[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24661-24717]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     DEFICIT REDUCTION OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005--RESUMED


                           Amendment No. 2351

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is now in order to consider the Conrad 
amendment. There is 2 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Biden 
be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the best argument made for my amendment, 
which is to restore fiscal responsibility, is the argument made by the 
chairman of the Budget Committee in 2002. Here is what he said:

       The second budget discipline, which is pay-go, essentially 
     says if you are going to add a new entitlement program, or 
     you are going to cut taxes, you must offset that event so 
     that it becomes a budget neutral event. If we don't do this, 
     if we don't put back in place caps and pay-go, we will have 
     no budget discipline, and as a result we will dramatically 
     aggravate the deficit, which, of course, impacts a lot of 
     important issues but especially impacts Social Security.

  The budget chairman was right then. It is the right position now. 
Support the restoration of the budget discipline of pay-go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I was correct then, and that is why we put 
pay-go into this resolution. The budget resolution does have pay-go in 
it, and it is the appropriate approach to pay-go because it recognizes 
there is a difference between tax relief and raising spending. The 
other side of the aisle has always looked on people's taxes as their 
money. We don't look at it that way on this side of the aisle. We look 
at it as the people's money, and they should be able to keep it. We 
should not have a rule that arbitrarily takes it from them.
  For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
  I make a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane 
before the Senate, and I raise a point of order under section 305 of 
the Budget Act.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
section of the act for the consideration of the pending amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays, and I ask my colleagues to support this 
budget discipline.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Murkowski). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 283 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 
49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of fiscal 
responsibility. This pay-go amendment introduced by Ranking Member 
Conrad of the Budget Committee, of which I am a cosponsor, seeks to 
fully reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement for direct spending and 
revenue legislation in the Senate through 2010.
  This is about restoring responsible budgeting. Previously, pay-go 
rules applied equally to increases in mandatory spending and decreases 
in revenue. New spending or tax cuts could only become law if they were 
offset or found 60 votes in support. This enforced a badly needed 
budget discipline. It said, either pay for your priorities whether 
entitlement spending or tax cuts or both or find a supermajority of 
colleagues willing to override the rule. Simple logic. Simple balance. 
Common sense. Pay-go worked well in the 1990s to reduce deficits and it 
can work well today.
  Unfortunately, the rules were changed, and the balance was 
overturned. Now, the requirements of budget discipline apply to only 
half of the budget. Tax breaks are exempt from the logic and balance 
and common sense of budget discipline.
  The problem is that there is no such thing as half a budget. Budget 
discipline requires enforcing control over both sides of the ledger. 
You can't fill a bath tub just by plugging the drain. You can't drive a 
car just by pressing on the brakes.
  The original pay-go rules were abandoned to provide for a series of 
unfunded tax breaks. And since the tax breaks were unfunded, the 
Government had to borrow money to pay for them. So we borrowed from 
countries like Japan and China. And we borrowed from the Social 
Security trust fund. In the process, our national debt shot up to $8 
trillion, and it is still rising. Last year, for example, our national 
commitments exceeded our national resources by more than $550 billion. 
And we continue to borrow.
  Some have argued that this first chapter of reconciliation is an 
effort to reduce the deficit. They tout the reductions in spending, 
many of which I would support. But later this month, the Senate will 
get to chapter two of reconciliation, which proposes further unfunded 
tax breaks and guarantees additional deficits and growing debt. So much 
debt, in fact, that the third chapter of budget reconciliation, which 
no one really wants to talk about, will involve raising our country's 
debt ceiling to almost $9 trillion.
  Americans deserve better financial leadership. The people I talk to 
in Illinois are not fooled by what is going on. They know what is 
happening with

[[Page 24662]]

higher deficits and reduced levels of government service. They 
understand that, in this life, you get what you pay for and if you 
don't pay for it today, it will cost you more tomorrow.
  Washington could learn a lot from the American people about fiscal 
responsibility. The people I have met with know that if you need to 
spend more money on something, you also need to make more money, and if 
your income falls, your spending must fall, too. This is the essence of 
the pay-go rules we are trying to reinstate in the Senate. Changes in 
spending must be offset by changes in revenue, and vice versa.
  Americans know that when you are already deep in debt, it is not the 
optimal time to be gutting your revenue stream, whether it's a few 
hundred dollars in the case of a family or a $70 billion tax break in 
the case of the Federal Government.
  They also understand the difference between a home mortgage, a 
student loan, a credit card debt for uninsured health care expenses, 
and an unpaid tab at the bar. They know that some debts are good 
investments or may be unavoidable. But some debts are irresponsible the 
result of spending more than you can afford on purchases you could 
postpone or do without.
  The people I have met with know that you do not respond to 
emergencies by indiscriminately cutting all parts of the family budget. 
You make choices and forego luxuries before cutting back on essentials 
like food, heating, education, and healthcare. They understand that 
across the board cuts are neither fair nor responsible. Such cuts sound 
bold, but they represent a lack of leadership, not an example of it.
  The American people also know that the whole family must share in 
sacrifice--it is not right to pick on any one member of the family, or 
any one State in our Union. We are in this together. Singling out 
Alaska's bridge projects or any one State's earmarked funds is the 
wrong approach. If Congress is going to eliminate frivolous pork 
projects, as we should to support the gulf coast, let's eliminate all 
of them, in all States, together.
  Finally, the people I talk to understand that when you have massive 
costs coming down the road, you need to prepare for them. There is no 
excuse for ignoring the financial consequences of foreseeable expenses 
whether it is the rising costs of health care, the retirement of the 
baby boom generation, or the growing inequality of wealth in our 
society.
  You don't have to be a deficit hawk to be disturbed by the growing 
gap between revenues and expenses. This makes sense to people because 
the same principles that apply to our national budget apply to their 
family budgets as well. Americans are willing to share in the hard 
choices required to get us back on track, as long as they know that 
everyone is pulling their weight and doing their fair share.
  That is why it is so important that we reinstate pay-go in a way that 
meaningfully enforces the budget discipline both sides of the aisle 
need to honestly tackle our short-term and long-term fiscal challenges.
  Mr. President, it is time for fiscal responsibility to return to 
Washington. Adult supervision must return to the budgeting process.
  Pay-go provides a necessary tool at a necessary time. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.


                    Amendment No. 2352, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time there is 2 minutes on the Enzi 
amendment.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I will yield to Senator Enzi.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senate is not in order. The Senator deserves a chance 
to be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, at the end of 2 minutes, that time being 
expired, I intend to send a second-degree amendment to the Enzi 
amendment to the desk. Let me briefly describe it. My amendment 
addresses the concerns of the Orthodox Union, the Catholic Bishops, and 
the Council on American Private Education. My amendment clearly 
establishes an indirect aid program for displaced private school 
students that meets all the constitutional requirements without placing 
unworkable and unnecessary restrictions on private schools serving 
these displaced families. It ensures accountability for the funds and, 
most important, delivers on the much-needed relief to ensure the 
restart and operation of schools at all levels in the affected areas.
  The 2002 Zellman decision by the Supreme Court clarified that 
religious schools which accept Government funding do not have to modify 
their teachings and curricula in order to receive Government funding so 
long as the Government aid arrives at the school by virtue of an 
independent choice made by the student and parent, and this amendment 
complies with that decision and meets all of its constitutional 
requirements.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I hate to debate a second-degree amendment that has not yet 
been sent to the desk.
  Mr. CONRAD. Could we have order, Madam President.
  Mr. ENZI. At the appropriate point in time I will be raising the 
point of germaneness. This amendment shows the Gordian knot we are 
trying to cut through so we can do the right things for the children of 
Katrina.
  What we have is constitutional. We are not trying, in the amendment 
that will be up as the original amendment, to resolve vouchers. We are 
not trying to resolve faith-based initiatives. What we are trying to do 
is do the right thing to treat the kids of Katrina the right way, and 
in order to solve this it has to be a very bipartisan way because we 
also will have to overcome a point of germaneness.
  I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we should not penalize the children of 
Louisiana and the gulf, once by the storm and once by this amendment. 
This amendment does not have accountability. It allows Federal funds to 
be used for religious purposes. It guts the civil rights protections of 
our proposal.
  For the sake of the children and for the sake of the schools, I hope 
this amendment will be defeated.


         Amendment No. 2404 to Amendment No. 2352, as Modified

 (Purpose: To provide assistance for elementary and secondary schools 
    and students, and institutions of higher education, affected by 
                           Hurricane Katrina)

  Mr. ENSIGN. I send a second-degree amendment to the Enzi amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes amendment No. 
     2404 to amendment No. 2352, as modified.

  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent 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.'')
  Mr. ENZI. The pending amendment is not germane to the measure now 
before the Senate. I raise a point of order under section 305 of the 
Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Pursuant to section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305 of the Budget Act for the 
consideration of the Ensign second-degree amendment. I ask for the yeas 
and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, as I understand it, and I am not sure I 
understand it, I believe there is now still 2 minutes of debate 
available between the proponent of the second degree and the proponent 
in opposition. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

[[Page 24663]]


  Mr. GREGG. I presume Senator Enzi and Senator Ensign can continue 
their discussion.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Is this the total time? I thought we had a minute on each side on 
each amendment. Are we now debating the Enzi underlying amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes on the second-degree 
amendment, the Ensign amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. And I ask 
unanimous consent that this time not be applied to the time relative to 
the debate that is available.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. As I understand the situation, the 2 minutes of debate has 
already occurred on the Enzi amendment. We are now under 2 minutes of 
debate on the second-degree amendment, which is the Ensign amendment. 
Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. After this amendment is debated, there will be a vote on 
the motion to waive the point of order made by Senator Enzi from 
Wyoming, the motion to waive being made by Senator Ensign relative to 
the second-degree amendment. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President: I thought we 
were having the 2 minutes prior to each vote just over the course of 
the day on these different amendments. It is my mistake because I 
thought we were just voting on the Ensign amendment, and then, when we 
disposed of that, we would have a vote up or down on the underlying 
amendment. But I guess that is not the way we are going to proceed.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if I may respond to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, 
because there was a second degree, the way it worked out, the debate on 
the Enzi amendment occurred as part of that process. So the 2 minutes 
did occur. However, because this is the first exercise here in this 
undertaking, I would suggest that, after the Ensign amendment is 
disposed of, if it is favorably disposed of, that there won't be 2 
minutes, but if it is not favorably disposed of we would have another 2 
minutes of debate on the Enzi amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, to clarify this, why would we have the 
debate on the overlying motion before we have the debate on the 
underlying motion and then try to deny a debate on the overlying motion 
at the appropriate time?
  I would ask the chairman and the ranking member to consider this 
process. It will save a lot of time if the person suggesting a second-
degree amendment do the debate on the second-degree amendment. Did 
anybody here hear the debate on the first-degree amendment? That was 
debate on the second-degree amendment.
  So we disposed with the debate on the second-degree amendment. Now we 
ought to have the vote on the second-degree amendment, not another 
debate on the second-degree amendment and then go to the first-degree 
amendment without debate--or even with debate.
  If we are going to limit the time, we need to limit the time each 
time. And if somebody is going to do a second-degree amendment, they 
ought to do their debate on the second-degree amendment, face the vote 
on the second-degree amendment, and move on. But you ought to get your 
time to debate your motion at the time of the vote on the motion, not 
an hour later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I think the Senator from Wyoming has made 
an excellent case. We will try to orchestrate it in that manner, should 
we get additional second degrees.
  At this point, the debate for 2 minutes is on the second-degree 
amendment, and Senator Ensign has a minute, and whoever claims the 
opposition has a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as I understand it, Senator Enzi has 
made the point of order, has he not, on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Parliamentary inquiry: I think I would have to withdraw 
that point of germaneness and he would have to withdraw his in order 
for us to have continuing debate. Is that not true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All debate is expired except under the order.
  There is now 2 minutes of debate on the second-degree amendment.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Does that mean my 
point of order was on my amendment and his motion to waive was on my 
amendment, not on his?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending motion is to waive the point of 
order against the Ensign second-degree amendment.
  Mr. ENZI. That will be what the debate is on? I thought debate did 
not happen once the germaneness was entered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the order was changed.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, now that we have been through all that, 
just to restate, the managers of the underlying amendment believe their 
proposal is constitutional. But the lawyers for the private schools, 
the ones who have looked at this, believe they could not accept the aid 
in a constitutional manner, that people will be able to bring a court 
case against them and that they would lose if they did not change the 
way they do their instruction. They have a moral, religious-based 
instruction. They believe they would have to change it.
  Our amendment clearly makes the way they receive the funds 
constitutional. We both want to provide help for those people who have 
been displaced, for those schools that have taken in these displaced 
students. We both want to have the help go. What we want to do, though, 
is allow the private schools to function as they have been functioning 
in the past. If you are a Catholic school, you would be able to 
function as a Catholic school functions and not be penalized for that 
because you have taken in these displaced students and are getting some 
Federal aid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I guess there have been a lot of 
constitutional lawyers involved in all of this. I certainly want people 
to know we also conferred with constitutional lawyers and found a way 
to be able to do, on a one-time emergency basis, what needs to be done 
properly for the kids of Katrina and for any other major event where we 
have a large number of displaced students. But this one just deals with 
the one-time emergency event. It is constitutional. It does not, 
however, as Senator Ensign would like to do, resolve the voucher issue, 
and it does not resolve the faith-based initiative issue. But it does 
get help to kids, and that is what we are trying to do with all the 
education amendments we have today.
  I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as the chairman of the committee has 
pointed out, we have reviewed and cleared this with constitutional 
authorities. This is an indirect way of providing help and assistance 
to the children. The alternative is effectively a voucher program. We 
have tried to stay clear from ideological fixes on this.
  Let's treat the children with respect and the schools with respect 
and in the generosity with which they have treated these children. I 
hope the amendment will be defeated.

[[Page 24664]]


  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I would like to talk about the Enzi-
Kennedy amendment to S. 1932, the deficit reduction bill. We all want 
to do the right thing and help the hundreds of thousands of students 
displaced by Hurricane Katrina. Just a few weeks after the tragic 
events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, I came to the floor of the Senate 
and offered an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations 
bill to assist students and schools impacted by Hurricane Katrina. I 
also cosponsored a bill with Senators Enzi and Kennedy, S. 1715, to 
assist schools and students impacted by Katrina. But I have tremendous 
concerns about the amendment before us today.
  This amendment sets up an unworkable mechanism to assist displaced 
students attending private schools. It requires states to funnel 
Federal dollars to local school districts to establish private accounts 
to pay the tuition to private schools. In contrast, current law 
provides a reasonable mechanism for local school districts to assist 
students attending private schools, called equitable participation, 
without establishing a national voucher program. I support efforts to 
use equitable participation to assist private schools serving these 
displaced students. Unfortunately, this amendment fails to use this 
mechanism. At the same time, it establishes the first national voucher 
program. Accordingly, along with educators, school boards, principals, 
teacher unions, and many civil rights and faith-based organizations, I 
must oppose this provision.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, while the Enzi-Kennedy amendment passed on 
a voice vote, I want the record to reflect my opposition to this 
amendment.
  We have all seen the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and 
I certainly understand and share my colleagues' desire to address the 
needs of displaced school children.
  Unfortunately, this amendment, which frankly is more than 2 months 
overdue, falls far short of the help needed for the affected families 
and public schools. It falls short financially, since it provides less 
money than these schools need in order to re-open and serve the 
children of the Gulf Coast. It also falls short constitutionally by 
making payments to private religious schools on behalf of students who 
fled these hurricanes and are now attending such schools across the 
country.
  Now, I understand that these hurricanes did not differentiate between 
public and private school students, and that we need to be able to 
provide some assistance for all students affected by them. However, 
this amendment is not the answer. As my colleagues are very well aware, 
we currently have a mechanism in current law to provide support to 
students in private schools. We do it every day under Title I and Title 
V of NCLB, and under IDEA.
  These children should have been helped over 2 months ago with the 
funding mechanisms we already have in place. That is why this amendment 
is not about getting help to these students. This is about using these 
students' needs as a pawn to further the Republican agenda of vouchers.
  In addition, we are doing a disservice to families displaced by 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita by not informing them that this assistance 
is just for this school year. No where in this legislation is there a 
requirement that parents be notified that this assistance is temporary 
and that it will not be renewed beyond August 2006. Instead of being 
fair to these parents by providing them with transparent information, 
this amendment fails to include a provision to notify parents that this 
assistance is time-limited. We have an obligation to inform parents 
receiving this assistance that this funding is a one-time deal. Without 
clear language on this point, language which I suggested to the 
sponsors of the amendment, parents will have an unfounded expectation 
that this aid will be there next year and perhaps even for years to 
come. These families are settling down in new communities, and they may 
lack the resources, ability, or desire to go back to the gulf coast.
  Of course, we want to help families in their moment of need and 
distress. I understand my colleague, Senator Landrieu's position on 
this matter, and her sincere desire to help her constituents. I too 
believe this assistance to schools, both public and private, is 
important, needed, and appropriate. But this amendment could and should 
have been structured in a way that contains clear notification 
requirements and that mirrors current law.
  This legislation is not the direction we should be heading. This 
legislation is a stalking horse for a national voucher program. At the 
same time, it provides less funding than is needed to repair and fund 
our devastated public schools. It provides very little accountability 
for the use of taxpayers' funds and provides little or no enforcement 
of the civil rights protections that would exist if money were sent 
through existing funding mechanisms.
  I want to thank Senators Enzi, Alexander, Kennedy, and Dodd, because 
I know that they have worked very hard to improve this amendment, and I 
appreciate their efforts. I urge my colleagues to continue to work to 
address the concerns I have raised as this bill moves forward.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I support the Enzi amendment. This 
amendment would provide $1.6 billion in emergency funding to address 
the desperate funding needs of schools who have taken in displaced 
Katrina students and the schools that have been damaged or destroyed by 
the hurricane.
  Over 2 months ago, hundreds of thousands of children in the gulf 
region were displaced from their homes, their communities, and their 
local schools. Neighboring communities have welcomed these students 
with open arms. It is only fair to provide school districts the funds 
necessary to educate and care for dislocated students left in the wake 
of Hurricane Katrina.
  I know some are concerned about funding for displaced students who 
are attending private schools. However, this provision is carefully 
crafted to ensure that funding flows directly to school districts, much 
like similar provisions in Title I and special education. This program 
will not set up a national school voucher program. Rather, it simply 
ensures, on a temporary, one-time basis, that all students in need and 
schools that take them in have access to the relief they need. In this 
extraordinary circumstance, I believe that this provision takes a 
balanced approach, and we will continue to monitor its implementation.
  It is my hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the Enzi 
amendment, thereby supporting students who became displaced through no 
fault of their own.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result yeas and nays resulted--yeas 31, nays 68, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 284 Leg.]

                                YEAS--31

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--68

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama

[[Page 24665]]


     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 31, the nays are 68. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2352, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, the next amendment is the Enzi amendment. 
I ask that we move immediately to a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2352), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, the next amendment is the Lincoln 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that all votes on additional 
amendments be 10 minutes.
  We are going to clarify the issue of second-degree amendments that we 
just went through because, under the rule, all time has to expire on 
debate on the first degree before you can debate a second degree or 
offer it. That is why we had the confusion before. We are going to 
adjust that through this unanimous consent request.
  I ask unanimous consent that for the purposes of today's votes, all 
second-degree amendments must be offered prior to beginning the 2 
minutes of debate on the underlying first-degree amendment. Before the 
Chair rules, as a clarification, this will now mandate that second-
degree amendments must be offered before we begin the 2-minute debate 
on the first degree. We would then have 2 minutes of debate on the 
second degree, both in relationship to the second degree, and then have 
2 minutes of debate on the first degree prior to the vote in 
relationship to that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I would say to Senators 
who are in the back of the Chamber, who are most interested in this 
question, this is a good time to hear what is being done to correct 
what occurred previously. What occurred previously was, under the rule, 
all time had to expire on the first-degree amendment before a second-
degree amendment could be offered. Under the interpretation of the 
Chair, that included the 2 minutes of debate on the first-degree 
amendment. Now what we are doing is modifying that through unanimous 
consent agreement so if someone offers a second degree, they have to 
offer it before the 2 minutes of debate on the first degree. Then we 
will be able to have 2 minutes of debate on the second degree, a vote 
on the second degree. Then, in consideration of the first degree, we 
will be able to have the 2 minutes of debate in conjunction with it. 
For the interest of our colleagues, that is what is being done.
  We should take this moment, as well, to say to our colleagues, we 
have 35 amendments filed. That would take 12 hours of straight voting. 
We have to end today at 6 o'clock, which would mean we would be in 
tomorrow for at least 4 hours. I ask our colleagues to show restraint 
on calling up amendments that have been filed. We have had a good 
debate on this matter. It has been an absolutely fair debate in terms 
of how we have been treated with respect to amendments being offered. 
We really don't need to have 35 amendments offered to this measure. I 
urge my colleagues to show restraint.
  I will not object.
  Mr. GREGG. I also renew my request that votes on additional 
amendments be 10-minute votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. The next amendment is that of Senator Lincoln.


