rebuilding job to 
do in the military. Then along came September 11, and we are in the 
middle of a war. We have to prosecute this war. Then Katrina and some 
of the other disasters have taken place. We recognize these are 
difficult times. This is one area in discretionary spending that we can 
do something.
  I look forward to getting a vote on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the chart the Senator has put up here 
labeled ``Democrat spendometer'' is a complete fabrication, a total 
concoction. That chart suggests Democrats have offered amendments 
costing $460 billion this year. False. Absolutely false. I know the 
Senator has borrowed that chart from somebody else. He did not prepare 
the chart, but he has used the chart, and the chart is wrong.
  First, the ``spendometer'' ignores the fact that many of those 
Democratic amendments were offset. In fact, because they included 
additional deficit reduction, the net effect of all Democrat amendments 
to the 2006 budget resolution would have reduced deficits by $57 
billion. The ``spendometer'' double-counts Democratic amendments 
because it treats them as if they were a package instead of offered 
individually.
  Many of the Democratic amendments covered the same subject areas as 
an earlier amendment that was defeated and would never have been 
offered if the earlier amendment had been agreed to.
  The ``spendometer'' also overstates the cost of Democratic amendments 
in the most egregious way--by transferring 1-year amendments into 5-
year amendments. That really strains credibility. To convert amendments 
that were offered for 1 year on an appropriations bill and make them 
into 5-year amendments in cost is a complete concoction.
  The fact is, on the budget resolution, Democratic amendments would 
have reduced the deficit by $57 billion; the net cost of Republican 
amendments was $79 billion. They would have increased the deficit by 
$79 billion.
  Our colleague says it is a partisan issue, spending. He is right. 
During the last Democratic administration, spending went down as a 
share of gross domestic product. That is, the economists say, the best 
way to measure it. Spending went down each and every year during the 
last Democratic administration, from 22 percent of gross domestic 
production down to 18.4 of gross domestic production. Democrats, when 
they were in charge, cut spending.
  Let's look at the Republican record. Here is what has happened under 
the Bush administration. Each and every year, spending has gone up, 
with one exception, of the time they have been in control. We went from 
18.4 percent the last year the Democrats were in control, and we are up 
to 20.2 percent of gross domestic production now that Republicans have 
been in control.
  The story does not end there. The bottom line is what has happened to 
the debt. When our Republican colleagues took over, the debt of the 
country was $5.7 trillion. They have increased the debt each and every 
year by $500 or $600 billion. They have gone from $5.7 trillion this 
year. The end of 2005, the debt was up to $7.9 trillion. Under the 
budget that is before the Senate now, they will take the debt up to 
over $11 trillion. That is the record of our colleagues on the other 
side. They are in control. They control the House, they control the 
Senate, they control the White House, and they are leaving this country 
a legacy of debt, debt, debt.
  Here is the reality. When they came in and they took control of 
everything, the debt of this country was $5.7 trillion. Today, they 
have increased it to $8 trillion. And this is, by the way, when the 
President said he was going to have maximum paydown of the debt. But 
look where it is headed. Under the budget in the Senate now, they will 
raise the debt over the next 5 years to $11 trillion. This is 
unbelievable. They are approaching $6 trillion of added debt while they 
have been in control, and they are out here claiming that we are the 
spenders. Hello? We are not in control. They are in control. They are 
the ones running up the debt. They are the ones running up the debt.
  It does not end there. The package they have that they claim is 
deficit reduction is not deficit reduction. Read all the chapters of 
the book before you reach a conclusion of what the message is. The 
message of our friends on the other side is debt on top of debt. The 
first chapter is the one we have before the Senate now that slices 
spending a little bit over 5 years. Then we come back, cut taxes more, 
and add to the deficit. But the third chapter is they will increase the 
debt limit by $781 billion for 1 year alone. That brings their 4-year 
total to over $3 trillion of added debt. And the budget they have 
before the Senate, a 5-year budget--these are not my numbers, these are 
their numbers--they will run up the debt another $3 trillion.
  Here is the bottom line: It took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up $1 
trillion of foreign-held debt. And this President in 4 years has 
exceeded what 42 Presidents over 224 years had done to the debt of this 
country.
  If they want to start talking about deficits and debt, bring it on. 
Their record is a record of deficits and debt unparalleled in the 
history of this Nation. Let me repeat, it took 42 Presidents 224 years 
to run up a trillion dollars in foreign holdings of U.S. debt. This 
President has more than doubled it in 4 years.
  So I hope every time that ``spendometer'' chart comes out, they are 
prepared to listen to this speech all over again because that chart is 
a complete concoction.
  On the Inhofe amendment itself, the Budget Committee has never held a 
hearing on this amendment. This amendment from the Senator from 
Oklahoma tries to decide the appropriate level of discretionary funding 
for years to come; in fact, permanently. This amendment says that an 
increase in funding over the previous year's level for nondefense, 
nontrust fund funding would be subject to a two-thirds vote point of 
order.
  Just so our colleagues understand the upshot of this amendment--and I 
am certain it is well intended--this amendment would seek to freeze 
funding for homeland security, for veterans health care, for education, 
for the National Institutes of Health, and many more priorities, and 
not just for 1 year, but permanently.
  Is anybody listening? The Senator's amendment seeks to freeze funding 
for the Department of Homeland Security, for veterans health care, for 
education, for the National Institutes of Health, not for 1 year, but 
permanently. Permanently is a long time.
  Sixty-six Senators could support increased funding for our veterans 
or for homeland security. But it would not be enough under this 
amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma because he would freeze funding 
for those functions permanently, unless you could get a two-thirds 
vote.
  We have a point of order in the Congressional Budget Act under 
section 306 for exactly this reason. This far-reaching change to our 
system of enforcing