                    Amendment No. 2356, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate evenly 
divided on the Lincoln amendment.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I modify my amendment with the 
language that is currently at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title VI, add the following:

  CHAPTER 7--EMERGENCY HEALTH CARE AND OTHER RELIEF FOR SURVIVORS OF 
                           HURRICANE KATRINA

               Subchapter A--Emergency Health Care Relief

     SEC. 6081. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subchapter:
       (1) Direct impact parish or county.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``direct impact parish or 
     county'' means a parish in the State of Louisiana, or a 
     county in the State of Mississippi or Alabama, for which a 
     major disaster has been declared in accordance with section 
     401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) as a result of Hurricane 
     Katrina and which the President has determined, before 
     September 14, 2005, warrants individual and public assistance 
     from the Federal Government under such Act.
       (B) Exclusion.--Such term does not include a parish in the 
     State of Louisiana or a county in the State of Mississippi or 
     Alabama which the President has determined warrants only 
     public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act 
     as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
       (C) Authority to rely on web site posted designations.--The 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall post on the 
     Internet Web site for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
     Services a list of parishes and counties identified as direct 
     impact parishes or counties in accordance with this 
     paragraph. Any such parish or county that is posted on such 
     Web site as a direct impact parish or county shall be treated 
     for purposes of subparagraph (A) as described in such 
     subparagraph.
       (2) DRM assistance.--The term ``DRM assistance'' means the 
     short-term, non-cash, temporary, in-kind, emergency disaster 
     relief health program established under section 6082 to 
     assist Katrina Survivors in accordance with that section.
       (3) DRM coverage period.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``DRM coverage period'' means the 
     period beginning on August 28, 2005, and, subject to 
     subparagraph (B), ending on the date that is 5 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) Authority to extend drm coverage period.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary may extend the DRM coverage 
     period for an additional 5 months. Any reference to the term 
     ``DRM coverage period'' in this subchapter shall include any 
     extension under this clause.
       (ii) Notice to congress and states.--The Secretary shall 
     notify the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader 
     of the House of Representatives, the Chairs and Ranking 
     Members of the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the 
     Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives, and the States at least 45 days 
     prior to--

       (I) extending the DRM coverage period; or
       (II) if the Secretary determines not to extend such period, 
     the ending date described in subparagraph (A).

       (4) Katrina survivor.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Katrina Survivor'' means an 
     individual who is described in subparagraph (B) or (C).
       (B) Residents and evacuees of direct impact parishes and 
     counties.--An individual who, on any day during the week 
     preceding August 28, 2005, had a primary residence in a 
     direct impact parish or county.
       (C) Individuals who lost employment.--An individual whose--
       (i) worksite, on any day during the week preceding August 
     28, 2005, was located in a direct impact parish or county; 
     and
       (ii) employment with an employer which conducted an active 
     trade or business on August 28, 2005, in a direct impact 
     parish or county and with respect to whom such trade or 
     business is inoperable on any day after August 28, 2005, and 
     before January 1, 2006, as a result of damage sustained in 
     connection with Hurricane Katrina, is terminated.
       (D) Treatment of current medicaid beneficiaries.--Nothing 
     in this subchapter shall be construed as preventing an 
     individual who is otherwise entitled to medical assistance 
     under title XIX of the Social Security Act from being treated 
     as a Katrina Survivor under this subchapter.
       (E) Treatment of homeless persons.--For purposes of this 
     subchapter, in the case of an

[[Page 24666]]

     individual who was homeless on any day during the week 
     described in subparagraph (B), the individual's ``residence'' 
     shall be deemed to be the place of residence as otherwise 
     determined for such an individual under title XIX of the 
     Social Security Act.
       (5) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 2110(c)(5) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(c)(5)).
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given that 
     term for purposes of title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C 1396 et seq.).
       (8) State medicaid plan.--The term ``State Medicaid plan'' 
     means a State plan for medical assistance under title XIX of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), including 
     any medical assistance provided under a waiver of such plan.

     SEC. 6082. DISASTER RELIEF MEDICAID.

       (a) Authority To Provide Disaster Relief Medicaid.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of title XIX 
     of the Social Security Act, a State shall, as a condition of 
     participation in the Medicaid program established under title 
     XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), 
     provide medical assistance to DRM-eligible Katrina Survivors 
     (as defined in subsection (b)) under a State Medicaid plan 
     during the DRM coverage period in accordance with the 
     following provisions of this section.
       (2) Authority to provide drm assistance as separate 
     component of regular state medicaid plan or under such 
     plan.--
       (A) In general.--A State may provide DRM assistance without 
     submitting an amendment to the State Medicaid plan and as a 
     separate component of the State Medicaid plan or, subject to 
     subparagraph (B), under such plan.
       (B) Conditions for provision of drm assistance under 
     regular state medicaid plan.--A State may only provide DRM 
     assistance under the State Medicaid plan if the State 
     provides such assistance in accordance with the requirements 
     of this section and the State is able to separately identify 
     and report expenditures or other information attributable to 
     the provision of such assistance.
       (b) DRM-Eligible Katrina Survivor Defined.--
       (1) In general.--In this section, the term ``DRM-eligible 
     Katrina Survivor'' means a Katrina Survivor whose family 
     income does not exceed the higher of--
       (A) 100 percent (200 percent, in the case of such a 
     Survivor who is a pregnant woman or child) of the poverty 
     line; or
       (B) the income eligibility standard which would apply to 
     the Survivor under the State Medicaid plan.
       (2) Special rule for katrina survivors who are recipients 
     of disability insurance benefits.--In the case of a Katrina 
     Survivor who is a recipient of disability insurance benefits 
     under section 202 or 223 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 402, 423), paragraph (1) shall be applied to such 
     Survivor by substituting ``300 percent of the supplemental 
     security income benefit rate established by section 
     1611(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1382(b)(1))'' for subparagraph (A) of such paragraph.
       (3) No resources, residency, or categorical eligibility 
     requirements.--Eligibility under paragraph (1) shall be 
     determined without application of any resources test, State 
     residency, or categorical eligibility requirements.
       (4) Income determination.--
       (A) Least restrictive income methodologies; prospective 
     determination.--The State shall use the least restrictive 
     methodologies applied under the State Medicaid plan under 
     section 1902(r)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(r)(2)) in determining income eligibility for Katrina 
     Survivors under paragraph (1) and shall determine family 
     income for such Survivors only prospectively from the date of 
     application.
       (B) Disregard of ui compensation and disaster relief 
     assistance.--In determining such income eligibility, the 
     State shall disregard--
       (i) any amount received under a law of the United States or 
     of a State which is in the nature of unemployment 
     compensation by a Katrina Survivor during the DRM coverage 
     period, including unemployment assistance provided under 
     section 410 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5177); and
       (ii) any assistance provided (in cash or in kind) to a 
     Katrina Survivor from any public or private entity as a 
     result of Hurricane Katrina.
       (5) Definition of child.--For purposes of paragraph (1), a 
     DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor shall be determined to be a 
     ``child'' if such Survivor meets the definition of ``child'' 
     under the State Medicaid plan.
       (6) Certain individuals deemed to be drm-eligible katrina 
     survivors.--
       (A) In general.--Upon submission of an application from an 
     individual attesting that the individual is an individual 
     described in any of the categories described in subparagraph 
     (B), or, if an individual is an individual described in 
     subparagraph (C), the State shall deem the individual to be a 
     DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor for purposes of eligibility for 
     DRM assistance during the DRM coverage period.
       (B) Categories described.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the categories described in this subparagraph are the 
     following:
       (i) Katrina survivors enrolled in a state medicaid plan as 
     of the beginning of the drm coverage period.--Any Katrina 
     Survivor who can provide proof of enrollment in a State 
     Medicaid plan as of August 28, 2005.
       (ii) Katrina survivors who are recipients of unemployment 
     compensation.--Any Katrina Survivor who, during the DRM 
     coverage period, is a recipient of an amount paid under a law 
     of the United States or of a State which is in the nature of 
     unemployment compensation, including unemployment assistance 
     provided under section 410 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5177).
       (iii) Katrina survivors enrolled in drm assistance in 
     another state.--Any Katrina Survivor determined by another 
     State to be a DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor who was enrolled 
     in DRM assistance in that State and who relocates to the 
     State during the DRM coverage period.
       (C) Katrina survivors provided medical assistance prior to 
     date of enactment.--
       (i) In general.--An individual described in this 
     subparagraph is any Katrina Survivor who is provided medical 
     assistance under a State Medicaid plan in accordance with 
     guidance from the Secretary during the period that begins on 
     August 28, 2005, and ends on the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (ii) Nonapplication to child health assistance.--In the 
     case of an individual who is a Katrina Survivor who is 
     provided child health assistance under a State child health 
     plan in accordance with guidance from the Secretary during 
     the period described in clause (i), such individual shall not 
     be deemed to be a DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor for purposes 
     of receiving DRM assistance under this section. Nothing in 
     the preceding sentence shall be construed as prohibiting such 
     an individual from submitting an application for DRM 
     assistance.
       (c) Eligibility Determination; No Continuation of DRM 
     Assistance.--
       (1) Streamlined eligibility process.--The State shall use 
     the following streamlined procedures in processing 
     applications and determining eligibility for DRM assistance 
     for DRM-eligible Katrina Survivors and eligibility for the 
     payment of private health insurance premiums under section 
     107(b)(2)(A):
       (A) One-page application.--A common 1-page application form 
     developed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in 
     consultation with the National Association of State Medicaid 
     Directors. Such form shall--
       (i) require an applicant to provide an expected address for 
     the duration of the DRM coverage period and to agree to 
     update that information if it changes during such period;
       (ii) include notice regarding the penalties for making a 
     fraudulent application under subsection (h);
       (iii) require the applicant to assign to the State any 
     rights of the applicant (or any other person who is a DRM-
     eligible Katrina Survivor and on whose behalf the applicant 
     has the legal authority to execute an assignment of such 
     rights) under any group health plan or other third-party 
     coverage for health care;
       (iv) require the applicant to--

       (I) list any health insurance coverage which the applicant 
     was enrolled in immediately prior to submitting such 
     application; and
       (II) indicate whether the applicant would rather receive 
     DRM assistance from a State in accordance with this section 
     or, if private health insurance is available, assistance in 
     paying the premiums for such health insurance under section 
     6088(b)(2)(A); and

       (v) be translated by the Secretary into languages other 
     than English, and in cultural contexts, that are most 
     appropriate for the applicants expected to submit such forms.
       (B) Self-attestation.--Self-attestation by the applicant 
     that the applicant--
       (i) is a DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor; and
       (ii) if applicable, requires home and community-based 
     services provided under such DRM assistance in accordance 
     with subsection (d)(3).
       (C) No documentation.--The State shall not require 
     documentation evidencing the basis on which the applicant 
     qualifies to be a DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor or, if 
     applicable, requires home and community-based services.
       (D) Issuance of eligibility card.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), the State shall, 
     immediately upon submission of a complete application 
     (including the self-attestation required under subparagraph 
     (B)) by an applicant, issue a DRM assistance eligibility card 
     to the applicant.
       (ii) Validity; notice of termination date.--A DRM 
     assistance eligibility card shall be valid as long as the DRM 
     coverage period is in effect and shall be accompanied by 
     notice of the termination date for the DRM coverage period 
     and, if applicable, notice that such termination date may be 
     extended. If the Secretary extends the DRM coverage period, 
     the State shall notify DRM-eligible Katrina Survivors 
     enrolled in DRM

[[Page 24667]]

     assistance of the new termination date for the DRM coverage 
     period.
       (iii) Application to states that elect to provide drm 
     assistance under the regular state medicaid plan.--In the 
     case of a State that elects under subsection (a)(2) to 
     provide DRM assistance under the State Medicaid plan, the 
     State may issue to an applicant who submits a complete 
     application an eligibility card that is similar to the cards 
     issued by the State to enrollees in the State medicaid plan, 
     but only if the State is able to adapt the card in a manner 
     which clearly identifies that the applicant is eligible for 
     DRM assistance and provides notice of the termination date 
     for the DRM coverage period (and the new termination date 
     applicable if the Secretary extends such coverage period).
       (E) Application for medical assistance under regular state 
     medicaid plan.--Concurrent with the issuance of an 
     eligibility card under subparagraph (D), the State shall 
     provide the applicant with an application for medical 
     assistance under the State Medicaid plan.
       (F) Presumptive eligibility.--
       (i) States that provide for presumptive eligibility under 
     the regular state medicaid plan.--In the case of a State 
     that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, provides for a 
     period of presumptive eligibility under the State Medicaid 
     plan in accordance with section 1920, 1920A, or 1920B of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-1, 1396r-1a, 1396r-1b), 
     the State shall deem an applicant to be a DRM-eligible 
     Katrina Survivor eligible for DRM assistance in accordance 
     with this section, subject to subsection (g), if the 
     applicant completes an application for such assistance, 
     presents it to a provider or facility participating in the 
     State Medicaid plan that is qualified to make presumptive 
     eligibility determinations under such plan (which at a 
     minimum shall consist of facilities identified in section 
     1902(a)(55) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(55)), and it appears to the provider or facility 
     that the applicant is a DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor based 
     on the information in the application.
       (ii) Application to states that do not provide presumptive 
     eligibility under the regular state medicaid plan.--In the 
     case of a State which does not provide for a period of 
     presumptive eligibility under the State medicaid plan, the 
     State may elect to provide for a period of presumptive 
     eligibility for DRM assistance by designating qualified 
     providers (as defined in section 1920(b)(2) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396r-1(b)(2)) as providers that are specifically 
     designated by the State to make presumptive determinations in 
     accordance with clause (i) with respect to eligibility for 
     such assistance, but only if--

       (I) the State elects to provide for a period of presumptive 
     eligibility for such assistance for all Katrina Survivors who 
     may be DRM-eligible Katrina Survivors in accordance with 
     subsection (b); and
       (II) the qualified providers designated by the State to 
     make determinations of presumptive eligibility for such 
     assistance, at a minimum, consistent of facilities identified 
     in section 1902(a)(55) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(55)) that are qualified providers under section 
     1920(b)(2) of such Act.

       (G) Continuous eligibility.--Continuous eligibility, 
     without the need for any redetermination of eligibility, for 
     the duration of the DRM coverage period.
       (2) No continuation of drm assistance.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), no DRM assistance shall be provided after the end of 
     the DRM coverage period.
       (B) Presumptive eligibility for medical assistance under 
     regular medicaid plan.--
       (i) In general.--If a State, as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act, provides for a period of presumptive eligibility 
     for medical assistance under the State Medicaid plan in 
     accordance with section 1920, 1920A, or 1920B of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-1, 1396r-1a, 1396r-1b), the 
     State shall provide a DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor who is 
     receiving DRM assistance from the State in accordance with 
     this section and who, as of the end of the DRM coverage 
     period, is an individual for whom a period of presumptive 
     eligibility would be provided under the State Medicaid plan, 
     with presumptive eligibility for medical assistance under the 
     State Medicaid plan.
       (ii) State option to provide presumptive eligibility.--If a 
     State is a State to which clause (i) does not apply, the 
     State may elect to provide for a period of presumptive 
     eligibility for medical assistance under the State Medicaid 
     plan for a DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor who is receiving DRM 
     assistance from the State in accordance with this section and 
     who, as of the end of the DRM coverage period, is an 
     individual for whom a period of presumptive eligibility would 
     be provided under the State Medicaid plan in accordance with 
     section 1920, 1920A, or 1920B of such Act, if the State were 
     to provide such a period of presumptive eligibility under the 
     State Medicaid plan.
       (iii) State option for all states to provide presumptive 
     eligibility to other populations of drm-eligible katrina 
     survivors.--In addition to the populations of DRM-eligible 
     Katrina Survivors described in clauses (i) and (ii), a State 
     to which clause (i) or (ii) applies, may elect to provide for 
     a period of presumptive eligibility for medical assistance 
     under the State Medicaid plan for other DRM-eligible Katrina 
     Survivors who are receiving DRM assistance from the State in 
     accordance with this section as of the end of the DRM 
     coverage period.
       (iv) Length of period.--A presumptive eligibility period 
     provided in accordance with clause (i), (ii), or (iii) shall 
     be provided until the earlier of--

       (I) the date on which a determination with respect to the 
     Survivor's application for medical assistance under the State 
     Medicaid plan is made; or
       (II) the end of the 60-day period that begins on the first 
     day after the end of the DRM coverage period.

       (C) Pregnant women.--In the case of a DRM-eligible Katrina 
     Survivor who is receiving DRM assistance from a State in 
     accordance with this section and whose pregnancy ended during 
     the 60-day period prior to the end of the DRM coverage 
     period, or who is pregnant as of the end of such period, such 
     Survivor shall continue to be eligible for DRM assistance 
     after the end of the DRM coverage period, including (but not 
     limited to) for all pregnancy-related and postpartum medical 
     assistance available under the State Medicaid plan, through 
     the end of the month in which the 60-day period (beginning on 
     the last day of her pregnancy) ends.
       (d) Scope of Coverage.--
       (1) Categorically needy benefits.--The State shall treat a 
     DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor as an individual eligible for 
     medical assistance under the State plan under title XIX of 
     the Social Security Act on the basis of section 
     1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)), with coverage for such assistance 
     retroactive to items and services furnished on or after 
     August 28, 2005 (or in the case of applications for DRM 
     assistance submitted after January 1, 2006, the first day of 
     the 5th month preceding the date on which such application is 
     submitted).
       (2) Extended mental health and care coordination 
     benefits.--The State may provide, without regard to any 
     restrictions on amount, duration, and scope, comparability, 
     or restrictions otherwise applicable under the State Medicaid 
     plan (other than restrictions applicable under such plan with 
     respect to services provided in an institution for mental 
     diseases), to DRM-eligible Katrina Survivors extended mental 
     health and care coordination benefits which may include the 
     following:
       (A) Screening, assessment, and diagnostic services 
     (including specialized assessments for individuals with 
     cognitive impairments).
       (B) Coverage for a full range of mental health medications 
     at the dosages and frequencies prescribed by health 
     professionals for depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, 
     and other mental disorders.
       (C) Treatment of alcohol and substance abuse.
       (D) Psychotherapy, rehabilitation, and other treatments 
     administered by psychiatrists, psychologists, or social 
     workers.
       (E) Subject to restrictions applicable under the State 
     Medicaid plan with respect to services provided in an 
     institution for mental diseases, in-patient mental health 
     care.
       (F) Family counseling.
       (G) In connection with the provision of health and long-
     term care services, arranging for, (and when necessary, 
     enrollment in waiver programs or other specialized programs), 
     and coordination related to, primary and specialty medical 
     care, which may include personal care services, durable 
     medical equipment and supplies, assistive technology, and 
     transportation.
       (3) Home and community-based services.--
       (A) In general.--In the case of a State with a waiver to 
     provide home and community-based services granted under 
     section 1115 of the Social Security Act or under subsection 
     (c) or (d) of section 1915 of such Act, the State may provide 
     such services to DRM-eligible Katrina Survivors who self-
     attest in accordance with subsection (c)(1)(B)(ii) that they 
     require immediate home and community-based services that are 
     available under such waiver without regard to whether the 
     Survivors would require the level of care provided in a 
     hospital, nursing facility, or intermediate care facility for 
     the mentally retarded. Such DRM-eligible Katrina Survivors 
     include (but are not limited to) individuals described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       (B) Individuals described.--Individuals described in this 
     subparagraph are individuals who--
       (i) on any day during the week preceding August 28, 2005--

       (I) had been receiving home and community-based services 
     under a waiver described in subparagraph (A) in a direct 
     impact parish or county;
       (II) had been receiving support services from a primary 
     family caregiver who, as a result of Hurricane Katrina, is no 
     longer available to provide services; or
       (III) had been receiving personal care, home health, or 
     rehabilitative services under the State Medicaid plan or 
     under a waiver granted under section 1915 or 1115 of the 
     Social Security Act; or

       (ii) are disabled (as determined under the State Medicaid 
     plan).

[[Page 24668]]

       (B) Waiver of restrictions.--The Secretary shall waive with 
     respect to the provision of home and community-based services 
     under this paragraph any limitations on--
       (i) the number of individuals who shall receive home or 
     community-based services under a waiver described in 
     subparagraph (A);
       (ii) budget neutrality requirements applicable to such 
     waiver; and
       (iii) targeted populations eligible for services under such 
     waiver.

     The Secretary may waive other restrictions applicable under 
     such a waiver, that would prevent a State from providing home 
     and community-based services in accordance with this 
     paragraph.
       (4) Children born to pregnant women.--In the case of a 
     child born to a DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor who is provided 
     DRM assistance during the DRM coverage period, such child 
     shall be treated as having been born to a pregnant woman 
     eligible for medical assistance under the State Medicaid plan 
     and shall be eligible for medical assistance under such plan 
     in accordance with section 1902(e)(4) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(4)). The Federal medical assistance 
     percentage applicable to the State Medicaid plan shall apply 
     to medical assistance provided to a child under such plan in 
     accordance with the preceding sentence.
       (e) Termination of Coverage; Assistance With Applying for 
     Regular Medicaid Coverage.--
       (1) Notice of expected termination of drm coverage 
     period.--A State shall provide DRM-eligible Katrina Survivors 
     who are receiving DRM assistance from the State in accordance 
     with this section, as of the beginning of the 4th month (and, 
     if applicable, 9th month) of the DRM coverage period with--
       (A) notice of the expected termination date for DRM 
     assistance for such period and, if applicable, any extension 
     of the DRM coverage period and the expected termination date 
     for the extension of such period;
       (B) information regarding eligibility for medical 
     assistance under the State's eligibility rules otherwise 
     applicable under the State Medicaid plan; and
       (C) an application for such assistance and information 
     regarding where to obtain assistance with completing such 
     application in accordance with paragraph (2).
       (2) Application assistance.--A State shall provide DRM-
     eligible Katrina Survivors who are receiving DRM assistance 
     from the State in accordance with this section with 
     assistance in applying for medical assistance under the State 
     Medicaid plan for periods beginning after the end of the DRM 
     coverage period, at State Medicaid offices and at locations 
     easily accessible to such Survivors.
       (3) State reports.--A State providing DRM assistance in 
     accordance with this section shall submit to the Secretary 
     the following reports:
       (A) Termination and transition assistance to regular 
     medicaid coverage for drm-eligible katrina survivors eligible 
     for such assistance.--Not later than the last day of the 3rd 
     month of the DRM coverage period, a report detailing how the 
     State intends to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (1) 
     and (2).
       (B) Enrollment.--Not later than 3 months after the end of 
     the DRM coverage period, a report regarding--
       (i) the number of Katrina Survivors who are determined to 
     be DRM-eligible Katrina Survivors; and
       (ii) the number of DRM-eligible Katrina Survivors who are 
     determined to be eligible for, and enrolled in, the State 
     Medicaid plan.
       (4) Secretarial oversight.--The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall ensure that a State is complying with 
     the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) and that 
     applications for medical assistance under the State Medicaid 
     plan from DRM-eligible Katrina Survivors for periods 
     beginning after the end of the DRM coverage period are 
     processed in a timely and appropriate manner.
       (5) No private right of action against a state for failure 
     to provide notice.--No private right of action shall be 
     brought against a State for failure to provide the notices 
     required under paragraph (1) or subsection (c)(1) so long as 
     the State makes a good faith effort to provide such notices.
       (f) 100 Percent Federal Matching Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 1905(b) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b), the Federal medical 
     assistance percentage or the Federal matching rate otherwise 
     applied under section 1903(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396b(a)) shall be 100 percent for--
       (A) providing DRM assistance to DRM-eligible Katrina 
     Survivors during the DRM coverage period in accordance with 
     this section;
       (B) costs directly attributable to administrative 
     activities related to the provision of such DRM assistance, 
     including costs attributable to obtaining recoveries under 
     subsection (h);
       (C) costs directly attributable to providing application 
     assistance in accordance with subsection (e)(2); and
       (D) medical assistance provided in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B) of subsection (c)(2), and DRM assistance 
     provided in accordance with subparagraph (C) of that 
     subsection, after the end of the DRM coverage period.
       (2) Inclusion of assistance provided to katrina survivors 
     prior to date of enactment.--Any assistance provided to a 
     Katrina Survivor under a State Medicaid plan in accordance 
     with guidance from the Secretary during the period that 
     begins on August 28, 2005, and ends on the date of enactment 
     of this Act, shall be treated as a DRM assistance provided to 
     a DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor during the DRM coverage 
     period for purposes of paragraph (1).
       (3) 100 percent federal matching payments for costs for 
     providing child health assistance prior to date of enactment; 
     restoration of allotments used to provide such assistance.--
     With respect to child health assistance for items and 
     services furnished during the period described in paragraph 
     (2) to a Katrina Survivor--
       (A) notwithstanding section 2105(b) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(b)), the Federal matching rate for 
     providing such child health assistance under a State child 
     health plan and for costs directly attributable to all 
     administrative activities that relate to the provision of 
     such child health assistance, shall be 100 percent;
       (B) payments to a State for the provision of such 
     assistance shall not be considered to be payments from an 
     allotment for the State under section 2104 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C 1397dd); and
       (C) any payments that were made to a State for the 
     provision of such assistance prior to such date of enactment, 
     shall be disregarded for purposes of determining the 
     unexpended amount of any allotment available for expenditure 
     by the State under that section.
       (4) Disregard of payments.--Payments provided to a State in 
     accordance with this subsection shall be disregarded for 
     purposes of applying subsections (f) and (g) of section 1108 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1308).
       (g) Verification of Status as a Katrina Survivor.--
       (1) In general.--The State shall make a good faith effort 
     to verify the status of an individual who is enrolled in the 
     State Medicaid plan as a DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor under 
     the provisions of this section. Such effort shall not delay 
     the determination of the eligibility of the Survivor for DRM 
     assistance under this section or the provision of such 
     assistance to the Survivor.
       (2) Evidence of verification.--A State may satisfy the 
     verification requirement under subparagraph (A) with respect 
     to an individual by showing that the State providing DRM 
     assistance obtained information from the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency, the Social Security Administration, the 
     Internal Revenue Service, or the State Medicaid Agency for 
     the State from which individual is from (if the individual 
     was not a resident of such State on any day during the week 
     preceding August 28, 2005).
       (h) Penalty for Fraudulent Applications.--
       (1) Individual liable for costs.--If a State, as the result 
     of verification activities conducted under subsection (g) or 
     otherwise, determines after a fair hearing that an individual 
     has knowingly made a false self-attestation described in 
     subsection (c)(1)(B), the State may, subject to paragraph 
     (2), seek recovery from the individual for the full amount of 
     the cost of DRM assistance provided to the individual under 
     this section.
       (2) Exception.--The Secretary shall exempt a State from 
     seeking recovery under paragraph (1) if the Secretary 
     determines that it would not be cost-effective for the State 
     to do so.
       (3) Reimbursement to the federal government.--Any amounts 
     recovered by a State in accordance with this subsection shall 
     be returned to the Federal government.
       (i) Exemption from Error Rate Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--All payments attributable to providing DRM 
     assistance in accordance with this section, including during 
     a period of presumptive eligibility for such assistance in 
     accordance with subsection (c)(1)(F), shall be disregarded 
     for purposes of section 1903(u) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396b(u)).
       (2) Application of error rate penalties for presumptive 
     eligibility periods for medical assistance after the end of 
     the drm coverage period.--The rules for application of such 
     section under the State Medicaid plan, as in effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, shall apply with respect to 
     any period of presumptive eligibility for medical assistance 
     under such plan provided by a State in accordance with 
     subsection (c)(2)(B).
       (j) Provider Payment Rates.--In the case of any DRM 
     assistance provided in accordance with this section to a DRM-
     eligible Katrina Survivor that is covered under the State 
     Medicaid plan (as applied without regard to this section) the 
     State shall pay a provider of such assistance the same 
     payment rate as the State would otherwise pay for the 
     assistance if the assistance were provided under the State 
     Medicaid plan (or, if no such payment rate applies under the 
     State Medicaid plan, the usual and customary prevailing rate 
     for the item or service for the community in which it is 
     provided).

[[Page 24669]]

       (k) Application to Individuals Eligible for Medical 
     Assistance.--Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
     affecting any rights accorded to an individual who is a 
     recipient of medical assistance under a State Medicaid plan 
     who is determined to be a DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor, but 
     the provision of DRM assistance to such individual shall be 
     limited to the provision of such assistance in accordance 
     with this section.
       (l) No Entitlement to Regular Medical Assistance Solely On 
     the Basis of Receipt of DRM Assistance or In the Absence of a 
     New Application for Medical Assistance.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraphs (3) and (8) of section 1902(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)), and section 435.930(b) of 
     title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, subject to 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (c)(2), and 
     subsection (d)(4), nothing in this section shall be construed 
     as providing an individual who is a DRM-eligible Katrina 
     Survivor who receives DRM assistance in accordance with this 
     section, with an entitlement to receive medical assistance 
     under the State Medicaid plan after the end of the DRM 
     coverage period--
       (1) solely on the basis of the individual's receipt of such 
     DRM assistance; or
       (2) in the absence of a new application submitted by such 
     individual for medical assistance under such plan.
       (m) Limitation With Respect to Application to Medicare 
     Prescription Drug Benefit.--In the case of an individual who 
     is a DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor who receives DRM 
     assistance from a State in accordance with this section, and 
     who is eligible for part A of title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c et seq.) or enrolled in part B 
     of title XVIII of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.)--
       (1) the State payment required under section 1935(c) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u-5(c)) shall be determined without 
     regard to the provision of DRM assistance to such individual; 
     and
       (2) such individual shall not be treated as a subsidy 
     eligible individual for purposes of eligibility for the low-
     income subsidies provided under section 1860D-14 of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395w-114) with respect to the prescription drug 
     coverage provided under part D of title XVIII of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395w-101 et seq.), or enrollment in such coverage, 
     solely on the basis of the provision of DRM assistance to 
     such individual.
       (n) No DRM Assistance if the Secretary Is Making Payments 
     on Behalf of the Individual for Private Health Insurance.--A 
     DRM-eligible Katrina Survivor may not receive DRM assistance 
     from a State in accordance with this section during any 
     period in which the Secretary is making a payment for a 
     health insurance premium on behalf of such Survivor under 
     section 6088(b)(2)(A) with respect to that period.

     SEC. 6083. TARGETED MEDICAID RELIEF FOR MAJOR DISASTER 
                   PARISHES AND COUNTIES IN LOUISIANA, 
                   MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA.

       (a) 100 Percent Federal Matching Payments for Medical 
     Assistance Provided in Major Disaster Parish or County.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 1905(b) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)), for items and 
     services furnished during the period that begins on August 
     28, 2005, and ends on August 31, 2006, the Federal medical 
     assistance percentage for providing medical assistance for 
     such items and services under a State Medicaid plan to any 
     individual, including a Katrina Survivor, residing in a major 
     disaster parish or county (as defined in subsection (c)), and 
     for costs directly attributable to all administrative 
     activities that relate to the provision of such medical 
     assistance, shall be 100 percent.
       (2) Application to child health assistance.--
     Notwithstanding section 2105(b) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(b)), for items and services furnished 
     during the period described in subsection (a), the Federal 
     matching rate for providing child health assistance for such 
     items and services under a State child health plan in a major 
     disaster parish or county, and for costs directly 
     attributable to all administrative activities that relate to 
     the provision of such child health assistance, shall be 100 
     percent.
       (b) Moratorium on Redeterminations.--During the DRM 
     coverage period, the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
     Alabama shall not be required to conduct eligibility 
     redeterminations under the State's Medicaid plan.
       (c) Major Disaster Parish or County Defined.--For purposes 
     of subsection (a), a major disaster parish or county is a 
     parish of the State of Louisiana or a county of the State of 
     Mississippi or Alabama for which a major disaster has been 
     declared in accordance with section 401 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170) as a result of Hurricane Katrina and which the 
     President has determined, as of September 14, 2005, warrants 
     individual or public assistance from the Federal Government 
     under such Act.

     SEC. 6084. AUTHORITY TO WAIVE REQUIREMENTS DURING NATIONAL 
                   EMERGENCIES WITH RESPECT TO EVACUEES FROM AN 
                   EMERGENCY AREA.

       (a) In General.--Section 1135(g)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5(g)(1)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``Any geographical area in which the Secretary determines 
     there are a significant number of evacuees from an area that 
     is considered to be an emergency area under the preceding 
     sentence shall be considered to be an `emergency area' for 
     purposes of this section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if enacted on August 28, 2005.

     SEC. 6085. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FOR STATES WITH SIGNIFICANT 
                   NUMBERS OF EVACUEES WITH RESPECT TO THE FEDERAL 
                   MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PERCENTAGE FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                   2006.

       (a) In General.--If the Federal medical assistance 
     percentage (as defined in section 1905(b) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b))) determined for a State 
     described in subsection (b) for fiscal year 2006 is less than 
     the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for such 
     State for fiscal year 2005, the Federal medical assistance 
     percentage for the State for fiscal year 2005 shall apply to 
     the State for fiscal year 2006 for purposes of titles XIX and 
     XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq., 
     1397aa et seq.).
       (b) State Described.--For purposes of subsection (a), a 
     State described in this subsection is a State that, as of 
     September 30, 2005, is hosting at least 10,000 Katrina 
     Survivors described in section 6081(4)(A), as determined on 
     the basis of Federal Emergency Management Authority data.

     SEC. 6086. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE TO MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.

       (a) Exclusion of DRM Coverage Period in Computing Medicare 
     Part B Late Enrollment Period.--In applying the first 
     sentence of section 1839(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395r(b)) in the case of an individual who, on any day 
     during the week preceding August 28, 2005, had a residence in 
     a direct impact parish or county, there shall not be taken 
     into account any month any part of which is within the DRM 
     coverage period.
       (b) Written Plan on Transition of Certain Full-Benefit Dual 
     Eligible Individuals to Prescription Drug Coverage Under 
     Medicare Part D.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 1, 2005, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subsection 
     referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall submit to Congress a 
     written plan on how the Secretary will provide for the 
     transition of coverage of prescription drugs for full-benefit 
     dual eligible individuals (as defined in section 1935(c)(6) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-5(c)(6)) who, on 
     any day during the week preceding August 28, 2005, had a 
     residence in a direct impact parish or county, from the 
     Medicaid program under title XIX of such Act to the Medicare 
     program under part D of title XVIII of such Act.
       (2) Requirements.--The plan shall address issues relating 
     to the following:
       (A) The application of the rules for automatic assignment 
     into prescription drug plans under section 1860D-1(b)(1)(C) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101(b)(1)(C)).
       (B) The communication by the Secretary and sponsors of 
     prescription drug plans to individuals described in paragraph 
     (1) of--
       (i) information regarding such rules; and
       (ii) if such an individual is automatically assigned to a 
     plan, information on the plan.
       (C) Beneficiary protections related to the emergency use of 
     out-of-network and nonformulary benefits, including under 
     circumstances related to a lack of medical records and access 
     to prescribing physicians.
       (D) Any other area determined appropriate by the Secretary.

     SEC. 6087. RELIEF FOR HOSPITALS LOCATED IN A DIRECT IMPACT 
                   PARISH OR COUNTY.

       (a) Increase in Medicare Payments to Hospitals for Bad 
     Debt.--During the DRM coverage period, section 
     1861(v)(1)(T)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(v)(1)(T)(iv)) shall be applied by substituting ``0 
     percent'' for ``30 percent'' with respect to--
       (1) a hospital located in a direct impact parish or county; 
     and
       (2) any other hospital, but only to the extent that the bad 
     debt is related to items and services furnished to an 
     individual who, on any day during the week preceding August 
     28, 2005, had a residence in a direct impact parish or 
     county.
       (b) Waiver of Certain Medicare Quality Reporting 
     Requirements for Hospitals.--During the DRM coverage period, 
     section 1886(b)(3)(B)(vii) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(B)(vii)) shall not apply to a hospital 
     that is located in a direct impact parish or county.

     SEC. 6088. DISASTER RELIEF FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States the Disaster Relief Fund (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Fund'') which--
       (1) shall be administered by the Secretary; and
       (2) shall consist of amounts made available under 
     subsection (h).
       (b) Use of Amounts in Fund.--Amounts in the Fund shall be 
     used by the Secretary for the following:
       (1) Payments to providers.--The Secretary shall make 
     payments directly to medicaid providers described in 
     subsection (e) to

[[Page 24670]]

     offset the costs incurred by such providers as a result of 
     Hurricane Katrina.
       (2) Payments for private health insurance coverage.--The 
     Secretary shall make payments to State insurance 
     commissioners for the purpose of making payments to health 
     insurance issuers--
       (A) on behalf of individuals that would otherwise qualify 
     for DRM assistance from the State under section 6082 but for 
     subsection (n) of such section for such individual's share of 
     their health insurance premium; and
       (B) on behalf of qualified employers for the employer share 
     of their employee's health insurance premiums, but only with 
     respect to the days on which the employer meets the 
     definition under subsection (f).
       (c) Rules for Payments to Providers.--
       (1) Consultation.--In making payments to medicaid providers 
     under subsection (b)(1), the Secretary shall consult with the 
     Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, the Mississippi 
     Department of Health, and the Alabama Department of Public 
     Health in order to best identify the providers with the 
     greatest need of such payments.
       (2) Priority.--In making payments to medicaid providers 
     under subsection (b)(1), the Secretary shall give priority to 
     community-based hospitals, physician practices, and other 
     providers located in a direct impact parish or county where 
     the health care infrastructure was destroyed or nearly 
     destroyed.
       (3) Description of need and how funding will be used.--In 
     order for a medicaid provider to be eligible for a payment 
     under subsection (b)(1), the provider shall provide the 
     Secretary with a description of the need for the funding and 
     how the funding will be used.
       (4) Timing for first payment.--The first payment to 
     medicaid providers under subsection (b)(1) shall be made by 
     not later than 10 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (d) Rules for Payments on Behalf of Individuals for Private 
     Health Insurance.--
       (1) Streamlined eligibility process.--In making payments on 
     behalf of individuals under subsection (b)(2)(A), the 
     Secretary shall use the streamlined eligibility process under 
     section 6082(c)(1).
       (2) No payments if the individual is receiving drm 
     assistance.--No payments may be made on behalf of an 
     individual under subsection (b)(2)(A) with respect to any 
     period in which the individual is receiving DRM assistance 
     from a State under section 6082.
       (e) Medicaid Providers Described.--For purposes of 
     subsection (b)(1), medicaid providers described in this 
     subsection are--
       (1) any provider under such title, including a supplier of 
     medical assistance consisting of durable medical equipment 
     (as defined in section 1861(n) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(n)), that, during a period after August 28, 2005, as 
     determined by the Secretary--
       (A) experiences a significant increase, as determined by 
     the Secretary, in their patient caseload; or
       (B) experiences a significant drop, as determined by the 
     Secretary, in their patient caseload, including a provider 
     that is temporarily closed during such period; and
       (2) any other provider under such title, including such a 
     supplier, determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       (f) Qualified Employer Defined.--For purposes of subsection 
     (b)(2)(B), the term ``qualified employer'' means any 
     employer--
       (1) which conducted an active trade or business on August 
     28, 2005, in a direct impact parish or county; and
       (2) with respect to which the trade or business described 
     in paragraph (1)--
       (A) is inoperable on any day during the DRM coverage period 
     as a result of damage sustained in connection with Hurricane 
     Katrina; or
       (B) is not paying salary or benefits to employees on any 
     day during the DRM coverage period as a result of damage 
     sustained in connection with Hurricane Katrina.
       (g) Expediting Implementation.--The Secretary shall 
     promulgate regulations to carry out this section which may be 
     effective and final immediately on an interim basis as of the 
     date of publication of the interim final regulation. If the 
     Secretary provides for an interim final regulation, the 
     Secretary shall provide for a period of public comments on 
     such regulation after the date of publication. The Secretary 
     may change or revise such regulation after completion of the 
     period of public comment.
       (h) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, there is appropriated to the Fund 
     $800,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, to remain available until 
     expended.
       (i) Application of Appropriations Funding Provisions.--
     Amounts provided in this section for making payments to 
     medicaid providers under subsection (b)(1) shall be governed 
     by the terms of division F of the Consolidated Appropriations 
     Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3112) (or succeeding 
     appropriations measures for a fiscal year) that apply to 
     funding for Grants to States for Medicaid under Title XIX of 
     the Social Security Act.

     SEC. 6089. NONAPPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, this Act 
     shall be applied without regard to subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 6032.

                       Subchapter B--TANF Relief

     SEC. 6090. REIMBURSEMENT OF STATES FOR TANF BENEFITS PROVIDED 
                   TO ASSIST FAMILIES OF STATES AFFECTED BY 
                   HURRICANE KATRINA.

       (a) In General.--Section 3 of the TANF Emergency Response 
     and Recovery Act of 2005 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 3. REIMBURSEMENT OF STATES FOR TANF BENEFITS PROVIDED 
                   TO ASSIST FAMILIES OF STATES AFFECTED BY 
                   HURRICANE KATRINA.

       ``(a) Eligibility for Payments From the Contingency Fund.--
       ``(1) Period of applicability.--Beginning with August 29, 
     2005, and ending with September 30, 2006, a State described 
     in paragraph (2) or (3) shall be considered a needy State for 
     purposes of section 403(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 603(b)).
       ``(2) Direct impact states.--A State described in this 
     paragraph is Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama.
       ``(3) Other states.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State is described in this paragraph 
     if the State provides any benefit or service that may be 
     provided under the State program funded under part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) to a 
     family which--
       ``(i) has resided in a direct impact State described in 
     paragraph (2);
       ``(ii) has travelled (not necessarily directly) to the 
     State from such direct impact State as a result of Hurricane 
     Katrina; and
       ``(iii) if applying for benefits or services on or after 
     October 28, 2005, the State has determined is not receiving 
     cash benefits from any program funded under such part of any 
     other State.
       ``(B) Application to territories.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding section 403(b)(7) of the 
     Social Security Act, a territory (as defined in section 
     1108(c)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C.1308(c)(1)) shall be 
     considered to be a State described in this paragraph for 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(ii) Disregard of payments.--Section 1108(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1308(a)) shall be applied 
     without regard to any amounts paid to a territory (as so 
     defined) in accordance with this section.
       ``(b) Monthly Payments.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (3)(C)(i) of subsection (b) of section 403 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603), and in addition to any other 
     amounts paid to a State under that subsection, the total 
     amount paid during a month to a State under this section 
     shall not exceed the following:
       ``(1) Direct impact states.--In the case of a State 
     described in subsection (a)(2), such amount shall not exceed, 
     \1/4\ of 20 percent of the State family assistance grant.
       ``(2) Other states.-- In the case of a State described in 
     subsection (a)(3), such amount shall not exceed the lesser 
     of--
       ``(A) the total amount of Hurricane Katrina Emergency TANF 
     Benefits (as defined in section 6(c)(1)) provided by the 
     State to families described in subsection (a)(3); or
       ``(B) \1/4\ of 20 percent of the State family assistance 
     grant.
       ``(c) No State Match or Maintenance of Effort Required.--
     Sections 403(b)(6) and 409(a)(10) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 603(b)(6), 609(a)(10)) shall not apply with 
     respect to a payment made to a State by reason of this 
     section.
       ``(d) Increase in Funding to the Extent Necessary To Ensure 
     That States Will Be Able To Access the Contingency Fund.--For 
     the period described in subsection (a)(1), paragraph (2) of 
     subsection (b) of section 403 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 603) shall be applied without regard to the limitation 
     on the total amount specified in such paragraph and funds 
     appropriated pursuant to such paragraph shall be available 
     for payments authorized under this section and under such 
     subsection (b).''.
       (b) Retroactive Effective Date.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the 
     enactment of the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 
     2005.