[[Page 24344]]

spending restraint should not be made without Budget Committee 
oversight. And it certainly should not be done as part of a fast-track 
vehicle with limited debate. This amendment clearly and completely 
violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, and it is not 
germane. At the appropriate point, I will bring that budget point of 
order.
  Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. At this point, we have to go to Senator Nelson, unless 
Senator Inhofe has--
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes. I want to respond. I thought I had the floor.
  Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: Do I have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Oklahoma now has 
the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. All right. Well, let me do this. I think the Senator from 
Georgia wants to make a comment. I would like to yield to him. Then I 
would like to respond to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. President, I say, very quickly, I have been sitting here 
listening to this debate with real interest. My friend from North 
Dakota, who always makes good, strong, passionate arguments, first, 
fails to respond to the Democratic spendometer.
  All of those are Democratic amendments. Every one of them spends 
exactly the amount of money the Senator from Oklahoma said it spends. 
It is half a billion dollars that would have been added to the deficit 
had Republicans not defeated those amendments.
  Secondly, I would say, I guess I get lost in this verbiage sometimes, 
but here we are, this week, for the first time in 8 years, addressing 
the issue of spending and trying to reduce spending that has already 
been committed. It has been a very difficult exercise. As the Senator 
from North Dakota knows, who serves on the committee I chair, we had a 
difficult time in the Agriculture Committee coming up with some 
reasonable reductions in spending. Of course, while he did not vote for 
any of those reductions in spending, which is going to help the 
deficit, some Democrats did. At the end of the day, we are going to 
save $70 billion. We are going to reduce mandatory spending by $70 
billion.
  So I think the Senator from North Dakota has made the argument for 
the amendment the Senator from Oklahoma has authored by saying if we 
are serious about cutting spending, let's cut spending. This amendment 
is going to hold our feet to the fire. This amendment in and of itself 
does not reduce spending. But the Senator from North Dakota is right; 
no, it freezes spending. It says we are not going to spend any more 
money. But if two-thirds of the Members of the Senate say it is OK to 
spend it, then we will increase spending over the previous year.
  That is a pretty dadgum good thought and a novel thought, and I 
applaud the Senator from Oklahoma for coming up with that. Because if 
two-thirds of us agree we ought to spend more money, it is probably the 
right thing to do. But if two-thirds of us do not agree to do it, then 
it is probably not the right thing to do.
  So I think the Senator from North Dakota makes the argument for the 
amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. I urge an affirmative vote on 
it at the appropriate time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, would you like me to 
yield time to you? I am trying to finish this.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I get a little tired of people on the 
other side of the aisle making the point that tax cuts are responsible 
for the deficit we have, when you consider we inherited a recession 
from the previous administration, and we had September 11, and because 
of the catastrophe of September 11, income to our Federal Treasury went 
down from $2.1 trillion to $1.75 trillion. That went on over a period 
of 3 years before the economy turned around.
  Then, to find fault with the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, a person no 
less than Chairman Greenspan said those tax cuts were what turned this 
economy around. And turning the economy around, we have $274 billion 
more coming into the Federal Treasury in the year 2005 than we did in 
2004.
  And then, especially when you measure deficits by gross national 
product, our deficit now is less than it was in 1993 under Clinton. Our 
deficit now is less than it was under Reagan in 1982, and a lot less in 
the case of 1982.
  Now, what I rise for is this: the justification that was made this 
morning that we are having this reconciliation bill, cutting 
expenditures, so we can cut taxes. We are not going to cut taxes any 
more. We have done that in 2001 and 2003. That tax policy is what 
turned this economy around and brought in $274 billion more this year 
than last year, even $70 billion more in the last 10 months than we 
estimated back in February would come in this year.
  But the case the other side is making that we want to have further 
tax cuts--if we take no action, what they want to do is have an 
automatic tax increase. We have a lot of tax provisions that are going 
to sunset this year. If we do not keep tax policy the way it is, we are 
going to have a tax increase.
  Now, they like to have more money coming in so they have more money 
to spend. I would like to have somebody on the other side of the aisle 
tell me how high taxes have to be to be high enough to satisfy their 
appetite to spend money. I have never heard that. But the fact is, they 
can have a tax increase and not even have to vote for it. So we have to 
take action between now and the end of the year to make sure the 
existing tax policy, that was good for the economy, keeps this economy 
going, as Chairman Greenspan has given those tax cuts credit for where 
we are.
  I want to tell my colleagues what is going to happen if we do not 
take action before the end of the year to continue the tax policies 
that would otherwise sunset, that somehow they do not want us to 
continue.
  Our objective is to preserve current levels of tax relief. These tax 
increases would occur if my friends on the other side of the aisle--and 
maybe even an occasional Republican or two--have their way and thwart 
the reconciliation bill in the process.
  First, the tax relief plan continues the hold harmless provision of 
the alternative minimum income tax. This piece of the plan, the 
largest, I might add, is worth about $30 billion to 14 million American 
families. You can see by this chart, if we do not take action, we are 
going to have about 5 million middle-income taxpayers paying more taxes 
next year because they will get hit by the alternative minimum income 
tax.
  I want to remind everybody that the alternative minimum income tax 
was meant to hit the very wealthy, who were taking advantage of every 
tax loophole they could and not paying any tax, that they ought to pay 
something. But it was never meant to hit middle-income America.
  We are going to have in my State of Iowa 65,000 more Iowans pay tax 
they were never supposed to pay if we do not take action between now 
and December 31.
  Look at all the places where I wish I could think of all the people 
who have been complaining the most about what we are talking about. But 
the point is--North Dakota, for instance, I think it ought to be pretty 
obvious. Do you want 13,364 North Dakotans to pay additional tax if we 
do not take action before the end of the year?
  Mr. CONRAD. No.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, I am glad to hear that. But I have heard 
different rhetoric from the other side. And Michigan is here, if I can 
find Michigan. We ought to put things in alphabetical order, but it 
does not matter. It

[[Page 24345]]

does not matter. You are going to have tens of thousands of people or 
hundreds of thousands of people paying additional tax if we do not take 
action.
  Now, that is just one provision.
  We reduce the capital gains from 20 percent down to 15 percent, and 
we have been told that is already figured into the stock market. Do we 
want to let the middle-income taxpayers pay a higher capital gains tax? 
I do not think so, because there are so many middle-income people now 
who are investing through their IRAs, through their 401(k)s, that we do 
not want them to be hit by this.
  We have the tax deductibility of college tuition. We have the small 
savers credit. We have the small business expensing provisions that are 
going to sunset at the end of the year.
  All of these provisions have been bipartisan. Millions of American 
taxpayers rely on these provisions. Do my friends want to take away the 
deductibility of college tuition for middle-income Americans that is 
capped at $60,000? These people who are sending their kids to college 
ought to have, beyond December 31 of this year, the ability of taking 
advantage of that deduction.
  We have the small savers credit. Do my friends want to take away the 
expensing of equipment for small business? I don't think so. But they 
would lead you to believe that we want to cut taxes for the rich. The 
plan addresses expiring business and individual provisions that we call 
extenders. These provisions include the research and development tax 
credit, State sales tax deductibility, and the deductibility of 
teachers' out-of-pocket expenses. Do the people who say we are going to 
give tax cuts to the wealthy consider our teachers, who pay out-of-
pocket expenses for the classroom, that they ought to not have the tax 
deductibility for that? That is going to end December 31.
  Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. INHOFE. I believe the pending amendment is the Inhofe amendment. 
If I may beg the indulgence of the Senator from Iowa, if I could go 
ahead and conclude my remarks on my amendment and respond to the 
Senator from North Dakota, he could go back on the reconciliation bill 
and finish his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma may reclaim the time 
that he yielded the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. INHOFE. I don't want to do it unless the Senator from Iowa 
agrees, because his remarks are excellent. If I could finish, it would 
be a matter of a couple minutes, and then you could get back on the 
reconciliation bill, if that would be acceptable to the Senator from 
Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Go ahead. You interfered with me. Go ahead.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me go ahead and conclude.
  First, I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from North 
Dakota, but I disagree with him. Let me point out a couple of things 
that I believe are not correct.
  The Senator from North Dakota said a lot of these amendments were 
dealing with the same thing. They are not. If you look at them, each 
one has a subject matter. They are not dealing with the same thing. 
Secondly, he said they are offset. I would ask the Senator from North 
Dakota if he can name one that is offset. You can't because these are 
not offset. The budget analysts said all of these were not offset 
amendments. They were amendments that were offered, and they were 
offered by Democrats. And when you add up all the money that is in 
these amendments that they have offered--I believe most of these were 
rejected--it would have been an additional half-trillion dollars. It is 
very clear they are offered by the Democratic Senators.
  I started off my remarks by saying we are in a unique situation now. 
Fortunately, the recession is behind us now. That is not a factor. But 
this President had to rebuild a military. Then 9/11 came. He had to get 
involved in a war. Then we had a couple of disasters that were almost 
unprecedented. I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is not 
something we can handle in 1 year or even maybe 2 years. But 
nonetheless, we have to do something specific to get into this thing 
and to get this thing done, and there is a way of doing it without 
overly complicating it. That is my amendment.
  I would like to also respond to the Senator from North Dakota in his 
statement about tax cuts. I agree with the Senator from Iowa; they say 
over and over again that we want to have tax cuts, as if you are 
cutting revenues when this happens. There was a very great President of 
the United States that was elected in 1960. His name was John Kennedy. 
John Kennedy, in 1962, said--and these are his exact words; I don't 
have to read it because I memorized it: We have serious problems in 
this country. We are going to have to increase revenue. If you want to 
increase revenue, then you have to reduce marginal rates, and that will 
happen. He reduced marginal rates and, sure enough, the revenues did 
increase.
  Then along came President Reagan in 1980. President Reagan started 
the 8-year period that had the greatest marginal rate tax cuts of any 
8-year period in the history of America. If you take the total amount 
of money and add up the marginal tax rates in 1980, it was $244 
billion. In 1990, it was $466 billion and almost doubled in that decade 
that was the greatest number of tax cuts in the history of this 
country. I know Democrats don't like to cut taxes. But you can increase 
revenue by cutting taxes, we have proven over and over again. It 
happened after World War I. It happened during the Kennedy 
administration. It happened during the Reagan administration, and it 
has already happened during the Bush 2 administration.
  We can sit around and talk about these things. The bottom line is, if 
we want to do something about it, there is going to be a vote. You will 
have a chance to register your belief as to whether or not you want to 
do something about the deficit. It has already been suggested there 
will be a budget point of order. That is fine with me. That means there 
has to be 60, instead of a majority, to get it passed. At least at that 
time, when that vote takes place, the American people will know who in 
this Chamber is serious about reducing the deficit, about cutting 
spending.
  With that, Mr. President, that is the argument I make on my 
amendment. I look forward to getting a vote at the appropriate time, 
whether it is a vote on my amendment or a vote on a budget point of 
order.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the very able Senator from Oklahoma has 
asked me for a list of the amendments that were offered on the 
Democratic side that were offset. He asked me to name one.
  Mr. INHOFE. Up here.
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes, from that list. I won't name one. I will name 10. 
The Bingaman amendment on education, completely and totally offset; the 
Stabenow amendment on first responders, completely and totally offset; 
the Byrd amendment on Amtrak, completely offset; the Akaka amendment on 
veterans, completely offset; the Harkin amendment on education, 
completely offset; the Kennedy amendment on education, completely 
offset; the Dayton amendment on IDEA, completely offset; the Dorgan 
amendment on tribal programs, completely paid for; the Biden amendment 
on COPS, completely paid for; the Byrd amendment on transit highway, 
completely paid for, offset.
  That chart is a total and complete concoction and fabrication. These 
are budget resolution matters I have talked about where the combined 
effect of Democratic amendments was to reduce the deficit $57 billion 
because they were offset.
  In addition, what that chart does is, it takes on appropriations 
bills amendments that were offered for 1 year, and our friends on this 
chart have multiplied them into 5-year amendments. They weren't 5-year 
amendments. They were 1-year amendments. Appropriations bills are for 1 
year, not for 5