     SEC. 6091. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL TANF FUNDS 
                   AVAILABLE FOR HURRICANE-DAMAGED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 4 of the TANF Emergency Response 
     and Recovery Act of 2005 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``20 percent'' and 
     inserting ``40 percent''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``(at any time during or after the period 
     described in section 3(a)(1))'' after ``may not be imposed''.
       (b) Retroactive Effective Date.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the 
     enactment of the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 
     2005.

     SEC. 6092. RULES FOR RECEIPT OF HURRICANE KATRINA EMERGENCY 
                   TANF BENEFITS AND APPLICATION TO CHILD SUPPORT 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6 of the TANF Emergency Response 
     and Recovery Act of 2005 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 6. RULES FOR RECEIPT OF HURRICANE KATRINA EMERGENCY 
                   TANF BENEFITS AND APPLICATION TO CHILD SUPPORT 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--During the period described in section 
     3(a)(1), a State described in paragraph (2) or (3) of section 
     3(a) or an Indian tribe with a tribal family assistance

[[Page 24671]]

     plan approved under section 412 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 612) may provide Hurricane Katrina Emergency TANF 
     Benefits under the State or tribal program funded under part 
     A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et 
     seq.).
       ``(b) Certain Rules Waived.--
       ``(1) In general.--Hurricane Katrina Emergency TANF 
     Benefits shall not be considered assistance for purposes of 
     sections 407, paragraphs (2), (3), or (7) of section 408(a), 
     411, or section 454(29) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     607, 608(a), 611, 654(29)).
       ``(2) Limited waiver of rules under section 454(4)(a)(i).--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), such 
     benefits shall not be considered assistance for purposes of 
     section 454(4)(A)(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 654(4)(A)(i)).
       ``(B) Exception for families already receiving child 
     support services or who apply for such services.--
     Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to such 
     benefits that are provided to a family who--
       ``(i) at the time such benefits are provided, are receiving 
     child support services under a State plan under section 454 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 654); or
       ``(ii) applies for child support services under such a 
     State plan on behalf of a child who is receiving such 
     benefits.
       ``(c) Hurricane Katrina Emergency TANF Benefits.--
       ``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `Hurricane 
     Katrina Emergency TANF Benefits' means any benefit or service 
     that may be provided under a State or tribal program funded 
     under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to 
     support families which the State or Indian tribe deems to be 
     needy families based on their statement, circumstance, or 
     inability to access resources and who--
       ``(A) are described in section 3(a)(3); or
       ``(B) subject to paragraph (2), reside in a State described 
     in section 3(a)(2).
       ``(2) Limitation.--Any benefit or service provided under a 
     State or tribal program funded under part A of title IV of 
     the Social Security Act in a State described in section 
     3(a)(2) to a family who the State or Indian tribe deems to be 
     a needy family in accordance with paragraph (1), shall only 
     be considered to be a Hurricane Katrina Emergency TANF 
     Benefit if the State or Indian tribe designates that the 
     benefit or service is to be treated as a Hurricane Katrina 
     Emergency TANF Benefit.
       ``(d) Simplified Data Reporting.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State or Indian tribe which 
     provides Hurricane Katrina Emergency TANF Benefits shall 
     report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on a 
     monthly basis the following information:
       ``(A) The total amount of expenditures attributable to 
     providing Hurricane Katrina Emergency TANF Benefits.
       ``(B) The total number of families receiving such benefits.
       ``(C) To the extent the State determines it is able to do 
     so, the total amount of such benefits provided that are--
       ``(i) cash;
       ``(ii) child care; or
       ``(iii) other benefits and services.
       ``(2) Reports to congress.--The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall submit, on a monthly basis, a 
     compilation of the reports submitted in accordance with 
     paragraph (1) to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives.''.
       (b) Retroactive Effective Date.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the 
     enactment of the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 
     2005.

                 Subchapter C--Miscellaneous Provisions

     SEC. 6093. DISCLOSURE BASED ON VALID AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 223(d)(5) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the 
     Commissioner of Social Security provides to a custodian of 
     records a copy, facsimile, or electronic version of an 
     authorization obtained from the individual to disclose 
     records to the Commissioner, then such custodian shall not be 
     held liable under any applicable Federal or State law for 
     disclosing any record or other information in response to 
     such request, on the basis that the authorization relied upon 
     was a copy, facsimile, or electronic version of the 
     authorization.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to disclosures of records or other 
     information made on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 6094. EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF 
                   HURRICANE KATRINA RESCUE AND RELIEF EFFORTS.

       (a) Small Business Reservation Offset.--Section 15(j) of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(j)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) For any contracts involving the use of the special 
     emergency procurement authority under section 32A(c) of the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428a(c)), 
     the dollar ceiling of the small business reservation 
     established in paragraph (1) shall be adjusted to match the 
     applicable amount of the simplified acquisition threshold.''.
       (b) Retention of Small Business Subcontracting.--Section 
     8(d)(4)(D) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)(D)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(D) No contract'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(D) Small business participation.--
       ``(i) In general.--No contract''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Emergency procurements.--
       ``(I) In general.--For any contract which otherwise meets 
     the requirements of this subsection, and which involves the 
     use of special emergency procurement authority under section 
     32A(c) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 
     U.S.C. 428a(c)), the subcontracting plan required under this 
     subsection shall be negotiated as soon as is practicable, but 
     not later than 30 days after the date on which the contract 
     is awarded.
       ``(II) Payment.--Not greater than 50 percent of the amounts 
     due under any contract described in subclause (I) may be 
     paid, unless a subcontracting plan compliant with this 
     subsection is negotiated by the contractor.''.
       (c) Limitations on Increased Micro-Purchase Threshold.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the authority 
     granted under section 101 of the Second Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs 
     Arising From the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005 
     (Public Law 109-62), including the modifications under 
     subsection (d), shall--
       (1) be restricted for use solely within the geographic 
     areas designated by the President as disaster areas due to 
     Hurricane Katrina;
       (2) not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with any 
     Federal law providing for local preference in disaster relief 
     and recovery contracting; and
       (3) terminate 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (d) Modified Threshold.--Notwithstanding section 101(2) of 
     the Second Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet 
     Immediate Needs Arising From the Consequences of Hurricane 
     Katrina, 2005 (Public Law 109-62), the amount specified in 
     subsections (c), (d), and (f) of the section 32 of the Office 
     of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428) for 
     purchases necessary for support of Hurricane Katrina rescue 
     and relief operations shall be $50,000, or such an amount in 
     excess of $50,000, but not to exceed $250,000, as may be 
     approved by the head of the executive agency concerned (or 
     any delegate of the head of such executive agency, who shall 
     be an officer or employee of such executive agency who is a 
     warranted contracting officer for making Federal 
     acquisitions).
       (e) OMB Guidance on Use of Government Credit Cards for 
     Micro-Purchases.--
       (1) Guidance required.--Not later than 14 calendar days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall issue clear and concise 
     guidance regarding the use of Government credit cards by 
     Federal agencies to make micro-purchases under subsections 
     (c), (d), and (f) of section 32 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428), as modified by this 
     section.
       (2) Elements.--The guidance under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) a list of Government officials with the authority to 
     approve purchases under subsection (d) in amounts in excess 
     of $50,000, designated by agency, title, and pay grade;
       (B) the number of credit cards, by agency, that may be 
     utilized for purchases under subsection (d) in amounts in 
     excess of $50,000;
       (C) procedures for the immediate review of any purchase 
     under subsection (d) in an amount in excess of $50,000 that 
     was not approved by an official specified in that paragraph 
     as required by that paragraph;
       (D) procedures for the audit of all purchases made on 
     Government credit cards after the expiration of subsection 
     (d) under subsection (c); and
       (E) procedures to ensure that such purchases are made with 
     small business concerns and local small business concerns, to 
     the maximum extent practicable under the circumstances.
       (3) Reports on purchases.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the head of each 
     executive agency making any purchase under subsection (d) in 
     an amount in excess of $50,000 shall submit to the 
     appropriate Congressional committees a report on each such 
     purchase made by such agency, including--
       (A) a description of the property or services so purchased;
       (B) a statement of the purpose of such purchase;
       (C) a statement of the amount of such purchase;
       (D) a statement of the name, title, and pay grade of the 
     officer or employee of such agency making such purchase; and
       (E) whether such purchases were made with small business 
     concerns.
       (4) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``appropriate Congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (A) the Committees on Appropriations, Small Business and 
     Entrepreneurship, Finance, and Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and

[[Page 24672]]

       (B) the Committees on Appropriations, Small Business, and 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 6095. TRANSFER OF FUNDS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the amounts 
     made available to the Department of Homeland Security under 
     the heading ``Disaster Relief' under the heading ``Emergency 
     Preparedness and Response'' of Public Law 109-62 (119 Stat. 
     1991), $6.2 billion shall be made available to the Secretary 
     to carry out this chapter and remain available until 
     expended. The Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary 
     to carry out this chapter.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, this amendment truly reflects the 
values that we hold as an American family. When one of us is sick or 
ill, the rest of us are there to help. The amendment simply provides 
immediate access to Medicaid for displaced individuals from the gulf 
coast disaster. It provides full Federal support to the affected States 
only in the Medicaid Program so that we don't leave them hanging 
without the means to be able to take care of their own people. We 
provide disaster relief funds through an uncompensated care pool for 
our providers who have, without being asked, provided the care for 
those individuals who needed it so desperately. I urge my colleagues to 
support this. We have tried time and time again to do what is right. We 
have the opportunity here. We have offered it many times. I encourage 
my colleagues, please do the right thing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, this amendment is opposed by the Finance 
Committee. The Finance Committee has aggressively funded this account 
with $1.94 billion in this bill, which will cover 1.9 million victims 
of the hurricane. Therefore, these additional funds, if this amendment 
were to pass, would basically put the Finance Committee section of the 
bill out of compliance with the Deficit Reduction Act. Therefore, we 
oppose it.
  I make a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to 
the measure now before the Senate. I raise that as a point of order 
under section 305 of the Budget Act.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for consideration of the pending amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 285 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Vitter
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider and I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my vote on 
the motion to waive with respect to the Lincoln amendment No. 2356, as 
modified, be recorded as a ``yea.'' This does not change the outcome of 
the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)


                           Amendment No. 2355

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, we are now going to the Inhofe amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, there have been many sincere, well-
meaning efforts to put fiscal discipline into this legislation. Some 
people have tried to stop projects only to find out it does not save 
any money; it just causes them to rearrange their projects.
  This amendment actually does that. This is the only amendment that 
does. I will read it for my colleagues:

       All non-defense, non-trust fund discretionary spending 
     shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's level without a 
     two-thirds vote.

  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, the pending amendment contains matter 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. I raise a point 
of order against the amendment under section 306 of the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back on the amendment?
  Mr. INHOFE. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the amendment of the Senator from 
Oklahoma would freeze spending on veterans, on homeland security, on 
education, on National Institutes of Health, not just for 1 year but 
permanently--permanently. Permanently is a long time. The only way you 
get around it is a supermajority vote of 67 votes in the Senate.
  I urge colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. INHOFE. No, I believe I have 30 seconds remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, what the Senator from North Dakota said 
is exactly right. That is exactly what this amendment does. And if you 
are really serious about doing something about the deficit, this is 
your chance to do it.
  This morning we passed the Agriculture appropriations conference 
report which had a very small increase, but last week we passed the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill with $107 billion more than the previous 
year. This has to stop, and that is why this is a very significant 
vote.
  Mr. President, I say to my conservative friends, this is going to be 
scored very heavily by conservative organizations, such as the National 
Taxpayers Union. I urge a positive vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I renew my point of order. The pending 
amendment contains matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
the Budget. I raise a point of order against the amendment under 
section 306 of the Budget Act.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of the act for the consideration of the pending amendment. I 
urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.

[[Page 24673]]

  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 67, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 286 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

     Allard
     Allen
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--67

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 32, the nays are 
67. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2357

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, my amendment would prevent a 
hike in Medicare premiums for our 42 million senior citizens. In the 
bill, doctors' fees are increased in their reimbursement. In my 
amendment, that is paid for with drug company money that would be 
staying the same under the existing law where the drug companies have 
to give discounts under the Medicaid law as they transition into 
Medicaid HMOs. This saves our seniors over $1 billion in increased 
premiums.
  This amendment is supported and endorsed by the AARP. I want to 
welcome the bipartisan support of the Senate for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Nelson 
amendment. I think everybody knows that the taxpayers pay 75 percent of 
the Part B premium and 25 percent is paid by the individual. Whenever 
we increase doctors' reimbursement--and we do that in this bill by 5.3 
percent so that doctors do not lose their money--then, obviously, the 
25 percent is going to go up a little bit, just as the 75 percent goes 
up a little bit when reimbursement is increased.
  The Senator from Florida takes offense at the fact that the premium 
is going to go up in the year 2007 by $1.69. It is the way the formula 
works. I think every Senator wants to vote to give the doctors fair 
reimbursement because without doctors senior citizens cannot be served. 
So we ought to let the formula work.
  The offset is very egregious toward managed care as well. Also, do 
not forget that low-income people, people on Medicaid, do not pay the 
Part B and those who are not on Medicaid but below the poverty level 
have help through the QI program that we passed and the President 
signed recently to continue that program. So I hope my colleagues will 
defeat the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 287 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2357) was rejected.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
support of Senator Nelson's amendment to protect seniors against the 
outrageous increases in their Medicare costs.
  Health care costs are skyrocketing and seniors are paying a greater 
share out of their pockets for health care each year. Medicare premium 
increases are outpacing inflation. Prescription drug costs are shooting 
through the roof.
  Other out-of-pocket medical expenses are also increasing. Seniors are 
facing higher copays and deductibles. Last year's Medicare bill 
increased deduct-
ibles for doctors' visits by 10 percent. Deductibles for hospital and 
skilled nursing home visits are also rising.
  Medicare beneficiaries spend a sizable portion of their income on 
health care. In 2004, beneficiaries spent about $3,725--nearly one-
quarter--of their income on health care costs. Over the last 3 years, 
Medicare premiums have increased by 50 percent. Compare this to the 
only 10-percent increase in seniors' cost-of-living adjustments, COLA. 
Next year, Part B premiums will increase by another 12 percent.
  But there is another problem this amendment addresses. The current 
Medicare physician payment formula, known as the sustainable growth 
rate, SGR, has serious flaws. The current formula has generated 
negative updates since 2001. Without congressional intervention, 
reimbursement rates for physicians in the Medicare Program will 
decrease by 4.3 percent next year.
  I have long supported fixing this flawed formula. With the majority 
of my colleagues, I have written letters to CMS Commissioner Dr. Mark 
McClelan and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. 
Joshua Bolten. I have supported legislation trying to address this 
issue. Without a permanent fix, this uncertainty causes considerable 
angst among the physician community every year. Although I believe 
Congress needs to enact a long-term solution, this amendment supports a 
1 percent increase in the physician reimbursement rate for the next 
year.

[[Page 24674]]

  But this increase in physician payments will also increase overall 
spending on Medicare Part B. This will in turn increase Medicare 
premiums, which are set at 25 percent of Part B expenses. While I 
strongly support the payment change, I believe it is equally important 
that Medicare beneficiaries not have their premiums unexpectedly 
increased.
  This amendment ensures that Medicare beneficiaries will not have to 
pay unexpectedly higher premiums in 2007 because of the payment changes 
for 2006 in the Senate's budget reconciliation bill. This amendment 
prevents us from having to make a King Solomon-like decision. With this 
amendment, we do not have to consider ``cutting the baby in half.'' We 
do not have to decide between this modest increase to physician 
reimbursement and a further hike to our senior citizens--especially for 
those who are forced to live on a fixed income.
  In addition, the increase necessary to provide for physician 
reimbursement will not have to come from taxpayers. The offset for this 
amendment is an expansion of a drug rebate program currently in place 
since 1990. Drug manufacturers currently pay a rebate to participate in 
Medicaid. The Nelson amendment would offset the cost of protecting 
Medicare beneficiaries from the Part B premium increase by providing 
Medicaid managed care plans access to these drug rebates.
  I think it is a good idea to expand the drug rebate program from 
Medicare fee-for-service to all of Medicaid, including the managed care 
programs. When we first passed this law, 15 years ago, Medicaid managed 
care did not have such a strong presence. It now accounts for much of 
Medicaid services and should be part of this rebate program.
  I believe honor thy mother and father is not just a good commandment 
to live by, it is good public policy to govern by.
  That's why I feel so strongly about Medicare. Congress created 
Medicare to provide a safety net for seniors. In 1965, seniors' biggest 
fear was the cost of hospital care. One heart attack could have put a 
family into bankruptcy. That is what Medicare Part A is all about.
  Then Congress added Medicare Part B to help seniors pay for doctor 
visits as an important step to keep seniors healthy and financially 
secure. Now, Part B premium increases are racing ahead of seniors' 
ability to pay. So seniors may lose the ability to pay for coverage for 
their doctor's visits.
  This amendment is not an answer to skyrocketing health care costs, 
but a stopgap measure to give seniors a little breathing room. I am 
working hard on several bills to fix the Medicare bill that was passed 
last year. I am fighting to protect seniors' Social Security COLAs from 
increases in both Part B and Part D premiums.
  I am fighting to close the coverage gap to provide a real drug 
benefit for seniors. I am fighting to allow the Government to negotiate 
with drug companies to lower the cost of prescription drugs to save 
money for the Government and for seniors. I am fighting to end the 
giveaways to insurance companies and use those savings to improve 
Medicare.
  And I could go on.
  I am fighting to protect physician reimbursement rates by supporting 
legislation and writing to government officials who have the authority 
to make changes to the flawed formula.
  And I will continue to fight.
  This amendment is a good step down in our constant attempt to reign 
in Medicare premium costs for seniors while protecting reimbursement 
rates for physicians.
  Seniors cannot afford 17-percent increases in their Medicare 
premiums. Physicians cannot afford to have their reimbursement rates 
cut. I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for this 
amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2358

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are making progress, but it is slow. The 
next amendment is the amendment of Senator Cantwell, which is obviously 
the big polar bear.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. My amendment strikes the language allowing for drilling 
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The underlying bill is a 
sweetheart deal for oil companies that have made a record $30 billion 
in profits last quarter. The bill gives oil companies a free ride with 
back-door language that allows them to circumvent environmental laws, 
legal standards and Federal agency oversight that every other business 
in America has to comply with.
  This wildlife area has been protected since the Eisenhower days, and 
for good reason. There is an average of over 500 oil spills a year on 
the Alaska North Slope and over 4,000 spills in the last 10 years. 
Let's not pollute one of the great last refuges of America, and let's 
take the polluting language out of this bill. The Department of Energy 
says drilling in ANWR will do nothing in the near term and very little 
in the long term, reducing gas prices by only one penny. America wants 
a better energy plan than putting a sweetheart deal in the budget 
language.
  I urge my colleagues to strike this language.
  Mr. DODD. Mr President, I join with my colleagues in strong 
opposition to opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, to oil 
drilling. I believe including it in a reconciliation package is a 
backdoor attempt to achieve a shortsighted, environmentally 
irresponsible outcome. It is little more than a scheme to raise $2.5 
billion that will ultimately be used to cover a portion of the cost of 
tax cuts for the wealthy. Further, it will have a great and lasting 
cost to the environment with few benefits in terms of affordable 
energy.
  Let me lay out a few reasons why I oppose drilling in ANWR.
  The area we are talking about is home to nearly 200 species of 
wildlife, including polar, grizzly, and black bears, rare musk oxen, 
and millions of migratory birds. Each year, thousands of caribou travel 
to the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge to give birth to their 
calves. It has been protected for decades, during Republican and 
Democratic administrations. It is not as if we have said no to oil and 
gas exploration in the entire North Slope. It is only the remaining 5 
percent--the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge--that we want placed 
off limits. If we open this pristine land now, we can never turn the 
clock back. Setting the process in motion will entail a web of oil 
platforms, pipelines, production facilities, power facilities, support 
structures, and roads across the entire area. The administration 
contention that development would be confined to a 2,000-acre footprint 
is simply false because the recoverable oil is spread out in small 
deposits across the entire Coastal Plain.
  I firmly believe we need to ensure our country's economic security, 
but drilling in ANWR will do nothing to reduce our energy price and 
supply problems in the near term and very little to reduce our 
dependence on foreign supplies of oil. With transportation accounting 
for nearly 70 percent of oil use in this country, the Bush 
administration and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have refused to tackle the issue of automobile fuel efficiency. 
According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, if 
the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, standards are raised by just 
5 percent annually until 2012, and by just 3 percent thereafter, more 
than 1.5 million barrels of oil per day could be saved by 2010, and 67 
billion barrels of oil over the next 40 years--more than 10 times what 
could be recovered in ANWR. In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey 
estimated that there is no more than 5.2 billion barrels of 
economically recoverable oil in ANWR, a number that is equivalent to 
what the United States consumes in about 6 months.
  Any recoverable oil that might be below the Refuge would not begin 
flowing for at least 10 years and would never meet more than a small 
percentage of our oil needs at any given time.