[[Page 24346]]

years. They have taken them and multiplied them by 5. That is false.
  Beyond that, those amendments were not offered as a package. They 
were offered individually. So they would offer an amendment. The 
amendment was defeated. The money was still available for a different 
amendment. To then add them up and multiply it by 5 and forget about 
the offsets and put out a chart here on the Senate floor that suggests 
that is a fair representation is way beyond the pale.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield? First of all, I did yield the 
floor. I don't have the floor anymore. But I am not going to be able to 
stay. I would like to respond to some of the things you have said as 
you progressed further. Would you yield to allow me to do so?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate that very much. First of all, I have been 
told by the budget analysts that, in fact, they were not offset. Some 
of them proposed tax increases. You could call that an offset. I don't. 
That is increasing taxes to do it.
  We are getting off center from the purpose of my amendment. My 
amendment does something specifically that you can't argue against. You 
are either for or against it. As I look at these, these are specific 
amendments. It shows the amount, what the amendment does, and the years 
that would be affected. So it is true that that would be over a 5-year 
period because that is what the amendment was for. But if you take that 
on to the end of it----
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. INHOFE. You are yielding to me. Let me finish here. It would 
actually be over $1 trillion, if you carried it out to the end of a 10-
year period. I understand what you are saying about 1 year, and that is 
fine.
  Mr. CONRAD. There is no merit to that chart. There just isn't.
  Mr. INHOFE. These are all specific amendments.
  Mr. CONRAD. I have the floor now, Senator. Let's be factual here. 
That chart is a complete concoction. That is all there is to it. That 
takes amendments that were offered for 1 year, multiplies them by 5, 
doesn't count the offsets. In the budget resolution, we offset our 
amendments. We paid for them. That is an offset. When you pay for 
things around here, that is an offset. I know that is a new idea around 
here, but that is what we are offering in our amendment, pay-go. We 
say, you can have new tax cuts. The Senator from Iowa says, we are 
going to kill all the tax cuts. No, we are saying if you want more tax 
cuts, you have to pay for it. If you want more spending, you have to 
pay for it. That is what pay-go is about. That is what Democrats have 
offered in this fight. We have offered the pay-go amendment. It used to 
be in place. We used to have it. We used to have that authority. We 
used to have that budget discipline. If you want to have new tax cuts, 
pay for them. If you want new spending, pay for it.
  In addition to the fact that I listed 10 amendments that were offset 
that don't show up on their chart as offset, that chart is false on 
every single one of those amendments. In addition to that, they have 
taken 1-year appropriations amendments and multiplied them into 5-year 
amendments. Please, those weren't our amendments. Those are a 
concoction of what our amendments were.
  I hate to say this, but our friends have lost sight of the fact that 
they are in control. These deficits and debt didn't skyrocket under our 
watch. Our friends control the White House. They control the Senate. 
They control the House of Representatives. They have since 2000. And 
the debt of the country has gone up from $5.7 trillion to $7.9 
trillion. And under the budget that is being considered--and this 
legislation is part of that package--it is going to go up to $11 
trillion.
  They have raised the debt of this country in 6 years by almost $6 
trillion. It wasn't Democratic spending because your side has been in 
control. Every dime of this spending occurred on your watch. Every dime 
of this increase in debt is your responsibility. These have been your 
budgets. These have been your plans. These are your deficits and your 
debt. You have stacked it up on the American people. I repeat: It took 
42 Presidents, 224 years to run up a trillion dollars of external debt, 
debt held by foreign countries, foreign investors. This President has 
exceeded it, exceeded a trillion dollars of additional external debt, 
debt held by foreigners. This President exceeded it in 4 years.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will not. What has been added to the debt of this 
country will weigh us down for years to come, and this is debt added by 
our friends on this side of the aisle. Every dollar of spending that 
has occurred has been spending that they voted for, that they 
supported.
  I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Michigan off the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague and esteemed 
leader, our ranking member on the Budget Committee.
  I rise this evening to oppose the amendment of my friend from 
Oklahoma, as well as the entire budget resolution that is in front of 
us.
  Together, America can do better than this budget and this amendment. 
Basically, what the amendment is saying is, if we want to invest in 
education so every child has the opportunity to succeed in America, we 
wish to create greater opportunity, it would take 67 votes. If we want 
to provide another tax cut for those most blessed in this country, 
those doing most well, the best of anyone in terms of their financial 
situation, that would take 51 votes. If we want to invest in science 
and new cures for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and diabetes, it would 
take 67 votes. If we wish to give to those most blessed with resources 
in our country a tax cut, it would take 51 votes.
  That is the wrong set of priorities for our country. I support tax 
cuts certainly. I sponsored and worked with colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to add a new tax cut for manufacturers so if they create jobs 
in the United States they have a lower tax rate than if the jobs and 
business go overseas. Certainly, we agree together that the alternative 
minimum tax needs to be fixed so middle-class families are not impacted 
by something that was put into play to affect only those who are the 
most wealthy from avoiding all taxes.
  We could go down the list of things that we support on a bipartisan 
basis. But where we differ is where we have gone in this country under 
a failed set of values and priorities.
  And this amendment only makes that worse. We can do better than that. 
Our Nation's budget is designed to reflect the values and priorities of 
our great country. It is essentially our country's values document. I 
believe this budget does not honor our Nation's values, and it has the 
wrong priorities for our country.
  I believe this amendment does the same, again, saying if we wish to 
invest in the health of the country, if we wish to help manufacturers 
who, in my great State, desperately need our help by changing the way 
we finance health care in this country, that would take 67 votes. But 
if we wish, instead, to provide another round of tax cuts to those who 
are most blessed in this country, that takes 51 votes. That is the 
wrong set of values and the wrong set of priorities, and we can do 
better than that in America.
  As Americans, we believe we should leave a better future for our 
children and our grandchildren. The American people expect us to make 
tough choices, just like they do around their kitchen tables every day, 
trying to balance the budget. In my home State people are not sure if 
they are going to have a job, what the pay is going to be, are they 
going to have their pension, are they going to have to pay more for 
health care. They are having to make the toughest decisions every day. 
They expect us to be responsible and make the tough decisions we need 
to make.
  We do this because we don't want our children to have to pay for our 
debts. That is why we make tough decisions. Parents across the country 
work hard enough to build a nest egg for their children so they can 
have a better life than we have had as their parents. We

[[Page 24347]]

want that. My great concern is that we are losing that for our 
children. I believe we are in a fight for our way of life in this 
country and nothing less. And the budget documents in front of us only 
make that worse, only add to the race to the bottom too many of our 
families are feeling.
  This budget we are considering in two separate reconciliation bills 
will actually increase the deficit, not reduce it--increase it by $31 
billion. America expects us to do better than that. Most Americans 
might wonder why are we increasing the deficit when we already have the 
largest deficit in the history of the country. We are fighting wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, and we must help to pay for the rebuilding of the 
gulf coast for all of those who have lost so much. Since 2001 when we 
had the largest surplus in history, we have taken a fiscal U-turn, and 
now we have the largest deficit in history, putting us back in the days 
of gloomy fiscal policies in the 1980s and early 1990s.
  It is important to know there was a choice at that point, as our 
leader and our side of the aisle has indicated. When I started in the 
Budget Committee in 2001, we had the largest budget surplus in the 
history of the country. We had two choices. We could do what we were 
proposing at the time: take a third of that for stimulating investment 
in jobs, take a third of that in tax cuts to spur the economy, a third 
of that for strategic investments to spur the economy through 
education, innovation, to also spur the economy, and a third of that we 
wanted to put aside to pay down the debt and to keep Social Security 
secure. Instead, what happened. Our Republican colleagues rejected our 
approach, and now we have the largest deficits in the Nation's history 
due to the fact that all of it was put into a supply-side economics tax 
cut geared to the wealthiest among us at the expense of all of the rest 
of America.
  Mr. President, these deficits are not free lunches. We have to pay 
them year by year. And how are we paying for them? Well, we are 
borrowing billions of dollars from Japan and China. Right now, Japan 
and China hold almost $1 trillion, $1 trillion of our national debt. 
And it is growing each and every year. Not only do taxpayers have to 
pay interest to China and Japan, our Government has refused to crack 
down on unfair trade practices with these two countries because we are 
so far in debt to them. I can tell you, coming from the great State of 
Michigan, our administration's unwillingness to crack down on trade 
violations, currency manipulation, counterfeit auto parts, and stealing 
our patents has had a profound impact on our losing jobs in Michigan. 
They are all related because of our policies in terms of the national 
debt affecting our inability to, in fact, enforce trade violations.
  We can do better than that. Together, America can do better than 
this. We can get our fiscal house in order and get tough with our 
trading partners who are not playing by the rules. The reconciliation 
bill, unfortunately, though, will hurt working families in Michigan. 
For seniors who have worked hard their entire lives, they will see 
their most basic services cut. For some working single-parent families, 
they will see their health insurance cut. For hard-working family 
farmers, their livelihoods will be put in jeopardy.
  With so many working families losing health insurance or paying more 
for less, is this a good time to be cutting Medicare and Medicaid, our 
Nation's health insurance programs for seniors and children? We can do 
better than that.
  Also, given all the economic problems hurting our rural communities, 
including a terrible drought in Michigan, is this a good time to cut 
programs that help our farmers? Is now the time to force farmers who 
are struggling into bankruptcy? We can do better that.
  This budget's priorities are so different than those of Michigan 
families. Michigan families want us to fight for good-paying jobs, for 
affordable health care, and for a secure pension. In essence, they want 
us to fight to preserve their way of life, the middle class of our 
country, where they can raise their kids, send them to college, get 
quality health care, retire with dignity after 30 or 40 years of hard 
work, and know that pension is going to be there along with Social 
Security.
  Mr. President, America can do better than this document and this 
amendment. If we make the right budget choices, we can expand health 
insurance for working families and lower costs. We can create jobs, 
protect pensions, bring down the deficit if we make better budget 
choices.
  As my colleagues know, our Nation's largest auto parts manufacturer, 
Delphi, declared bankruptcy 3 weeks ago, threatening 13,000 jobs in 
Michigan and 35,000 jobs nationwide. Its workers may not only lose 
their jobs, they will lose their health care and their pension; in 
other words, everything they have worked for for their entire lives, 
everything they have earned, everything they are counting on for 
themselves and their families. Tragically, this budget package does 
nothing for them. It increases the deficit, which hurts our economy, 
gives Japan and China the upper hand in trade negotiations, cuts health 
care, and does nothing to protect people. That is why I intend to vote 
no on this budget and on the amendment. I will continue to fight for 
Michigan's families who are struggling every single day, and I believe 
it is not just Michigan families struggling now but American families 
all across our great country.
  I worry about whether their way of life is going to continue to 
exist. They want a change. They know we can do better than this.
  They know this budget debate really is a proxy for a larger 
philosophical debate, a larger choice on values and priorities.
  The Republican approach to governing is that you are on your own--no 
matter what the issue.
  We believe that all families need jobs, health care, quality schools 
and a secure pension.
  The Republican approach is that you are on your own.
  If you lose your job, you are on your own. If your Medicare premiums 
rise 13 percent, you are on your own. If your schools are not 
performing well, you get a school voucher. And if your pension is 
threatened, you can try to get some of it back from the PBGC.
  Mr. President, America can do better. Together, we can create good 
jobs, maintain our middle class way of life and get our country back on 
track.
  But this budget will take us in the wrong direction.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think the time has expired on our side. 
I am prepared to yield back. Things are getting a little redundant. I 
stand by this chart. I have a friendly disagreement with my good friend 
from North Dakota. I do agree that there are some offsets with tax 
increases. I do not consider that something that we should be 
embracing. There are still spending increases, budget increases, and we 
need to do something about it now.
  I would say this: If the reverse were true, and if all of the 
amendments to increase the deficit came from the Republican side, I 
would still introduce this amendment.
  I am going to yield back so that my friend from Florida can take up 
his amendment because he is next in line. But I would say this: Even if 
it were done on this side of the aisle as opposed to that side of the 
aisle, I would still say we have to do something for my 12 grandkids, 
and that is really get a handle on this.
  My amendment is good. There are all kinds of people endorsing it. The 
National Taxpayer's Union is supporting my amendment. I am going to 
read it one more time and then I am going to yield back the remainder 
of my time and there will be a vote on it.