[[Page 24675]]

So, therefore, it would have no impact on my constituents and your 
constituents for at least a decade. Further, the Energy Information 
Administration, EIA, has said that because the price of oil is set by 
the world market, ANWR would have a negligible impact on gasoline 
prices.
  The United States dependence on foreign oil is growing, with current 
imports at 58 percent. We currently have about 3 percent of the world's 
oil reserves but consume more than a quarter of the world's oil supply. 
We simply cannot drill our way out of our problems. Last year, EIA 
stated that at peak production, oil from ANWR would account for just a 
fraction of our consumption--no more than 4 percent. Further, there is 
no guarantee that any oil produced domestically from ANWR would make it 
to the rest of the country. There is no assurance that it will not all 
be exported to foreign countries. It is simply too big a risk to take 
when there are other, less intrusive ways to truly alleviate our 
dependence on oil--fuel efficiency, renewable and alternative sources 
of energy, and, dare I say it, conservation, something the Bush 
administration would have you now believe it wholly endorses.
  ANWR drilling proponents are always quick to contend that 735,000 
jobs would be created by opening this area to oil extraction. Those 
estimates are based on figures from 15 years ago that the forecasters 
have since acknowledged were based on flawed assumptions. In October 
2005, the Congressional Research Service reported that full development 
of the Arctic Refuge would result in 60,000 jobs. Even the three oil 
companies that stand to reap the most profits by expanding their 
presence in Alaska--ExxonMobil, BP, and Conoco-Phillips--have been 
relatively silent this year about their interest in ANWR.
  Little oil industry interest, less job creation than anticipated, 
minimal recoverable oil deposits, no impact on current energy prices 
and negligible impact on future prices, no reduction in foreign oil 
dependence, and a web of infrastructure across the Coastal Plain--does 
that justify pillaging the Arctic Refuge? I think it is irresponsible 
to do so.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment and 
work with us to enact policies that provide economic relief for 
residential and business consumers and set our country on a path to 
energy security.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to oppose drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. Opening the refuge is not the answer to 
solving our country's energy needs. We cannot drill our way out of our 
energy problems.
  We need to focus on real solutions not gimmicks--solutions that 
decrease our dependence of foreign oil, protect the environment and 
help consumers at a time when the costs to fill up their gas tanks and 
heat their homes are at all time highs.
  If we open the Arctic Refuge for oil and gas drilling, it would 
provide only about a 6-month supply of oil and would not even be 
available for 10 or more years. That means that drilling in the 
wildlife refuge would not affect our current oil and gasoline prices 
nor will it reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil. Even in 10 
or so years when we might get the oil, drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge will help little if at all.
  Rather than trying to get a couple of months of oil supply in 10 
years, we need to address the most pressing issues facing our country 
now: our growing dependence on foreign oil, sky-high oil and gas 
prices, and global warming. This is what I have been fighting for--real 
solutions to real problems that would help today's consumers and 
tomorrow's energy needs.
  That is why I fought to include an amendment to the Commerce, 
Justice, Science Appropriations bill that would provide a million 
dollars to the Federal Trade Commission to immediately investigate 
claims of price gouging. While oil companies and refineries report 
record profits, American consumers shouldn't have to scrimp to buy 
gasoline to go to work, or church or to buy groceries. I also 
cosponsored a bill that would place a federal ban on price gouging for 
oil, gasoline and other petroleum products during times of energy 
emergencies. To drive this point home, I sent a letter to the 
chairwoman of the FTC, expressing my concern over the consolidation of 
oil refineries, resulting in the lack of competition.
  I also recently sent a letter to President Bush urging him to convene 
a White House summit of oil and gas company CEOs to insist that they 
lower their sky-high gas and home heating oil prices. These are some of 
the President's closets political supporters and friends They are also 
the same men and women who the President called on to write the 
administration's energy policy in 2001. If the President can call them 
in to help themselves, he should call them back to help ordinary 
Americans. Another letter called on the oil and gas company CEOs to 
temporarily halt unnecessary exports of any home heating oil products 
that they are currently sending abroad. We cannot expect Americans to 
pay over $1,000 to heat their homes this winter when U.S. companies are 
exporting billions of gallons of refined heating oil and propane.
  We need to find solutions for tomorrow's energy needs as well as 
those facing Americans today. I introduced a bill that would provide 
tax incentives for energy efficient hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, 
which was included in the Energy bill. I also voted for a proviso in 
the Senate energy bill that would have required utilities to generate 
10 percent of their energy from renewable sources. In addition, I 
supported a provision in the bill that requires the Federal Government 
to get at least 7.5 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 
2013. I also supported an amendment that would require the U.S. to 
reduce foreign oil imports by 40 percent in 20 years.
  Just last week, oil companies reported record third quarter profits, 
some more than 85 percent higher than last year. As Americans struggle 
to fill their gas tanks and pay high home heating bills, the oil and 
gas companies are filling their pockets with historic profits. And now, 
here we are, in the Senate, giving them the opportunity to drill in 
federally protected land.
  This is not a time to reward oil and gas companies with the promise 
of more profits. We need to give these companies the opportunity to be 
patriots--not profiteers. They need to join us by holding down prices, 
investing in renewable energy, serving the needs of Americans and 
conserving as much as possible. Together, America can do better.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time in opposition? The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say to the Senate it is finally 
time. It is finally time that we decide to do something about our oil 
dependency. It is time that we do something for the American people 
about the rising, escalating price of gasoline at the pump.
  As I see it, this is a rare opportunity to produce substantial 
quantities of crude oil from our own homeland, from one of our States. 
Not only will it produce oil, it will produce the equivalent of what 
the State of Texas has in reserves. To say it has very little is to say 
the full State of Texas has very little reserves.
  It will produce jobs, up to 736,000. You see them on this list. 
America cries out for good jobs. We wonder why we don't have them. Then 
we ignore our own source of supply which would create them.
  Any time I have left I yield to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 5 seconds.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is the Senate's opportunity and 
the country's opportunity to address our national security, our energy 
security, and our environmental security. Defeat this amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.

[[Page 24676]]

  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski.) Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 288 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2358) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FRIST. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2362

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: The next 
amendment is the Wyden amendment on export of oil. I make a 
parliamentary inquiry if that amendment is subject to the Byrd rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, it is not.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, as long as this amendment is not 
changed and comes back to this floor in the conference report, it will 
not be subject to the Byrd rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The language as stated is not subject to a 
point of order.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I call up the Wyden-Collins amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, you cannot look the public in the eye 
after all the speeches about how the oil is needed here at home and 
pass legislation that is an invitation to export Alaskan oil to 
countries such as China. The history is, if you do not ban these 
exports, this oil is going to go to Asia. That was confirmed not long 
ago by oil company executives who came before the Senate Commerce 
Committee. Without this amendment, there is no assurance that even one 
drop of Alaskan oil will get to hurting Americans. I hope the Senate 
agrees to this amendment to, at the very least, put a Band-Aid on a 
flawed policy.
  I yield to my cosponsor, the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Madam President, I congratulate my friend from Oregon for 
his fine work.
  Briefly, as a very strong supporter of exploring for oil in the 
Arctic, one of the big reasons we are doing it is to enhance our 
national security and our own domestic oil supply, which is why I 
support the amendment I am cosponsoring.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is there time in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). There is 1 minute in opposition.
  Mr. STEVENS. In principle, I am opposed, but as long as it does not 
violate the Byrd rule, I will not vote against it.
  I yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
numbered 2362.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN, I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 289 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     McCain
     Sessions
     Sununu

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2362) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we now go to Senator Grassley's amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold for one moment?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, colleagues, we now have a list of the 
number of amendments that have been filed and that are pending and that 
Senators have noticed to us they intend to insist to have a vote on. 
That is 25 in number. That would take 8 hours. We have to stop at 6 
o'clock. There is no way we would complete business today if every one 
of our colleagues insists on a vote on their amendment.
  So I am asking on our side--I am asking, please--if you have an 
amendment filed that you really don't need a vote on or that you could 
possibly work out, let's work very hard in the next few hours to try to 
work it out. I would implore colleagues to not force a vote on every 
amendment they have filed.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to second the request of the 
Senator from North Dakota. I think it is a very appropriate statement.


                           Amendment No. 2359

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the amendment?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment, the 
Grassley-Dorgan amendment, with a lot of cosponsors. We have a problem 
in the existing bill that will hurt family farmers. It cuts farm 
payments across

[[Page 24677]]

the board for 100 percent of the farmers. It cuts conservation 
programs, so it harms the environment to a greater extent. What we do 
is solve a problem and help every family farmer in the process.
  Ten percent of the farmers in the United States get 72 percent of the 
benefit out of the farm program. That is unfair. The farm programs have 
always been targeted toward medium- and small-sized farmers. So we put 
in a hard cap of $250,000. Mr. President, $250,000 is all one farm 
entity can get from the farm program. We redistribute that money so we 
do not have that 2.5-percent cut. We restore some money for 
conservation and things of that nature.
  So I hope you will support our amendment. The last time it was up, we 
got 66 votes for it.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reducing overall Federal spending on farm 
programs is important if we are to succeed in reducing the Federal 
budget deficit. The current budget-reconciliation package includes $39 
billion in savings, including $3 billion from agriculture programs. To 
achieve these savings, the Senate Agriculture Committee cuts farm 
spending by implementing an-across-the-board 2.5 percent reduction in 
payments for all farm commodities. I wholeheartedly support these cuts 
in farm spending.
  However, I cannot support waiving the Budget Act to consider the 
Grassley Dorgan amendment to impose more restrictive payment limits on 
farm commodities. This amendment is being offered as a substitute to 
the cost savings achieved by the fair, across-the-board reductions 
currently in the package. Substituting the Grassley-Dorgan payment 
limits is eerily reminiscent of the flawed formula in the highway bill: 
Instead of all States bearing the burden equally, the farm cuts would 
be achieved on the backs of Arizona farmers and other farmers of 
capital intensive crops in the West and South.
  The advocates of the Grassley-Dorgan amendment claim that reducing 
payment limits preserves the family farm. What they meant to say is 
that it preserves family farms in North Dakota, Iowa, and other 
Midwestern States that grow certain commodities: namely grains and 
oilseeds such as corn, wheat, and soybeans. Family farmers in Arizona 
farm cotton. It is a highly capital intensive crop, in fact, one of the 
two most expensive program crops to grow. To illustrate, cotton program 
payments represent 39 percent of western farmers' cash costs of 
production. Corn and wheat program payments represent 49 percent and 50 
percent of Midwestern farmers' cash costs, respectively.
  Thus, in order to achieve economies of scale and remain competitive, 
Arizona farms must be large. According the Economic Research Service, 
over 30 percent of cotton production occurs on farms operating on an 
average of 3,500 acres. Are we to believe that none of these large 
farms are owned by Arizona families? I know for a fact that they are.
  The average farming operation in Arizona consists of about 7,000 
acres. Using a farm in near Buckeye, AZ as an example, this family farm 
is run by four brothers. Several children are managers of the 
operation, including performing marketing and financial services. About 
a third of the farm grows cotton, about a third grows feed grains, and 
the remaining third alfalfa. The annual budget is $5 million, and the 
brothers draw an annual salary of about $50,000 each when the farm 
generates sufficient income. This farm would be hit hard by the payment 
limitations in the Grassley-Dorgan amendment. Its operators would be 
forced to cut the amount of acres on which they grow cotton. In years 
when prices decline at harvest, their cash flow would be restricted and 
their ability to qualify for financing would be severely hampered.
  The Grassley-Dorgan amendment, in equating large with bad, ultimately 
favors growers of corn, wheat, and soybeans at the expense of farmers 
of cotton, rice, and peanuts. To further illustrate what I am talking 
about, let us apply the limitations in the amendment: a farm that 
produces cotton or rice would, at today's world prices and average 
yields, hit the limit on payments at about 400 to 600 acres. This 
acreage is generally deemed to be too small to sustain the investment 
in the specialized equipment necessary for cotton and rice production. 
In contrast, a corn farmer with an expected yield of 190 bushels per 
acre, would not hit the limit on payments until just over 3,100 acres. 
Clearly, very few corn farmers will ever feel the effects of the 
Grassley-Dorgan amendment.
  It has been further estimated that the more restrictive eligibility 
rules that are part of the amendment, combined with the limits on 
direct payments, would reduce direct payments to Arizona growers by 
$24.6 million. This represents a reduction of 62 percent, the highest 
of any State. Iowa would see a loss of just 4 percent and North Dakota, 
10 percent.
  I am not going to argue that the farm law is off limits for the 
purpose of finding savings for the American taxpayer. However, I 
encourage my colleagues to look closely at the ways we achieve that 
savings. It is simply not fair to use a faulty perception of what 
constitutes a family farm to favor one farming region of the country at 
the expense of another. Yet, that is exactly what the Grassley-Dorgan 
amendment would do. Thus, I cannot support a motion to waive the Budget 
Act with respect to this amendment and must vote against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, in 2002, this body, along with the 
House and along with the President, made a commitment to farmers and 
ranchers all across America with the signing and implementation of the 
2002 farm bill. This was an issue back then, in 2002, in the farm bill. 
It will be an issue in the farm bill in 2007.
  Today, when our farmers are hit with high fuel prices, with low 
commodity prices, and with disasters all across the country in 
different sections, this is not the time to say to our farmers, who 
feed all of America, we are going to change the program in midstream. 
This issue will be dealt with in the farm bill in 2007.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 305 of the 
Budget Act that the pending amendment is not germane to the measure now 
before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904(c) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305 of the 
Budget Act for the consideration of amendment No. 2359, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 290 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Allard
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd

[[Page 24678]]


     Dole
     Domenici
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Talent
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 2365

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the fact that 
under current law, 31 of our States are seeing significant cuts in 
Federal support for Medicaid because of a reduction in the percentage 
the Federal Government will pay, the FMAP, as we always refer to it, 
the Federal matching rate. Alaska is held harmless in the underlying 
bill. They will not suffer a cut. My amendment would say that for the 
other 30 States, the cut should not be more than five-tenths of 1 
percent next year. The amendment is more than offset. In fact, the 
offset is supported strongly by Secretary Leavitt's Medicaid 
Commission. It is supported strongly by the National Governors 
Association. It would save the States over $3 billion if this offset is 
agreed to as part of this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. This map shows the 
States in red that would get a more fair share of Medicaid funds, if 
the amendment passes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask Members to vote no on this 
amendment. There is an odd situation here. We have had a formula in the 
legislation for 40 years. That formula regularly has some States 
getting more reimbursement, some States getting less. Next year your 
State might go up. The next year it might go down. That is the way it 
has been working. All of a sudden, some States are receiving a 
reduction, and they want to keep it where it is. I have never had a 
situation where, when the formula worked to the benefit of the State, 
their reimbursement went up, that you come in here and ask for us to 
reduce the reimbursement. No, you accept the formula. If you want to 
change the formula, Senator Baucus and I have a good plan to change the 
formula. It would smooth out the peaks and valleys. That is what we 
ought to be doing instead of piecemeal doing it this way. I ask Members 
to vote against the amendment.


                    Amendment No. 2365, as Modified

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up the modified version of the 
amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that that be the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 188, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 6037. LIMITATION ON SEVERE REDUCTION IN THE MEDICAID 
                   FMAP FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006.

       (a) Limitation on Reduction.--In no case shall the FMAP for 
     a State for fiscal year 2006 be less than the greater of the 
     following:
       (1) 2005 fmap decreased by the applicable percentage 
     points.--The FMAP determined for the State for fiscal year 
     2005, decreased by--
       (A) 0.1 percentage points in the case of Delaware and 
     Michigan;
       (B) 0.3 percentage points in the case of Kentucky; and
       (C) 0.5 percentage points in the case of any other State.
       (2) Computation without retroactive application of 
     rebenchmarked per capita income.--The FMAP that would have 
     been determined for the State for fiscal year 2006 if the per 
     capita incomes for 2001 and 2002 that was used to determine 
     the FMAP for the State for fiscal year 2005 were used.
       (b) Scope of Application.--The FMAP applicable to a State 
     for fiscal year 2006 after the application of subsection (a) 
     shall apply only for purposes of titles XIX and XXI of the 
     Social Security Act (including for purposes of making 
     disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 
     1923 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4) and payments under such 
     titles that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 
     section 2105(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(b))) and shall 
     not apply with respect to payments under title IV of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) FMAP.--The term ``FMAP'' means the Federal medical 
     assistance percentage, as defined in section 1905(b) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)).
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such 
     term for purposes of title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
       (d) Repeal.--Effective as of October 1, 2006, this section 
     is repealed and shall not apply to any fiscal year after 
     fiscal year 2006.

     SEC. 6038. EXTENSION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REBATES TO 
                   ENROLLEES IN MEDICAID MANAGED CARE 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1927(j)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-
     8(j)(1)) is amended by striking ``dispensed'' and all that 
     follows through the period and inserting ``are not subject to 
     the requirements of this section if such drugs are--
       ``(A) dispensed by health maintenance organizations that 
     contract under section 1903(m); and
       ``(B) subject to discounts under section 340B of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 256b).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall 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.

     SEC. 6039. EXTENSION OF THE MEDICARE PART A AND B PAYMENT 
                   HOLIDAY.

       Section 6112(b)(1) of this Act is amended by striking 
     ``September 22, 2006'' and inserting ``September 21, 2006''.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Byrd 
amendment, which was to be the next amendment, be moved to be after the 
Landrieu amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 291 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--45

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2365), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2360

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided on the Lott 
amendment No. 2360.

[[Page 24679]]


  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the next amendment is the Lott amendment, 
the Amtrak amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2360.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will take a couple minutes to discuss the 
amendment. First of all, my cosponsor on this amendment is Senator 
Lautenberg.
  This is an amendment that adds provisions of S. 1516, the Passenger 
Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2005. It was reported out of the 
Commerce Committee in July and has been ready to be considered by the 
Senate, but repeated efforts to have it brought up in the regular order 
were not cleared.
  We are running out of time. The administration has made it clear that 
without reform, they are not going to be supportive of future funds 
through the appropriations process for Amtrak. This is genuine reform 
with a lot of input from management and labor, the administration, and 
both sides of the aisle.
  I believe this is the last chance for the Senate to act on this 
important legislation, making it possible for us to have it included in 
some legislation, before we finish this year, to reform Amtrak.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I appreciate the work the Senator from 
Mississippi and the Senator from New Jersey have done on this bill.
  It is absolutely true that this does represent some significant 
additional reforms for Amtrak. In discussions with Senator Lott from 
Mississippi and others, I do believe there is an opportunity to do a 
lot more. Unfortunately, the House has not really undertaken any reform 
effort at all, and that is certainly one of the concerns that I have, 
that this not be a dead-end process, that we do more in this bill to 
deal with long distance routes that lose $200 or $300 per passenger on 
every single car that rides on those long distance routes and labor 
constraints that the management of Amtrak has said they want to have 
modified and adjusted so they can operate more effectively and more 
efficiently. These items are not in this legislation, although it does 
represent a step forward.
  I look forward to continuing to work to improve the legislation, but 
I certainly cannot support its adoption on this reconciliation bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I note that Senator Burns has also been 
active in this process.
  I ask unanimous consent that other Senators' names be allowed to be 
added as cosponsors to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 292 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     DeMint
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Sessions
     Sununu
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2360) was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2370

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes now equally divided prior 
to a vote on the McCain amendment.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment does one very simple thing. 
It would move the DTV transition date forward by 1 year, making the 
completion date April 7, 2008. My colleagues will be asked to believe 
the earlier date is not doable. Do not believe it. We have the ability. 
We have the technology. It can be accomplished. It is supported by 
every first responder organization in America, every single one. The 
National Governors Association: We support the amendment, based upon 
certain clearing of channels. People's lives are at stake. The only 
people who are against this amendment are the National Association of 
Broadcasters. We will see if they win again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment would close off the analog 
broadcasting too close to the auction of spectrum. We currently have an 
April 2009 date. The auction date is January of 2009. It is just too 
close together. The leases cannot be processed. There is no way those 
auction proceeds can be available until licenses are issued. This 
amendment would end analog broadcasts before the funds are available 
for the converter box fund or the translator conversion fund authorized 
by S. 1932. We need help in this transition. The amendment makes 
spectrum available to public safety groups before they can put it to 
use because we are informed public safety groups must have at least 3 
years to prepare for the use of spectrum.
  We are going to get them the spectrum. They will not be able to use 
it until we have the money to bring about the transition. I believe our 
whole committee should oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered on the amendment.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 30, nays 69, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 293 Leg.]

                                YEAS--30

     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Carper
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Collins
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Warner

                                NAYS--69

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig

[[Page 24680]]


     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2370) was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to point out for the edification of 
our colleagues that we still have a lot of amendments to go. The 
estimate is in the high teens or potentially low twenties. At the pace 
we are going, we are not going to get them all done today, and we are 
going to be here on Friday.
  I ask, Mr. President, if we can be advised as to how long the last 
three votes have taken. If we could hear from the clerks, approximately 
how long? We do not have to be precise.
  How long have the votes taken?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. An hour 6 minutes for three votes.
  Mr. GREGG. At this pace, we are here Friday.
  I hope Members will think about their amendments, if they have some 
they are still talking about, and give serious consideration to 
allowing a voice vote or allowing it to be worked out.


                     Amendment No. 2368, Withdrawn

  I ask unanimous consent that the Corzine amendment, No. 2368, be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2372

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are now on to Senator Murray's 
amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Corzine be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in a few short weeks some of our most 
vulnerable Americans, our sickest and poorest, so-called dual 
eligibles, are going to be shifted from Medicaid to Medicare. We have a 
train wreck coming. Medicare is going to randomly assign these people 
to a plan which they may not know about and which might not cover their 
lifesaving drugs. Doctors, hospitals, and pharmacists are scrambling. 
These prescription drug policies themselves have not defined the drugs 
they are going to cover. My amendment simply gives a 6-month transition 
for those people so they do not get lost in this switch. I support 
Medicare coverage for these dual eligibles, but I cannot--and I don't 
think we should--support turning these people away at the drugstore.
  This amendment does not delay the implementation of the Medicare drug 
benefit. It simply assures thousands of our most vulnerable Americans 
that they will not be lost in the transition from Medicaid to Medicare 
coverage.
  I thank Senator Rockefeller and my cosponsors, and I urge adoption of 
this amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, CMS has a plan in place, and 6 months ago 
CMS introduced a strategy for transitioning dual eligibles from 
Medicaid to Medicare which lays out in great detail the steps CMS will 
take to ensure the continuity of coverage of this valuable group of 
beneficiaries. Therefore, the leadership of the Finance Committee 
strongly opposes this amendment.
  I make a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to 
the measure now before the Senate, and I raise a point of order under 
section 305 of the Budget Act.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of 
that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant Journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 294 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). On this question, the yeas are 
43, the nays are 56. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn 
not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point 
of order is sustained. The amendment falls.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 2366 Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Landrieu amendment 
numbered 2366.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana for the purpose of 
sending a modification to the desk.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, with Senator Landrieu's consent, I request 
the Landrieu amendment be withdrawn, and we call up the Stevens-Vitter-
Landrieu-Domenici amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2412

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for Mr. Stevens, 
     for himself, Mr. Vitter, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2412.

  Mr. GREGG. 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 as follows:

   (Purpose: To modify the distribution of excess proceeds from the 
 auction authorized by section 309(j)(15)(C)(v) of the Communications 
                              Act of 1934)

       On page 95, strike lines 13 through 21, and insert the 
     following:
       (f) Use of Excess Proceeds.--Any proceeds of the auction 
     authorized by section 309(j)(15)(C)(v) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, as added by section 3003 of this Act, that 
     exceed the sum of the payments made from the Fund under 
     subsection (c), the transfer from the Fund under subsection 
     (d), and any amount made available under section 3006 
     (referred to in this subsection as ``excess proceeds''), 
     shall be distributed as follows:

[[Page 24681]]

       (1) The first $1,000,000,000 of excess proceeds shall be 
     transferred to and deposited in the general fund of the 
     Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       (2) After the transfer under paragraph (1), the next 
     $500,000,000 of excess proceeds shall be transferred to the 
     interoperability fund described in subsection (c)(3).
       (3) After the transfers under paragraphs (1) and (2), the 
     next $1,200,000,000 of exceess proceeds shall be transfered 
     to the assistance program described in subsection (c)(5).
       (4) After the transfers under paragraphs (1) through (3), 
     any remaining excess proceeds shall be transferred to and 
     deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate evenly divided.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I present this on behalf of Mr. Stevens, 
the main author, as well as myself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
Bingaman, Mr. Lott, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Craig, and others. This will not 
change our budget numbers or our goal of deficit reduction in any way. 
In fact, it could enhance it.
  This amendment says if and when--and only if and when--the spectrum 
auction produces more than is forecast, the first $1 billion over that 
amount would go to deficit reduction, the next $500 million would go to 
interoperability, the next $1.2 billion, in that order, goes to a 
coastal program under Commerce jurisdiction, and the remainder, if at 
all, would go to deficit reduction. This could, in fact, enhance 
deficit reduction.
  Of course, it is very important to coastal States, including 
Louisiana, to beef up the coastline and to protect us in the future 
from major storms like Hurricane Katrina.
  I yield the remaining time to Senator Landrieu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana and 
particularly thank the leadership of Senator Stevens and Senator 
Domenici and so many who have joined the effort. It has been a great 
effort. We thank our colleagues.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2412) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, just to update our colleagues, we now have 
19 amendments still pending. On our current course, that is going to 
take at least 6\1/2\ hours. That would take us to 8:30. I ask 
colleagues, please, if you can withhold on your amendment, do so. If 
you have a chance to work out the amendment, please work hard and 
diligently to work it out. I urge colleagues, we have a drop-dead time 
at 6 o'clock tonight. We cannot go beyond that with business. We have 
less than 4 hours to go through 19 amendments. The only way this is 
going to happen is if colleagues will give up on some of their 
amendments. Otherwise, we are here tomorrow. Once we are here tomorrow, 
we all know what happens: we will be here a long time tomorrow.


                           Amendment No. 2367

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill would increase 
immigrant work visas by 350,000 per year, about one-third of the 
current level. It is a massive and destabilizing increase that does not 
belong on the reconciliation bill.
  My amendment would strike the increase in immigrant work visas and 
impose a $1,500 immigrant application fee on multinational 
corporations. With my amendment, the Judiciary Committee would exceed 
its reconciliation savings targets and do so without increasing 
immigrant work visas. We authorized over half a million H-1B visas in 
2000. Last year, we authorized another $100,000 over 5 years. Do we 
really need another 150,000 visas on top of that? When is enough 
enough?
  My amendment has the support of the unions. It has the support of 
immigrant enforcement groups. It has the support of Republican and 
Democrat Senators. I urge agreement of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am opposed to this amendment because 
the fees for L visas would raise funds but would do nothing to fill 
very important jobs in the United States. The existing plan submitted 
by the Judiciary Committee imposes a fee, but it extends the H-1B visa 
and recaptures the visas which were not used in the last 5 years. There 
are very careful safeguards so that U.S. jobs are not lost.
  I understand the position of the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, the position of the unions, but I believe their concerns are 
misplaced and that there is a real need for these positions of highly 
skilled professionals, Ph.D.s, advanced degrees. Therefore, with due 
respect to my colleague from West Virginia, I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 14, nays 85, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 295 Leg.]

                                YEAS--14

     Akaka
     Byrd
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Landrieu
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Stabenow
     Vitter

                                NAYS--85

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2367) was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the next item is the Harkin amendment, a 
sense of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that we have 2 minutes 
equally divided on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. For the information of the Senate, we are now off of the 
original list, having completed that. So we are into a period where, 
between myself and the Senator from North Dakota, we have organized a 
series of amendments to come forward. These will continue to be 10-
minute votes, and they are going to be hard 10 minutes. That means that 
at the end of 10 minutes, I am going to ask the vote to be closed. 
Secondly, I ask unanimous consent that for all amendments which are 
brought forward from here on, there be 2 minutes equally divided 
between the proponent and the opponent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let us repeat the message loud and clear: 
These next three votes are going to be strict 10-minute votes. At the 
end of 10 minutes, the manager and I are going

[[Page 24682]]

to call the vote. That is the only possible, conceivable way we can get 
done today.
  Mr. GREGG. Of course, we may actually get a voice vote in here, 
hopefully.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2363

  (Purpose: To affirm that the Federal funding levels for the rate of 
 reimbursement of child support administrative expenses should not be 
reduced below the levels provided under current law, that States should 
    continue to be permitted to use Federal child support incentive 
 payments for child support program expenditures that are eligible for 
Federal matching payments, and to express the sense of the Senate that 
   it does not support additional fees for successful child support 
                              collection)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, my amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution that the Senate go on record opposing the House's $9 billion 
cut to child support enforcement programs. It is not reasonable to cut 
a program that last year served 17,300,000 children. This is money that 
goes out to States for child support enforcement to go after deadbeat 
dads to get them to pay the money for child support. As a matter of 
fact, this is one of the best things that has happened out of welfare 
reform. For every $1 we spend, we are getting back $4.38, not to the 
Government but to the families and the kids who need it. This is just a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that says we do not agree with the House 
40-percent cut in this program and we won't hold up to it when it goes 
to the conference. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  The bill approved by Ways and Means would slash funding for child 
support enforcement efforts by 40 percent over the next 10 years. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that, as a result of these cuts, 
more than $24 billion in delinquent payments will go uncollected. And 
the biggest negative impacts will be felt by children living in poverty 
and children in low-income households.
  And let's be clear: Why is the House doing this? Why is it cutting 
this essential program that benefits some of the most vulnerable, 
disadvantaged, neglected children in our society? They are doing this 
in order to make room for another $70 billion in tax cuts--tax cuts 
overwhelmingly benefiting our wealthiest citizens.
  Indeed, that is what this entire reconciliation process is all about. 
For 25 years, the budget reconciliation process was used to reduce the 
deficit. But, today, the majority party has a different idea. They are 
using reconciliation to increase the deficit. They are cutting child 
support enforcement, food assistance for the poor, foster care 
benefits, Medicaid, and other programs for the most disadvantaged 
Americans. At the same time they are ramming through another $70 
billion in tax cuts for the most privileged.
  There is no other word for it: This is simply immoral. Last year, 
more than 17 million children received financial support through the 
Child Enforcement System, including nearly two-thirds of all children 
in single-parent households with incomes below twice the poverty line.
  Child support helped to lift more than 1 million Americans out of 
poverty in 2002. As a result of cuts passed by the House, many of those 
people--mostly children--would be plunged back into poverty. Not only 
is this cruel, it is also counterproductive. It is penny wise and pound 
foolish, because those families that are shoved into poverty by the 
House's action will end up on food stamps, Medicaid, Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families, and other forms of public assistance.
  This chart shows the State-by-State impact of the cut in child 
support collection. In my State of Iowa, alone, children would lose 
some $239 million over the next 10 years. This is a proven program, an 
effective program. It reduces poverty. It gets resources to children 
who desperately need them. It is cost effective. Research has shown 
that the decline in families relying on TANF in recent years is 
directly linked to improvements in the Child Support Enforcement 
Program. For all these reasons, this program has enjoyed broad 
bipartisan support.
  In the past, President Bush himself has praised this program, calling 
it one of our highest performing social services programs. And he is 
right because for every Government dollar spent, $4.38 is recovered for 
families in child support payments. With good reason. Reforms over the 
last decade have made this program even more effective. Since 1996, 
there has been an 82-percent increase in collections, from $12 billion 
to $22 billion.
  Child Support Enforcement is essential to helping families to achieve 
self-sufficiency. For families in poverty who receive child support, 
those payments account for an average of 30 percent of their income. 
Next to a mother's earnings, child support is the largest income source 
for poor families receiving assistance. Child support payments are used 
to pay for food, child care, shelter, and the most basic essentials of 
life.
  If we were smart, if we were compassionate, if we were looking at 
ways to get maximum bang for the buck, we would be increasing funding 
for this essential program. But the action of the other body, slashing 
Child Support Enforcement by 40 percent to make way for more tax cuts, 
is just unconscionable. It is bad public policy, bad values, and bad 
priorities.
  A strong bipartisan vote for this resolution will send a strong 
message to the House conferees that this cut is unacceptable to the 
Senate and that this body will not accept a slash-and-burn attack on a 
program that lifts more than 1 million people out of poverty every 
year. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. Kohl, 
     Mr. Obama, and Mr. Bayh, proposes an amendment numbered 2363.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) On October 26, 2005, the Committee on Ways and Means of 
     the United States House of Representatives approved a budget 
     reconciliation package that would significantly reduce the 
     Federal Government's funding used to pay for the child 
     support program established under part D of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) and would 
     restrict the ability of States to use Federal child support 
     incentive payments for child support program expenditures 
     that are eligible for Federal matching payments.
       (2) The child support program enforces the responsibility 
     of non-custodial parents to support their children. The 
     program is jointly funded by Federal, State and local 
     governments.
       (3) The Office of Management and Budget gave the child 
     support program a 90 percent rating under the Program 
     Assessment Rating Tool (PART), making it the highest 
     performing social services program.
       (4) The President's 2006 budget cites the child support 
     program as ``one of the highest rated block/formula grants of 
     all reviewed programs government-wide. This high rating is 
     due to its strong mission, effective management, and 
     demonstration of measurable progress toward meeting annual 
     and long term performance measures.''
       (5) In 2004, the child support program spent $5,300,000,000 
     to collect $21,900,000,000 in support payments. Public 
     investment in the child support program provides more than a 
     four-fold return, collecting $4.38 in child support for every 
     Federal and State dollar that the program spends.
       (6) In 2004, 17,300,000 children, or 60 percent of all 
     children living apart from a parent, received child support 
     services through the program. The percentage is higher for 
     poor children--84 percent of poor children living apart from 
     their parent receive child support services through the 
     program. Families assisted by the child support program 
     generally have low or moderate incomes.
       (7) Children who receive child support from their parents 
     do better in school than those that do not receive support 
     payments. Older children with child support payments are more 
     likely to finish high school and attend college.
       (8) The child support program directly decreases the costs 
     of other public assistance programs by increasing family 
     self-sufficiency. The more effective the child support 
     program in a State, the higher the savings in public 
     assistance costs.
       (9) Child support helps lift more than 1,000,000 Americans 
     out of poverty each year.
       (10) Families that are former recipients of assistance 
     under the temporary assistance for needy families program 
     (TANF) have seen the greatest increase in child support

[[Page 24683]]

     payments. Collections for these families increased 94 percent 
     between 1999 and 2004, even though the number of former TANF 
     families did not increase during this period.
       (11) Families that receive child support are more likely to 
     find and hold jobs, and less likely to be poor than 
     comparable families without child support.
       (12) The child support program saved costs in the TANF, 
     Medicaid, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, and 
     subsidized housing programs.
       (13) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 
     funding cuts proposed by the Committee on Ways and Means of 
     the House of Representatives would reduce child support 
     collections by nearly $7,900,000,000 in the next 5 years and 
     $24,100,000,000 in the next 10 years.
       (14) That National Governor's Association has stated that 
     such cuts are unduly burdensome and will force States to 
     reevaluate several services that make the child support 
     program so effective.
       (15) The Federal Government has a moral responsibility to 
     ensure that parents who do not live with their children meet 
     their financial support obligations for those children.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Senate will not accept any reduction in funding for 
     the child support program established under part D of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), or any 
     restrictions on the ability of States to use Federal child 
     support incentive payments for child support program 
     expenditures that are eligible for Federal matching payments, 
     during this Congress.

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
Harkin amendment, which expresses the sense of the Senate that this 
body will not accept the cuts to the child support program that have 
been proposed by the Committee on Ways and Means in the House of 
Representatives. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The child support program is an effective and efficient way to 
enforce the responsibility of noncustodial parents to support their 
children. For every public dollar that is spent on collection, more 
than $4 is collected to support children. That is a good return on our 
investment in families. Moreover, these families are then less likely 
to require public assistance and more likely to avoid or escape 
poverty. This is a program that works.
  The evidence is compelling. For example, in 2004, enforcement efforts 
helped collect almost $22 billion in child support. Our aggressive 
State and Federal efforts have translated into $1 billion in collected 
child support payments in Illinois alone this year. That means 386,000 
Illinois families will be better equipped to provide for their 
children.
  Preliminary budget estimates suggest the cuts proposed by the Ways 
and Means Committee will translate into $7.9 billion in lost 
collections within 5 years, increasing to a loss of over $24 billion 
within 10 years. This proposal is not even pennywise, and it is 
certainly pound foolish. Today, the State of Illinois reports a 32 
percent child support collection rate. Let's not take a step backwards 
in the progress that has been made by stripping the States of necessary 
Federal support. Moreover, the welfare of too many is at stake. Child 
support is the second largest income source for qualifying low-income 
families. We cannot balance our budget on the backs of families who 
rely on child support to remain out of poverty.
  This Congress claims that strengthening the family is a priority. 
Senator Harkin's amendment is a firm expression that we are serious 
about this worthwhile investment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa has been kind enough 
to represent that he will accept a voice vote on this. I move that we 
proceed to a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2363.
  The amendment (No. 2363) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the next item of business will be Senator 
Byrd's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa set a very good 
example. We encourage other Senators to follow that example.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2414

  (Purpose: To provide for the suspension of the debate limitation on 
   reconciliation legislation that causes a deficit or increases the 
                                deficit)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my amendment will suspend the time 
limitations on debate for reconciliation bills that increase the 
deficit. The Congress will never succeed in balancing the budget, 
cutting the deficit, as long as the reconciliation process can be used 
to shield controversial tax-and-spending decisions from debate and 
amendment. If Senators want to ensure offsets for deficit-increasing 
measures, then we must protect our rights to debate and amend within 
the budget process. The more tax cuts that can be forced through now 
without offsets, the tougher the budget decisions and the worse the 
pain in the coming months and years. The budget cuts that seem tough 
now will grow enormous, and they will be unbearable, if tax cuts 
continue without offsets. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself and 
     Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 2414.

  Mr. BYRD. 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:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SUSPENSION OF DEBATE LIMITATION ON RECONCILIATION 
                   LEGISLATION THAT CAUSES A DEFICIT OR INCREASES 
                   THE DEFICIT.

       (a) In General.--For purposes of consideration in the 
     Senate of any reconciliation bill or resolution, or 
     amendments thereto or debatable motions and appeals in 
     connection therewith, under section 310(e) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 305(b) (1), (2), 
     and (5), section 305(c), and the limitation on debate in 
     section 310(e)(2) of that Act, shall not apply to any 
     reconciliation bill or resolution, amendment thereto, or 
     motion thereon that includes reductions in revenue or 
     increases in spending that would cause an on-budget deficit 
     to occur or increase the deficit for any fiscal year covered 
     by such bill or resolution.
       (b) Germaneness Required.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), 
     no amendment that is not germane to the provisions of such 
     reconciliation bill or resolution shall be received.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the practical effect of this amendment 
would be to essentially vitiate the reconciliation process. It would 
mean we would end up with an event that could be filibustered. The 
whole purpose of reconciliation is to have a time limit and to get to a 
vote. Therefore, this amendment would undermine completely the concept 
of reconciliation which, as is hopefully going to be proven by this 
bill and others, is a very constructive way to get legislation through 
this institution and move forward with the business of the people.
  Therefore, I make a point of order that the pending amendment 
contains matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget, 
and I raise a point of order against the amendment under section 306 of 
the Budget Act.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to waive the act in connection with 
this amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that votes on this 
and all further amendments be 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 24684]]

  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant Journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 296 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 
55. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider and I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2391

  Mr. GREGG. The next amendment is Senator Lautenberg's.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have offered an amendment to ensure that people 
understand what they are signing up for when the new Medicare drug 
benefit comes to life and that is beginning in 2006. There is such a 
mix of things that the recipient beneficiaries, I am sure, will be very 
confused as to what the cost is going to be on the gap of coverage, 
whether they have to pay it all out of their pockets. I want to make 
sure they understand what it is they are applying for and the pitfalls 
or the advantages thereof.
  This is very simple. We ask them to sign a note when they apply for 
the plan so that they are saying they are fully aware of the 
consequences of their signature. This should be passed, Mr. President, 
because it helps the senior citizens understand what it is they are 
getting into.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am sure this amendment is well-
intentioned, as are all amendments from the Senator from New Jersey, 
but essentially it creates an unnecessary level of paperwork for the 
enrollee in the plan, and in addition, as a practical matter, it enters 
into a portion of the Medicare trust fund which we have not addressed 
in this reconciliation bill, which is the Part D section of the trust 
fund, that being the new drug program the theory being that program 
should be allowed to get rolling before it gets amended.
  There are a number of regulations coming out from CMS relative to 
making sure the beneficiaries are adequately protected under their 
plan, and I believe they pick up the issues that are raised by the 
Senator from New Jersey.
  That being said, I make a point of order that the pending amendment 
is not germane to the measure now before the Senate, and I raise that 
point of order under section 305 of the Budget Act.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, pursuant to the relevant sections of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive those sections 
for consideration of the pending amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would simply announce that this is a 10-
minute vote and it will be 10.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 297 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 
56. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to 
lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes be given to the 
Senators from Hawaii, to be divided as they deem appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  (The remarks of Mr. Inouye, Mr. Akaka and Mr. Byrd are printed in 
today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the will of the Senate? The Senator 
from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask the Chair of the committee if it 
would be appropriate now to go to the Cantwell amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. Absolutely.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I direct my colleagues' attention to the 
Cantwell amendment and indicate that we are now trying to make an 
analysis of where we are with respect to the funding of the bill, where 
we are with respect to the requirements the Senate is under under 
reconciliation, to make certain that all of this fits together. That is 
the reason for the delay at this moment, to make certain that the 
numbers work correctly.
  With that, we will go to the Cantwell amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 2400

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to offer a perfecting amendment.

[[Page 24685]]

In order to raise the $2.4 billion claimed in the underlying bill, it 
assumes a 50-50 split of oil leasing revenues between the State of 
Alaska and the Federal Treasury.
  But my colleagues may be surprised to learn that whether or not this 
50-50 legislative language is upheld in court is a matter of some 
uncertainty. The State of Alaska has long maintained it is due 90 
percent of these revenues, so instead of the Federal Government getting 
$2.4 billion, it would only get $480 million.
  If you don't believe me, the State of Alaska just passed a resolution 
this spring, saying it would insist on the 90-10 split. I ask my 
colleagues to be faithful in telling the taxpayers the real story. 
Let's support maintaining the 50-50 and not moving forward until we are 
certain that is $2.4 billion of revenue for the Federal Government.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this bill already contains the first 
portion of this amendment: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the existing law applies to this area of Alaska.
  This is a vindictive amendment. It says if my State decides to pursue 
a legal right that all production in ANWR would stop. There would be no 
further production. I don't understand this amendment because we have 
been a State since 1958. We have not filed that suit. That resolution 
passed the State legislature almost every year, and it is an act of the 
State legislature, but the Federal law governs this area and it says a 
50-50 split, which applies to all States.
  I yield to the Senator from New Mexico what time we have left.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we had a very critical vote. You all 
listened to it. This is nothing but an amendment to try to come in the 
back door and kill ANWR. It is absolutely wrong. We ought not even be 
considering it. The very same people who wanted to kill it for 30 years 
are making this last-ditch effort. The amendment should not even be on 
the floor, and we ought to kill it. If it doesn't take 10 minutes we 
ought to do it in 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2400.