       Beginning with fiscal year 2007 and thereafter, all 
     nondefense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending shall not 
     exceed the previous fiscal year's levels . . . without a two-
     thirds vote of Members duly chosen and sworn.

  With that I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

[[Page 24348]]


  Mr. GREGG. I understand now we go to Senator Nelson's amendment. I 
understand he needs about 10 minutes. I would suggest that Senator 
Nelson have until 5 of 8. We are going to wrap up at 8. And then I have 
the 5 minutes from 7:55 to 8 o'clock to respond to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I don't want to get frozen 
out of this time situation. If the Senator is saying that----
  Mr. GREGG. We are giving your side 12 minutes, and I am getting 5 
minutes. It does not sound to me that you are getting frozen out.
  Mr. CONRAD. This Senator may be frozen out, and this Senator is going 
to object unless he is not frozen out. I am happy to go to Senator 
Nelson. Why don't we let him go and then see where we stand at the end. 
But I am not going to enter into an agreement that would not permit me 
to answer if I felt something required an answer.


                           Amendment No. 2357

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson], for himself and Mr. 
     Kerry, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2357.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To hold Medicare beneficiaries harmless for the increase in 
  the 2007 Medicare monthly part B premium that would otherwise occur 
   because of the 2006 increase in payments under the physician fee 
                               schedule)