  The amendment follows:

       On page 101, strike lines 12 through 19 and insert the 
     following:
       (d) Receipts.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, of the amount of adjusted bonus, rental, and royalty 
     receipts derived from oil and gas leasing and operations 
     authorized under this section--
       (A) 50 percent shall be paid to the State of Alaska; and
       (B) the balance shall be deposited into the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts.
       (2) Judicial review.--
       (A) In general.--Any civil action brought by the State of 
     Alaska to compel an increase in the percentage of revenues to 
     be paid under paragraph (1) shall be filed not later than 90 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) Limitation.--
       (i) In general.--If a civil action is filed by the State of 
     Alaska under subparagraph (A), until such time as a final 
     nonappealable order is issued with respect to the civil 
     action and notwithstanding any other provision of law--

       (I) production of oil and gas from the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge is prohibited;
       (II) no action shall be taken to establish or implement the 
     competitive oil and gas leasing program authorized under this 
     title; and
       (III) no leasing or other development leading to the 
     production of oil or gas from the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge shall be undertaken.

       (ii) Final order.--If the court issues a final 
     nonappealable order with respect to a civil action filed 
     under subparagraph (A) that increases the percentage of 
     revenues to be paid to the State of Alaska--

       (I) production of oil and gas from the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge is prohibited; and
       (II) no leasing or other development leading to the 
     production of oil or gas from the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge shall be undertaken.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 298 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2400) was rejected.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


         Amendments Nos. 2350, 2378, 2418, 2411, 2413, en bloc

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following 
amendments, which are acceptable to both sides, upon being sent to the 
desk, be agreed to, en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon 
the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments, en bloc, were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 2350

  (Purpose: To amend the definition of independent student to include 
students who are homeless children and youths and unaccompanied youths 
  for purposes of the need analysis under the Higher Education Act of 
                                 1965)

       On page 647, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``is an orphan or ward of 
     the court'' and inserting ``is an orphan, in foster care, or 
     ward of the court or was in foster care'';
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) has been verified as both a homeless child or youth 
     and an unaccompanied youth, as such terms are defined in 
     section 725 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 11434a), during the school year in which the 
     application for financial assistance is submitted, by--
       ``(A) a local educational agency liaison for homeless 
     children and youths, as designated under section 
     722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii));
       ``(B) a director of a homeless shelter, transitional 
     shelter, or independent living program; or
       ``(C) a financial aid administrator; or''.


                           Amendment No. 2378

                  (Purpose: To fund justice programs)

       At the end of title VIII, insert the following:

     SEC. __. JUSTICE PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury--
       (1) for fiscal year 2006, out of the funds in the Treasury 
     not otherwise appropriated, shall pay to the Attorney 
     General, by December 31, 2005, the amounts listed in 
     subsection (b) that are to be provided for fiscal year 2006; 
     and
       (2) for each subsequent fiscal year provided in subsection 
     (b) out of funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated 
     shall pay to the

[[Page 24686]]

     Attorney General the amounts provided by November 1 of each 
     such fiscal year.
       (b) Amounts Provided.--The amounts referred to in 
     subsection (a), which shall be in addition to funds 
     appropriated for each fiscal year, are--
       (1) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $17,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $10,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009, and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, to 
     fund the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program as authorized 
     under section 4 of Public Law 108-372.
       (2) $3,700,000 for fiscal year 2006, $6,300,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $5,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009, and $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, to 
     fund DNA Training and Education for Law Enforcement, 
     Correctional Personnel, and Court Officers as authorized by 
     section 303 of Public Law 108-405.
       (3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $12,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007, $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $10,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009, and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, to 
     fund DNA Research and Development as authorized by section 
     305 of Public Law 108-405.
       (4) $500,000 for fiscal year 2006, $500,000 for fiscal year 
     2007, $500,000 for fiscal year 2008, $500,000 for fiscal year 
     2009, and $500,000 for fiscal year 2010, to fund the National 
     Forensic Science Commission as authorized by section 306 of 
     Public Law 108-405.
       (5) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $1,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007, $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $1,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009, and $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, to 
     fund DNA Identification of Missing Persons as authorized by 
     section 308 of Public Law 108-405.
       (6) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $27,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007, $26,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $25,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009, and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, to 
     fund Capital Litigation Improvement Grants as authorized by 
     sections 421, 422, and 426 of Public Law 108-405.
       (7) $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2006, $3,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007, $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2008, $2,500,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009, and $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2010, to 
     fund the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant 
     Program as authorized by sections 412 and 413 of Public Law 
     108-405.
       (8) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $1,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007, $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $1,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009, and $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, to 
     fund Increased Resources for Enforcement of Crime Victims 
     Rights, Crime Victims Notification Grants as authorized by 
     section 1404D of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 
     10603d).
       (c) Obligation of Funds.--The Attorney General shall--
       (1) receive funds under this section for fiscal years 2006 
     through 2010; and
       (2) accept such funds in the amounts provided which shall 
     be obligated for the purposes stated in this section by March 
     1 of each fiscal year.

     SEC.__. COPYRIGHT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury--
       (1) for fiscal year 2006, out of the funds in the Treasury 
     not otherwise appropriated, shall pay to the Librarian of the 
     Congress, by December 31, 2005, the amounts listed in 
     subsection (b) that are to be provided for fiscal year 2006; 
     and
       (2) for each subsequent fiscal year provided in subsection 
     (b) out of funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated 
     shall pay to the Librarian of the Congress the amounts 
     provided by November 1 of each such fiscal year.
       (b) Amounts Provided.--The amounts referred to in 
     subsection (a), which shall be in addition to funds 
     appropriated for each fiscal year, are: $1,300,000 for fiscal 
     year 2006, $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2007, $1,300,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008, $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2009, and 
     $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2010, to fund the Copyright 
     Royalty Judges Program as authorized under section 
     803(e)(1)(B) of title 17, United States Code.
       (c) Obligation of Funds. The Librarian of the Congress 
     shall--
       (1) receive funds under this section for fiscal years 2006 
     through 2010; and
       (2) accept such funds in the amounts provided which shall 
     be obligated for the purposes stated in this section by March 
     1 of each fiscal year.


                           AMENDMENT No. 2418

   (Purpose: To amend chapter 21 of title 38, United States Code, to 
enhance adaptive housing assistance for disabled veterans and to reduce 
     the amount appropriated for the Medicaid Integrity Program by 
         $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2010)

       On page 90, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

                Subtitle D--Adaptive Housing Assistance

     SEC. 2031. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Specially Adapted 
     Housing Grants Improvements Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2032. ADAPTIVE HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR DISABLED VETERANS 
                   RESIDING TEMPORARILY IN HOUSING OWNED BY A 
                   FAMILY MEMBER.

       (a) Assistance Authorized.--Chapter 21 of title 38, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2102 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 2102A. Assistance for veterans residing temporarily in 
       housing owned by a family member

       ``(a) Assistance Authorized.--If a disabled veteran 
     described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2) of section 2101 of 
     this title resides, but does not intend to permanently 
     reside, in a residence owned by a member of such veteran's 
     family, the Secretary may assist the veteran in acquiring 
     such adaptations to such residence as are determined by the 
     Secretary to be reasonably necessary because of the veteran's 
     disability.
       ``(b) Limitation on Amount of Assistance.--Subject to 
     section 2102(d) of this title, the assistance authorized 
     under subsection (a) may not exceed--
       ``(1) $10,000, in the case of a veteran described in 
     section 2101(a)(2) of this title; or
       ``(2) $2,000, in the case of a veteran described in section 
     2101(b)(2) of this title.
       ``(c) Limitation on Number of Residences Subject to 
     Assistance.--A veteran eligible for assistance authorized 
     under subsection (a) may only be provided such assistance 
     with respect to 1 residence.
       ``(d) Regulations.--Assistance under this section shall be 
     provided in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary 
     may prescribe.
       ``(e) Termination of Authority.--The authority to provide 
     assistance under subsection (a) shall expire at the end of 
     the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of the 
     Specially Adapted Housing Grants Improvements Act of 2005.''.
       (b) Limitations on Adaptive Housing Assistance.--Section 
     2102 of such title is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The assistance 
     authorized by section 2101(a)'' and all that follows through 
     ``any one case--'' and inserting ``Subject to subsection (d), 
     the assistance authorized under section 2101(a) of this title 
     shall be afforded under 1 of the 
     following plans, at the election of the 
     veteran--'';
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Subject to subsection (d), and except as provided in 
     section 2104(b) of this title, the assistance authorized by 
     section 2101(b) of this title may not exceed the actual cost, 
     or in the case of a veteran acquiring a residence already 
     adapted with special features, the fair market value, of the 
     adaptations determined by the Secretary under such section 
     2101(b) to be reasonably necessary.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d)(1) The aggregate amount of assistance available to a 
     veteran under sections 2101(a) and 2102A of this title shall 
     be limited to $50,000.
       ``(2) The aggregate amount of assistance available to a 
     veteran under sections 2101(b) and 2102A of this title shall 
     be limited to the lesser of--
       ``(A) the sum of the cost or fair market value described in 
     section 2102(b) of this title and the actual cost of 
     acquiring the adaptations described in subsection (a); and
       ``(B) $10,000.
       ``(3) No veteran may receive more than 3 grants of 
     assistance under this chapter.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter of such title is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 2102 the 
     following:

``2102A. Assistance for veterans residing temporarily in housing owned 
              by family member.''.

     SEC. 2033. GAO REPORTS.

       (a) Interim Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit to Congress an interim report on 
     the implementation of section 2102A of title 38, United 
     States Code (as added by section 2(a)), by the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs.
       (b) Final Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to Congress a final report on the 
     implementation of such section 2102A by the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs.
       On page 166, strike lines 12 through 15 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(A) for fiscal year 2006, $50,000,000;
       ``(B) for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008, $49,000,000;
       ``(C) for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $74,000,000; 
     and
       ``(D) for fiscal year 2011 and each fiscal year thereafter, 
     $75,000,000.


                           amendment no. 2411

  (Purpose: To authorize the continued provision of certain adult day 
 health care services or medical adult day care services under a State 
                             Medicaid plan)

       On page 188, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 6037. AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE PROVIDING CERTAIN ADULT DAY 
                   HEALTH CARE SERVICES OR MEDICAL ADULT DAY CARE 
                   SERVICES.

       The Secretary shall not--
       (1) withhold, suspend, disallow, or otherwise deny Federal 
     financial participation under section 1903(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)) for adult day health care 
     services or medical adult day care services, as defined under 
     a State medicaid plan approved on or before 1982, if such 
     services

[[Page 24687]]

     are provided consistent with such definition and the 
     requirements of such plan; or
       (2) withdraw Federal approval of any such State plan or 
     part thereof regarding the provision of such services.


                           amendment no. 2413

 (Purpose: To provide additional ProGAP assistance to certain students)

       On page 369, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       ``(D) the Secretary--
       ``(i) shall determine if an increase in the amount of a 
     grant under this section is needed to help encourage students 
     to pursue courses of study that are important to the current 
     and future national, homeland, and economic security needs of 
     the United States; and
       ``(ii) after making the determination described in clause 
     (i), may increase the maximum and minimum award level 
     established under subparagraph (A) by not more than 25 
     percent, for students eligible for a grant under this section 
     who are pursuing a degree with a major in mathematics, 
     science, technology, engineering, or a foreign language that 
     is critical to the national security of the United States; 
     and
       ``(E) not later than September 30 of each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall notify Congress, in writing, of the 
     Secretary's determination with respect to subparagraph (D)(i) 
     and of any increase in award levels under subparagraph 
     (D)(ii).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2378

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am thrilled that the Senate has agreed to 
accept by unanimous consent to the Budget Reconciliation Act, S. 1932, 
a bipartisan amendment offered by Senator Specter and myself to 
allocate the extra $278,000,000 in revenue provided from the Judiciary 
Committee markup on reconciliation to supplement funding for the 
Bulletproof Vest Partnership, programs authorized by the Justice For 
All Act, and the Copyright Royalty Judges Program.
  I thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Specter, for his 
leadership on and commitment to seeing that these important programs 
are funded as much as we can during these tough fiscal times. As 
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter 
and I have joined forces before to champion funding for these programs. 
I am privileged to partner with him again in that pursuit.
  The Judiciary Committee markup on its reconciliation title provided 
$278,000,000 more in revenue than was mandated by the budget resolution 
instructions. We now seek to include additional provisions within the 
jurisdiction of our committee into the Senate reconciliation package. 
Our bipartisan amendment funds a number of Judiciary programs that 
enjoyed broad bipartisan support when Congress authorized them. These 
mandatory spending changes would simply spend some of the additional 
revenue that we raised through increases in immigration fees during our 
markup.
  Our proposal would provide $60,000,000 over the next 5 years for such 
initiatives as the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program, which helps 
law enforcement agencies purchase or replace body armor for their rank-
and-file officers. Recently, concerns over body armor safety surfaced 
when a Pennsylvania police officer was shot and critically wounded 
through his new vest outfitted with a material called Zylon. The 
Justice Department has since announced that Zylon fails to provide the 
intended level of ballistic resistance. Unfortunately, an estimated 
200,000 vests outfitted with that material have been purchased--many 
with Bulletproof Vest Partnership funds--and now must be replaced. Law 
enforcement agencies nationwide are struggling to find the funds 
necessary to replace defective vests with ones that will actually stop 
bullets and save lives. Our amendment will help them replace those 
faulty vests.
  Our amendment also provides over $216,000,000 for programs authorized 
by the Justice For All Act of 2004, a landmark law that enhances 
protections for victims of Federal crimes, increases Federal resources 
available to State and local governments to combat crimes with DNA 
technology, and provides safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and 
executions. The bipartisan amendment that Senator Specter and I propose 
will, among other things, allow for training of criminal justice and 
medical personnel in the use of DNA evidence, including evidence for 
post-conviction DNA testing. It will promote the use of DNA technology 
to identify missing persons. With these funds, State and local 
authorities will be better able to implement and enforce crime victims' 
rights laws, including Federal victim and witness assistance programs. 
State and locals can apply for grants to develop and implement victim 
notification systems so that they can share information on criminal 
proceedings in a timely and efficient manner. The amendment will also 
help improve the quality of legal representation provided to both 
indigent defendants and the public in State capital cases.
  Last, but certainly not least, our amendment provides $6,500,000 over 
5 years for the Copyright Royalty Judges Program at the Library of 
Congress. The Copyright Royalty Distribution Reform Act of 2004 created 
a new program in the Library to replace most of the current statutory 
responsibilities of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels program. 
The Copyright Royalty Judges Program will determine distributions of 
royalties that are disputed and will set or adjust royalty rates, terms 
and conditions, with the exception of satellite carriers' compulsory 
licenses. Our amendment would help pay the salaries and related 
expenses of the three royalty judges and three administrative staff 
required by law to support this program.
  The Specter-Leahy amendment will give to programs that help protect 
police officers and victims of violent crime, allow State and local 
governments to combat crimes with DNA technology, and provide 
safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and executions. Chairman 
Specter and I are proud that the Judiciary Committee was able to agree 
to a reconciliation package that will provide $278 million more in 
revenue than was mandated by the Budget Resolution instructions. I 
thank our colleagues for supporting our amendment and agreeing to use 
that additional money to fund some of these important priorities that 
continue to lack adequate Federal resources.


                           amendment no. 2413

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment to 
S. 1932, the deficit reduction bill. I am pleased to be joined in this 
bipartisan effort with Senators Lieberman, Roberts, Durbin, and Allen. 
I am grateful to each of them for working closely with me in crafting 
this amendment. In addition, I would like to thank Chairman Enzi and 
Senator Kennedy for working closely with me in support of this 
amendment.
  Under the deficit reduction bill, certain educational programs are 
authorized or reauthorized that provide Federal dollars to help low-
income students with the costs associated with higher education. These 
programs include: (1) Pell grants--in fiscal year 2005 $12.787 billion 
was spent on Pell grants by the Federal Government; (2) ProGAP grants--
a new mandatory spending program consisting of approximately $1.45 
billion a year that is designed to provide supplemental grants to low-
income Pell grant recipients, regardless of their majors; and (3) SMART 
grants--a new mandatory spending program consisting of $450 million a 
year that is designed to provide supplemental grants to low-income Pell 
grant recipients in their third and fourth year of college who are 
pursuing majors in math, science, engineering, and foreign languages.
  These initiatives are commendable. I support them. Each program will 
significantly increase dollars targeted to low-income individuals who 
wish to pursue higher education to help them with the costs associated 
with their schooling.
  But while I support these programs, I also fervently believe that 
when the Congress expends taxpayer money, it ought to do so in a manner 
that meets our Nation's needs.
  The fact of the matter is that should this bill become law, the 
Federal Government will spend, next year alone, approximately $14.5 
billion on grants to help low-income students attend higher education. 
I repeat $14.5 billion.
  Of this $14.5 billion, though, without this amendment, only $450 
million each

[[Page 24688]]

year will be specifically targeted towards encouraging students to 
enter courses of study that are critical to our national security. That 
amounts to only about 3 percent of the total amount spent. I repeat, 3 
percent. That is astonishing to me.
  It is astonishing to me because a key component of America's 
national, homeland, and economic security in the post 9/11 world of 
global terrorism is having home-grown, highly-trained scientific minds 
to compete in today's one-world market. Yet alarmingly, America faces a 
huge shortage of these technical minds.
  Strikingly, America faced a similar situation nearly 50 years ago. On 
October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first 
manmade satellite--Sputnik--into space. The launch shocked America, as 
many of us had assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific 
fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of 
post World War II invincibility, afterwards our Nation recognized that 
there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind.
  In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive 
investments in science, technology and engineering.
  In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to 
inspire and induce individuals to advance in the fields of science and 
math. In addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation 
that established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
NASA. And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the 
Nation's goal of landing a man on the Moon within the decade.
  These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik 
launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap 
with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to 
science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the 
Moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure 
that our modern military has always had the best equipment and 
technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the 
foundation for the creation of some of the most significant 
technologies of modern life, including personal computers, and the 
Internet.
  Why is any of this important to us today? Because as the old saying 
goes: he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it.
  The truth of the matter is that today America's education system is 
coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we 
now need and will continue to need far into the future.
  The fact is that over the last two decades the number of young 
Americans pursuing bachelor degrees in science and engineering has been 
declining. In fact, the proportion of college-age students earning 
degrees in math, science, and engineering is now substantially higher 
in 16 countries in Asia and Europe than it is in the United States. If 
these current trends continue, then, according to the National Science 
Board, less than 10 percent of all scientists and engineers in the 
world will be working in America by 2010.
  This shortage in America of highly trained, technical minds is 
already having very real consequences for us as a country. For example, 
the U.S. production of patents, probably the most direct link between 
research and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the 
rest of the world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the 
total.
  In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its 
shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent 
by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, 
with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. 
More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their 
native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American 
high-tech jobs are being outsourced with them.
  Simply put, in today's one world market, while we in America are 
sleeping at night, the other half of the world is thinking and 
contriving of every possible way to compete against us economically. 
Moreover, while we are sleeping at night, there are persons in this 
world who are awake, working hard in support of efforts aimed at taking 
our security and our freedoms away from us.
  Fortunately, we can do something here today to help us become better 
prepared. Certainly, the SMART grant program is an important step in 
the right direction. But while the SMART grant program is one small 
step for man, it is not a giant leap for America. More has to be done. 
Remember, even with the SMART grant program, next year only 3 percent 
of the $14.5 billion targeted towards low-income students will be 
focused on meeting our security needs.
  That is why I am offering this amendment today. The Warner, 
Lieberman, Roberts, Durbin, and Allen amendment is simple. It simply 
allows the Secretary of Education to provide to low-income Pell grant 
recipients who pursue majors at the college and university level in 
critical national and homeland security fields of math, science, 
engineering, and foreign languages, an additional sum of money on top 
of their normal ProGAP grants. The amendment gives incentives and 
inducements to students who accept the challenge of pursuing the more 
rigorous and demanding curriculum of these studies that are critical to 
our Nation.
  The amendment achieves its goal without adding a single new dollar to 
the underlying bill.
  The Warner, Lieberman, Roberts, Durbin, and Allen amendment does not 
change the Pell grant program or the SMART grant program in any way. It 
merely changes the formula of payments to students who will receive 
ProGAP grants. This change is desperately needed to put our nation on 
the road to meeting the ever increasing competition from India, China, 
and other nations where more and more of their students are pursuing 
studies in the scientific area.
  The amendment builds upon the SMART grant program by enabling the 
Secretary to provide even greater incentives to encourage individuals 
to pursue studies critical fields. The amendment accomplishes this goal 
by allowing the Secretary of Education to award larger ProGAP grants to 
students majoring in programs of math, science, engineering and foreign 
languages that are key to our national and homeland security.
  While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component 
to having an enlightened citizenry, we simply must do more to address 
this glaring shortage in other critical fields.
  America can ill afford a 21st century Sputnik. This amendment will 
make sure that additional monies get focused on training the highly 
skilled minds that are needed in the 21st century to protect our 
national, economic, and homeland security.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. The game plan is to go to the Santorum or Baucus 
amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. CONRAD. The next amendment in order is the Baucus amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I call up amendment 2383 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2383.