       On page 268, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       (d) Premium Transition Rule.--
       (1) 2006.--
       (A) Premium.--Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
     modifying the premium previously computed under section 1839 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395r) for months in 
     2006.
       (B) Government contribution.--In computing the amount of 
     the Government contribution under section 1844(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w(a)) for months in 2006, 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall compute and 
     apply a new actuarially adequate rate per enrollee age 65 and 
     over under section 1839(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395r(a)(1)) taking into account the provisions of this 
     section.
       (2) 2007.--
       (A) Premium.--The monthly premium under section 1839 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395r) for months in 2007 
     shall be computed as if this section had not been enacted.
       (B) Government contribution.--The Government contribution 
     under section 1844(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395w(a)) for months in 2007 shall be computed taking into 
     account the provisions of this section, including 
     subparagraph (A).
       (e) Extension of Prescription Drug Discounts to Enrollees 
     of Medicaid Managed Care Organizations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1903(m)(2)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     1396b(m)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (xi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (xii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(xiii) such contract provides that payment for covered 
     outpatient drugs dispensed to individuals eligible for 
     medical assistance who are enrolled with the entity shall be 
     subject to the same rebate agreement entered into under 
     section 1927 as the State is subject to and that the State 
     shall have the option of collecting rebates for the 
     dispensing of such drugs by the entity directly from 
     manufacturers or allowing the entity to collect such rebates 
     from manufacturers in exchange for a reduction in the prepaid 
     payments made to the entity for the enrollment of such 
     individuals.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1927(j)(1) (42 U.S.C. 
     1396r-8(j)91)) is amended by inserting ``other than for 
     purposes of collection of rebates for the dispensing of such 
     drugs in accordance with the provisions of a contract under 
     section 1903(m) that meets the requirements of paragraph 
     (2)(A)(xiii) of that section'' before the period.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and apply to 
     rebate agreements entered into or renewed under section 1927 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8) on or after 
     such date.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we reach a major watershed 
point now as we consider the budget, for contained in this budget is an 
increase of $1 billion required of senior citizens in the payment of 
their Medicare Part B premiums. This amendment that I am proposing cuts 
out that increase and offsets it. I am pleased to be joined by a number 
of colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment. Senator Kerry had 
wanted to speak on it, and it is my understanding that he is not here 
at this late hour, but he may speak later.
  This is an amendment to protect seniors from these drastic increases 
in their Medicare Part B monthly premiums.
  I thank all the Senators who have worked with me on this amendment. 
What our senior citizens are facing is when they pay a monthly premium, 
when they enroll in the Part B premium, that premium covers physician 
care, home health care, skilled nursing services, physical therapy, and 
other services. There are 42 million people in this country who are 
Medicare beneficiaries. Three million of them are in Florida. They are 
legitimately concerned about the growing out-of-pocket health care 
expenses. Why should they be? Let's look at history.
  Over the past 3 years, the part B beneficiary premium has increased 
50 percent. In 2006, the premium will increase by another 13 percent, 
to $88.50 per month. That represents a $10.30 increase over last year's 
monthly premium.
  Our seniors simply cannot afford another premium increase on their 
fixed incomes. If anybody doubts what I am saying, remember gasoline 
used to be $1.50. Gasoline has approached $3. We have senior citizens 
in my State and all of the States who cannot afford to drive to the 
doctor anymore because they are on a fixed income. And now this bill 
would tack on an additional billion dollars more in Part B premiums.
  This Senator does not believe that at this particular time seniors 
should bear this burden of another billion dollars in spending out of 
their pockets. I believe we should and I believe we can fix the 
physician payment rate without increasing the Part B premiums.
  Another part of this reconciliation bill gives physicians a 1-percent 
payment update in 2006. This would avert what would be very unfortunate 
for physicians--a 4.3-percent cut under the sustainable growth rate 
formula used to update physician payments. I have supported and I 
continue to support improving the reimbursement rates for Medicare 
providers, including physicians. Without action in this area, we are 
going to continue to see individuals and communities underserved 
because no quality providers, including physicians, are going to be 
available to offer these services if they keep getting cut.
  However, when the cost of physician care goes up, the Medicare Part B 
premium under the law must rise to cover it. Any change Congress makes 
to increase physician payment rates under reconciliation will be 
reflected in a beneficiary premium for senior citizens for Medicare 
Part B in 2007.
  Under the current law, if the physicians are going to get the 
increase instead of a cut, that means that in order to pay that under 
the current law, the senior citizens are going to have to increase 
their Part B Medicare premium payments by approximately $1 billion. In 
response, what we are offering to do in this amendment is protect our 
seniors, for this amendment would exclude from the Part B premium the 
cost of the reconciliation package payment increase for physicians. 
Senior citizens would be held harmless from the effect of the 
reconciliation package and would, therefore, not see an increase in 
their premiums due to this physician fix, and it is going to keep the 
physician fix in place by increasing their reimbursements.
  This amendment is revenue neutral. How is it paid for? Where is the 
offset? It is paid for by negotiating lower prescription drug prices 
for Medicaid's HMOs. This amendment would help to ease the financial 
burden on our parents and grandparents without harming the physicians 
who serve them.
  We have to look out for these grandparents and parents who are on 
fixed

[[Page 24349]]

incomes. I hope we are going to get some bipartisan support. I urge all 
of our colleagues to join me in this effort to protect our Nation's 
senior citizens.
  Mr. President, I have been waiting for quite a while to offer this 
amendment. I said that I was going to be less than 10 minutes. I am 
happy to conclude in less than 10 minutes, but the import of this 
amendment is far beyond the time I have used to offer the amendment 
tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, I appreciate the Senator from 
Florida being concise in presenting this amendment. I thank him for 
that and for sticking with the time as was represented. It was 
appropriate and generous of him.
  The amendment, obviously, has an impact on the deficit. It would 
expand it. As a practical matter, it really has to be put in the 
context of the overall Medicare adjustments in this bill and in other 
bills because under the new drug program, seniors will actually see a 
significant discount. They will save about $5 on their prescription 
drugs over what was expected.
  The Part B premium increase which will occur as a result of this bill 
will be $1.60. It seems more than reasonable to have structured an 
agreement where we will essentially allow patients to see doctors 
because we will be giving them the opportunity to see doctors because 
the doctors will actually participate in the system, whereas they might 
well opt out if we cut their pay by 4.3 percent.
  Under this bill, of course, we avoid that because the Finance 
Committee has put together a package which allows us to basically hold 
doctors harmless. It is reasonable that seniors--we are not talking 
about low-income seniors here because their entire Part B premium is 
picked up by the Government. We are talking about middle and high 
income. Not to pick anybody specific, but Bill Gates's father, who is 
probably doing very well, or my mother, for example, has a right to the 
Part B premium and, therefore, is subsidized by working Americans, 
people who are in day-to-day jobs, to the tune of 75 percent. It is 
reasonable that we ask seniors to participate in the Part B premium, as 
they get the benefit of it, to the extent of 25 percent. This bill 
simply continues that process while making sure seniors will have 
access to doctors by basically supporting the initiatives of holding 
doctors harmless from a pay cut.
  The underlying bill has some very positive spending initiatives, and 
one of them happens to be giving more access to more patients who are 
under Medicare. So I believe we should be supporting this amendment 
rather than offering amendments which will essentially undermine this 
effort.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on this 
point?
  Mr. GREGG. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I will put it in the form of a question. Will 
the Senator be surprised to know that instead of it being $1.80, it is 
more like a $3- per-month increase in the Part B premium for seniors, 
on top of the 18-percent increase that is, in fact, going to be added 
just in this present year?
  Mr. GREGG. I would be surprised to know that because, as I understand 
it from staff, the estimate, as by CMS, is $1.68. But I guess we can 
turn to the record and find that out. You may be right, CMS may be 
right.
  In any event, the number seems to be reasonable in the context of the 
benefit being received, which is seniors are being asked to pay for 25 
percent of the Part B, which is not a great deal compared to what 
Americans who are working are being asked to pay, which is 75 percent 
of that.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. GREGG. Certainly.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Given the fact that there are 42 million 
seniors who would be affected, would the Senator be surprised to know 
that this is a total of $1 billion that will come out of the pockets of 
seniors by the increased Medicare Part B premiums?
  Mr. GREGG. I would presume the seniors are going to have to pay some 
of the cost of the Part B premium. As I said before, they are paying 25 
percent of it. As I note, working Americans are being asked to pay tens 
of billions of dollars to support that benefit. In many instances, 
seniors who are receiving the benefits are moderate- and high-income 
seniors who have higher incomes than those working Americans who are 
working at a restaurant as servers or who are working on a factory line 
or working at a garage or who are working in maybe even a minimum wage 
job and are being asked to bear the burden of the HI insurance costs.
  So it does seem reasonable and I think most seniors view it as 
reasonable that they pay 25 percent of the cost of their Part B 
premium. Yes, that adds up, if you take all the seniors in America--
there are a lot of them--to a fairly significant number. So I would 
agree with that.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for a final question?
  Mr. GREGG. I will yield for a final question.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Since this Senator was disciplined in his 
comments as promised, would the Senator be surprised that this 
amendment causes no increase in the Part B premium to senior citizens 
by offsetting what would be the enhanced payment to drug companies 
under the Medicaid increase that is going to the drug companies when 
they go over to HMOs from the current law that holds the drug companies 
to a discounted rate?
  Mr. GREGG. In response to the Senator, the practical effect of what 
the Senator is proposing is to change a contractual agreement which the 
drug companies have already entered into. The basic effect of that 
would mean probably you would have fewer people willing to participate 
in the system and, as a result, seniors would have fewer choices. And I 
suspect that the practical effect, if the Senator's amendment were to 
go forward, is that the seniors would have fewer choices.
  One of the few advantages of the Part D program, which I still am not 
all that enamored of, is that it is giving seniors a variety of choices 
in their drug benefit. As seniors become more educated as to what those 
options are, they are going to be impressed that there are so many 
options on the table, and they can tailor their pharmaceutical needs to 
the options available to them. If you change the contractual agreements 
which encourage people to offer that type of opportunity, you obviously 
are going to undermine the number of options that would be available, 
in my opinion.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this bill includes a 1.0 percent payment 
update to physicians for 2006. This was done to maintain beneficiary 
access to physician services. After all what good are Medicare benefits 
if you can't get in to see a doctor.
  Within the bill, the impact on the part B premium is calculated based 
on all the provisions that affect Part B. This amendment would only 
hold the beneficiary harmless from the impact caused by the physician 
update.
  Other provisions included in the bill would increase Part B spending 
and there are other provisions that decrease Part B spending--so why 
should we single out physicians?
  In June, Senator Baucus and I sent a letter to the Office of 
Management and Budget calling for removal of Part B drugs from the 
physician payment formula. This letter was signed by 87 additional 
Senators from both sides of the aisle. If the administration were to 
remove Part B drugs from the formula--it would also increase the Part B 
premium over a number of years.
  This letter did not suggest the need for a hold harmless. I wanted to 
point this out to my colleagues who supported this letter.
  Some may feel that the Medicare drug premiums along with the Medicare 
part B premium may be a significant cost burden to beneficiaries. 
However, CMS recently announced that Medicare drug premiums will be 
lower than expected. The average monthly premium will be $32.20. That 
is $5 less per month than previously estimated.
  Even if the part B premium is increased in 2007, the increase is 
nothing

[[Page 24350]]

close to the $5 saved in the prescription drug premiums. And keep in 
mind that the part B premium increase does not affect low-income 
beneficiaries. Their premiums are paid for by the government. In fact, 
I worked hard to extend the QI program so Part B premiums would be 
covered. Currently, 16 percent of beneficiaries enrolled in Part B 
receive this assistance and more are eligible.
  In addition, a MedPAC survey issued earlier this year found that 22 
percent of beneficiaries already had trouble getting an appointment 
with a new primary care physician and 27 percent reported delays in 
getting an appointment. Payment cuts to physicians will only make these 
existing access problems worse.
  I am also opposed to the provision used to pay for this amendment.
  Regarding Medicaid MCO rebate, this amendment would in effect 
increase the rebate paid by drug manufacturers by making the rebate 
available to Medicaid managed care plans.
  The bill we are considering today increases the rebate paid by drug 
manufacturers to States through the Medicaid program to 17 percent. The 
bill also closes a pair of loopholes that have the impact of increasing 
the rebate.
  First, we require the best price of an authorized generic to be 
considered in the brand name drug's best price calculation. That will 
have the effect of increasing the rebate.
  Second, we require physicians to notify the State Medicaid program of 
what drugs the physician administers in the office. Under current law, 
States are permitted to collect rebates on the drugs but nothing in 
statute requires physicians to disclose that information. As a result, 
States miss out on the appropriate rebate.
  When all these policies are taken into consideration, we have 
increased the rebate paid by drug manufacturers by $1.7 billion.
  Now I understand my colleague might not think that's enough, but I 
would encourage you to look at a CBO report put out this past June 
examining the price of name brand drugs. That report shows that the 
effective rebate being paid by drug manufacturers is actually 31.4 
percent not 15 percent.
  I am also concerned about the substantive implications of your 
offset. These Medicaid health plans are private businesses that can 
negotiate low drug prices. I think it runs contrary to the policy this 
committee passed in the MMA to allow the plans to negotiate the best 
deal they can get and then give them a rebate on top of that.
  Yes, I do realize the Medicaid Commission accepted your offset in its 
recommendation, but I am quite certain the Medicaid Commission stamp of 
approval would not win your support for other proposals we could be 
considering today. We have looked at this area and come up with 
responsible policy that addresses loopholes. I don't think we need to 
further increase the rebate beyond what is already included in the 
bill.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and the 
offset that funds it.

                          ____________________