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

[[Page 24689]]



   (Purpose: To exclude discounts provided to mail order and nursing 
  facility pharmacies from the determination of average manufacturer 
    price and to extend the discounts offered under fee-for-service 
     Medicaid for prescription drugs to managed care organizations)

       On page 110, after line 24, add the following:
       (4) Exclusion of discounts provided to mail order and 
     nursing facility pharmacies from the determination of average 
     manufacturer price.--
       (A) In general.--Section 1927(k)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) (42 U.S.C. 
     1396r-8(k)(1)(B)(ii)(IV)), as added by paragraph (1)(C), is 
     amended to read as follows:

       ``(IV) Chargebacks, rebates provided to a pharmacy 
     (excluding a mail order pharmacy, a pharmacy at a nursing 
     facility or home, and a pharmacy benefit manager), or any 
     other direct or indirect discounts.''.

       (B) Effective date.--Paragraph (3) shall apply to the 
     amendment made by subparagraph (A).
       (5) Extension of prescription drug discounts to enrollees 
     of medicaid managed care organizations.--
       (A) In general.--Section 1903(m)(2)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     1396b(m)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (i) in clause (xi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in clause (xii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) 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.''.
       (B) 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.
       (C) Effective date.--The amendments made by this paragraph 
     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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment modifies the way retail 
pharmacies are paid for brand-name generic drugs under Medicaid. The 
underlying bill makes some important, positive changes but has the 
unintended consequence of forcing the independents--that is, the 
independent drugstores and the chains--in a disadvantaged position 
compared with mail-order drug companies and long-term care drug 
companies, the point being that the last category, because they are 
large-sized, have greater purchasing power to be able to acquire drugs 
on a discount basis, whereas the earlier category, the independent 
pharmacist and the chains themselves who do not have the same 
purchasing power, will be forced to pay higher prices compared to the 
larger. It is a complicated subject.
  This is an amendment designed to even the playing field so the 
smaller guys get a break. It will not be to the disadvantage of the 
larger guys, because with their larger size, they will be able to get 
discounts that will more than offset the amendment provided for the 
smaller guys.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2383) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2417

  Mr. GREGG. I send to the desk an amendment by Senator Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] for Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2417.

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

(Purpose: To establish an International Border Community Interoperable 
                 Communications Demonstration Project)

       On page 95, after line 21, insert the following:

     SEC. 3005A. COMMUNICATION SYSTEM GRANTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``demonstration project'' means the 
     demonstration project established under subsection (b)(1);
       (2) the term ``Department'' means the Department of 
     Homeland Security;
       (3) the term ``emergency response provider'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 2(6) the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(6)); and
       (4) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security.
       (b) In General.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     an ``International Border Community Interoperable 
     Communications Demonstration Project''.
       (2) Minimum number of communities.--The Secretary shall 
     select not fewer than 2 communities to participate in a 
     demonstration project.
       (3) Location of communities.--Not fewer than 1 of the 
     communities selected under paragraph (2) shall be located on 
     the northern border of the United States and not fewer than 1 
     of the communities selected under paragraph (2) shall be 
     located on the southern border of the United States.
       (c) Project Requirements.--The demonstration projects 
     shall--
       (1) address the interoperable communications needs of 
     police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, 
     National Guard, and other emergency response providers;
       (2) foster interoperable communications--
       (A) among Federal, State, local, and tribal government 
     agencies in the United States involved in preventing or 
     responding to terrorist attacks or other catastrophic events; 
     and
       (B) with similar agencies in Canada and Mexico;
       (3) identify common international cross-border frequencies 
     for communications equipment, including radio or computer 
     messaging equipment;
       (4) foster the standardization of interoperable 
     communications equipment;
       (5) identify solutions that will facilitate communications 
     interoperability across national borders expeditiously;
       (6) ensure that emergency response providers can 
     communicate with each another and the public at disaster 
     sites or in the event of a terrorist attack or other 
     catastrophic event;
       (7) provide training and equipment to enable emergency 
     response providers to deal with threats and contingencies in 
     a variety of environments; and
       (8) identify and secure appropriate joint-use equipment to 
     ensure communications access.
       (d) Distribution of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall distribute funds under 
     this section to each community participating in a 
     demonstration project through the State, or States, in which 
     each community is located.
       (2) Other participants.--Not later than 60 days after 
     receiving funds under paragraph (1), a State receiving funds 
     under this section shall make the funds available to the 
     local governments and emergency response providers 
     participating in a demonstration project selected by the 
     Secretary.
       (e) Funding.--Amounts made available from the 
     interoperability fund under section 3005(c)(3) shall be 
     available to carry out this section without appropriation.
       (f) Reporting.--Not later than December 31, 2005, and each 
     year thereafter in which funds are appropriated for a 
     demonstration project, the Secretary shall provide to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security of the 
     House of Representatives a report on the demonstration 
     projects under this section.

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent it be agreed to and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2417) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2348

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the next amendment in order is the Schumer 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

[[Page 24690]]


  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I offer amendment 2348.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself and 
     Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment numbered 2348.

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

 (Purpose: To strike the provisions increasing the Medicaid rebate for 
                             generic drugs)

       On page 125, strike lines 3 through 14.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will speak for a moment about the 
Schumer-Rockefeller generics amendment to the budget reconciliation 
bill.
  The amendment that Senator Schumer and I are offering today would 
eliminate the provision in this bill that increases the generics 
Medicaid rebate from 11 percent to 17 percent. Increasing the rebate 
for generics would jeopardize consumer access to lower-cost 
prescription drugs and that's why this provision needs to be stricken 
from this bill.
  The reconciliation bill before us has a number of flaws--it cuts 
Medicaid by $7.5 billion despite Hurricane Katrina and the high health 
care costs working families continue to face. It imposes even greater 
premiums on Medicare beneficiaries when Part B premiums have already 
gone up by more than $10 per month in each of the last 2 years. And, it 
fails to address many of the problems we know will occur when the 
Medicare drug benefit is implemented on January 1, 2006. But, that's 
not all.
  This bill also includes a provision--which was added to the Finance 
Committee reconciliation bill the night before the markup--that would 
increase the rebate amount that generic manufacturers pay to State 
Medicaid programs from 11 percent to 17 percent. That's an increase of 
55 percent.
  At a time when access to generic drugs represents the greatest 
opportunity for prescription drug cost savings, this bill seeks to 
limit such access. Not only will this policy result in greater costs to 
Medicaid over the long term, but it could also threaten access to 
lower-cost drugs for all Americans.
  In the recent past, when Missouri and New Jersey considered 
implementing generic drug rebate increases for the purpose of achieving 
savings, they actually found they would have incurred greater costs as 
a result of reduced access to affordable generic drugs.
  New Jersey officials estimated that increasing rebates on generics 
used in their Pharmaceutical Assistance for the Aged and Disabled and 
Senior Gold programs would have increased state costs $18 million in 
the first year. Missouri's SeniorRx Program estimated that increasing 
generic rebates would have increased state costs by $8.5 million 
dollars in the first year alone.
  According to a 1998 study by the Congressional Budget Office, generic 
drugs save consumers approximately $8-10 billion each year. Why would 
we undercut access to generics when low-cost prescription drugs should 
be a priority?
  I question the merits of such a far-reaching policy that was added in 
the dead of night seemingly for the purpose of achieving greater budget 
savings. I understand the temptation to act in reconciliation to 
accomplish longstanding policy goals as well as to address requests 
from special interest groups.
  We should resist such temptation when we have not done our homework--
when we don't know the real rationale or effects of this policy or the 
interaction with other policies. We can do better.
  We can be more thoughtful--and we have a responsibility to be very 
careful when we're dealing with pocketbook issues that affect working 
families, our states, as well as long-term costs to the Federal 
Government.
  I thank the Chair and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
Schumer-Rockefeller generic drug amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. In a 
sincere effort to cut costs, what has happened in this bill is, in 
effect, we have eliminated the ability of generic drugs to be sold 
using Medicaid. That will raise costs dramatically.
  Over half the prescription drugs used in Medicaid are generic. They 
are only 16 percent of the cost, but because we have raised the fees so 
dramatically on what a generic drug company must pay a pharmacy to 
handle the drug, it is now going to be the same as a prescription drug. 
Even though the prescription drug costs a whole lot more and, 
therefore, it is a much lower base, pharmacies are not going to use the 
generic. In the long run, that will cost the Medicaid Program billions 
of dollars.
  This is a huge mistake. It was not done by design. They raised all 
the fees and figured that will bring this amount of money in the next 
year.
  Can anyone imagine we are saying, in Medicaid, where we need to save 
money, we are not going to use generic drugs? My amendment corrects 
that situation and is within the fiscal confines of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we do not need an amendment to improve 
this situation because this bill has in it already very significant 
incentives for generic utilization through the way we reimburse 
generics and the dispensing fee we require.
  A very significant thing is to remember that brand drugs account for 
67 percent of Medicaid prescriptions, but they also account for 81 
percent of the Medicaid rebates. This is reasonable policy for us, 
then, to create parity between brand and generic rebates. This 
amendment would upset that parity.
  The amendment before the Senate also simply strikes generic rebates; 
it does not pay for it. So I strongly oppose bringing the Committee on 
Finance out of compliance with our budget instructions. This amendment 
would do that. I ask Members to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 299 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2348) was rejected.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

[[Page 24691]]


  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Nebraska have 2 minutes to introduce an amendment and then 
withdraw it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 2391

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2391 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Hagel], for himself and Mr. 
     Sununu, proposes an amendment numbered 2391.

  Mr. HAGEL. 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 require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to register under the 
                        Securities Act of 1933)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REGISTRATION OF GSE SECURITIES.

       (a) Fannie Mae.--
       (1) Mortgage-backed securities.--Section 304(d) of the 
     Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1719(d)) is amended by striking the fourth sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``Securities issued by the 
     corporation under this subsection shall not be exempt 
     securities for purposes of the Securities Act of 1933.''.
       (2) Subordinate obligations.--Section 304(e) of the Federal 
     National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1719(e)) 
     is amended by striking the fourth sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``Obligations issued by the corporation under this 
     subsection shall not be exempt securities for purposes of the 
     Securities Act of 1933.''.
       (3) Securities.--Section 311 of the Federal National 
     Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1723c) is 
     amended--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``association'';
       (B) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' after ``sec. 311.'';
       (C) in the second sentence, by inserting ``by the 
     Association'' after ``issued''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Treatment of Corporation Securities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any stock, obligations, securities, 
     participations, or other instruments issued or guaranteed by 
     the corporation pursuant to this title shall not be exempt 
     securities for purposes of the Securities Act of 1933.
       ``(2) Exemption for approved sellers.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this title or the Securities Act of 1933, 
     transactions involving the initial disposition by an approved 
     seller of pooled certificates that are acquired by that 
     seller from the corporation upon the initial issuance of the 
     pooled certificates shall be deemed to be transactions by a 
     person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer for 
     purposes of the Securities Act of 1933.
       ``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(A) Approved seller.--The term `approved seller' means an 
     institution approved by the corporation to sell mortgage 
     loans to the corporation in exchange for pooled certificates.
       ``(B) Pooled certificates.--The term `pooled certificates' 
     means single class mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by 
     the corporation that have been issued by the corporation 
     directly to the approved seller in exchange for the mortgage 
     loans underlying such mortgage-backed securities.
       ``(4) Mortgage related securities.--A single class 
     mortgage-backed security guaranteed by the corporation that 
     has been issued by the corporation directly to the approved 
     seller in exchange for the mortgage loans underlying such 
     mortgage-backed securities or directly by the corporation for 
     cash shall be deemed to be a mortgage related security, as 
     defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
     1934.''.
       (b) Freddie Mac.--Section 306(g) of the Federal Home Loan 
     Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1455(g)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(g) Treatment of Securities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any securities issued or guaranteed by 
     the Corporation shall not be exempt securities for purposes 
     of the Securities Act of 1933.
       ``(2) Exemption for approved sellers.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this title or the Securities Act of 1933, 
     transactions involving the initial disposition by an approved 
     seller of pooled certificates that are acquired by that 
     seller from the Corporation upon the initial issuance of the 
     pooled certificates shall be deemed to be transactions by a 
     person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer for 
     purposes of the Securities Act of 1933.
       ``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(A) Approved seller.--The term `approved seller' means an 
     institution approved by the Corporation to sell mortgage 
     loans to the Corporation in exchange for pooled certificates.
       ``(B) Pooled certificates.--The term `pooled certificates' 
     means single class mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by 
     the Corporation that have been issued by the Corporation 
     directly to the approved seller in exchange for the mortgage 
     loans underlying such mortgage-backed securities.''.
       (c) No Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this section or the 
     amendments made by this section shall be construed to affect 
     any exemption from the provisions of the Trust Indenture Act 
     of 1939 provided to the Federal National Mortgage Association 
     or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.
       (d) Regulations.--The Securities and Exchange Commission 
     may issue such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate 
     to carry out this section and the amendments made by this 
     section.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall become effective 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the significance of Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac to our economy cannot be overstated. Together they guarantee almost 
46 percent of all mortgage loans in the United States. They also back 
over $3.9 trillion in mortgage-backed securities and have amassed over 
$1.7 trillion in outstanding debt. This amendment would require Fannie 
and Freddie to register their debt in securities with the Securities 
and Exchange Commission, like any other company. Both are currently 
exempt from having to do so and, because of this, both are exempt from 
the accounting requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley. The Senate Banking 
Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Shelby, passed a 
comprehensive, strong, GSE regulatory reform bill earlier this year. We 
need to take this bill up in this Congress.


                     Amendment No. 2391, Withdrawn

  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sununu be allowed to speak for 1 
minute, after which I ask that amendment No. 2391 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Nebraska in 
supporting this amendment. We absolutely need strong, credible, 
effective regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are enormous, 
complex financial institutions. We want to ensure their safety and 
soundness. We want to ensure they stay focused on their chartered 
mission, which is to provide liquidity in our secondary mortgage 
market. It sends the wrong message if we treat them differently from 
other big investment services companies. It sends the wrong message if 
we don't have a credible regulator. We need to pass legislation that 
includes this kind of a provision, SEC registration for their stocks 
and bonds. It is common sense. We have passed legislation in the 
Banking Committee that is increasingly unlikely, given the opposition, 
lack of cooperation of the GSEs in working on this legislation. Their 
allied interest groups have weighed in against the legislation. I think 
it does a disservice to the capital markets and to the consumers if we 
fail to have a strong, credible regulator. I certainly support the 
amendment, but I will yield back to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the only amendments remaining 
in order be two by Senator Reed, one by Senator Lieberman, one by 
Senator Santorum, and one by Senator Snowe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my personal capacity as a Senator from 
Texas, I object.
  Mr. GREGG. The Chair objects.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Chair objects.
  Mr. GREGG. And one by Senator Cornyn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the last 
one is a Cornyn amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. It appears there may be.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think we can accept it.
  Mr. GREGG. We will now go to Senator Santorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

[[Page 24692]]




                           Amendment No. 2419

  (Purpose: To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to make a 
  technical correction regarding purchase agreements for power-driven 
  wheelchairs under the Medicare program, to provide for coverage of 
  ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms under part B of 
  such program, to improve patient access to, and utilization of, the 
colorectal cancer screening benefit under such program, and to provide 
 for the coverage of marriage and family therapist services and mental 
         health counselor services under part B of such title)

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], for himself, 
     Mr. Bunning, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
     Dodd, and Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2419.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is a four-part amendment. The first 
part would provide for a screening for aortic aneurysms, offered by 
Senator Bunning and Senator Dodd. The second part of the amendment 
would allow for the purchase of electronic mobility equipment for our 
seniors, something Senator Voinovich has been working on, as opposed to 
having a long-term lease. The third part is offered by Senator Thomas, 
which has to do with rural mental health care under Medicare. And 
finally, the piece I have been offering is on colorectal screenings. We 
passed that benefit back in 1997. As a result of that payment of the 
benefit for screenings, we have only seen a 1-percent increase in 
screenings. This is an attempt to try to increase that by allowing for 
the payment of the pre-doctor visit as well as the part B deductible.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Landrieu as a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2419.
  The amendment (No. 2419) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. We now go to Senator Reed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 2409

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 2409 be called up 
for immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. REED], for himself, Mr. 
     Baucus, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Corzine, 
     Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Obama, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2409.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To strike provisions relating to reforms of targeted case 
                              management)

       Strike section 6031 of the bill.

  Mr. REED. This amendment strikes section 6031 of the reconciliation 
act which pertains to case management services. States have the ability 
to identify groups such as children and adults with AIDS, children in 
foster care, other vulnerable groups, and find comprehensive services. 
These services include educational and social as well as medical 
services. The underlying reconciliation bill will force these services 
to be paid for by third parties, the State or others. That will 
decrease the use of these services and actually end up costing more to 
the States, and it will disrupt many of the very appropriate programs 
we have. In fact, many of these programs save money by dealing with 
these people.
  I would point out that this legislation does not require an offset, 
nor does it require a supermajority vote since we are striking language 
in the underlying bill.
  I reserve any time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am shocked anybody from the other side 
of the aisle would raise any questions against the policy we have in 
our bill. This is not a Republican policy. This is not a Bush 
administration policy. This is a policy that was offered by the 
previous administration, the Clinton administration. The targeted case 
management provision of this bill merely codifies that policy that was 
offered by the Clinton administration. I have a letter I got from the 
U.S. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association expressing thanks for the 
targeted case management provisions:

       Your measured steps and considerations of TCM will preserve 
     the needed services to those who cannot attain housing, 
     employment, or health care on their own. [We] appreciate your 
     work in helping to ensure that mentally disabled Americans 
     have the opportunity to access Medicaid services.

  It seems to me this is something that ought to be of the heart and 
the brain of anybody on the other side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Rhode Island has 7 seconds.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this bill will hurt programs that exist 
today that help children, people with AIDS, a host of people. I 
received this information not from the Clinton administration but from 
providers in my own community, Christian Brothers who deal with 
children, social workers who deal with adults.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Smith 
be added to the list of amendments that will be considered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, we don't yet know what the 
Smith amendment is. Can we get that first?
  Mr. GREGG. I withdraw that.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2409.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 300 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Coburn
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2409) was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page 24693]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


           Amendments Nos. 2380, as Modified, 2420, and 2386

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I now send three amendments to the desk and 
ask that they be considered and agreed to en bloc, and the motions to 
reconsider be laid on the table--one for Senator Lieberman and two for 
Senator Sununu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                    AMENDMENT No. 2380, AS MODIFIED

       On page 368, between line 5 and 6, insert the following:

     SEC. 6116. QUALITY MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS AMENDMENTS.

       Section 1860E-1, as added by section 6110(a)(2), is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in clause (vii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(viii) measures that address conditions where there is 
     the greatest disparity of health care provided and health 
     outcomes between majority and minority groups.''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (E)--
       (i) in clause (v), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (vii); and
       (iii) by inserting after clause (v) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(vi) allows quality measures that are reported to be 
     stratified according to patient group characteristics; and'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(4)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) The report commissioned by Congress from the 
     Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, 
     titled `Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic 
     Disparities in Health Care'.''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``experts in 
     minority health,'' after ``government agencies,''.


                           AMENDMENT No. 2420

  (Purpose: To convert the Digital Transition and Public Safety Fund 
   program payment amounts into limitations, and for other purposes)

       On page 94, line 7, after ``(1)'' insert ``not to exceed''.
       On page 94, line 13, after ``(2)'' insert ``not to 
     exceed''.
       On page 94, line 19, after ``(3)'' insert ``not to 
     exceed''.
       On page 95, line 1, after ``(4)'' insert ``not to exceed''.
       On page 95, line 4, after ``(5)'' insert ``not to exceed''.
       On page 95, beginning in line 10, strike ``The amounts 
     payable'' and insert ``Any amounts that are to be paid''.
       On page 95, line 12, after the period insert ``Any amount 
     in the Fund that is not obligated under subsection (c) by 
     that date shall be transferred to the general fund of the 
     Treasury.''.


                           AMENDMENT No. 2386

 (Purpose: To ensure that amounts are not obligated out of the Digital 
Transition and Public Safety Fund until the proceeds of the auction are 
                     actually deposited by the FCC)

       On page 95, line 12, after the period insert ``The 
     Secretary may not obligate any amounts from the Fund until 
     the proceeds of the auction authorized by section 
     309(j)(15)(C)(v) are actually deposited by the Commission 
     pursuant to subsection (b).''.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, a very important provision is being 
passed in this year's reconciliation bill establishing Medicare Value-
Based Purchasing Programs. Value-based purchasing brings a pay-for-
performance provision to Medicare. Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus 
and the Finance Committee staff on both sides of the aisle have pushed 
forward an initiative that has been needed for a long time in American 
health care. I applaud them for their efforts.
  A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found 
that less than 55 percent of patients in America receive appropriate 
medical care. This means that if you go to the doctor and have 
pneumonia there is a good chance you may not receive the right 
antibiotic; or CPR might be performed on a patient with the incorrect 
number of breaths; or you may not receive the best surgery for your 
heart condition. Americans are not systematically receiving appropriate 
medical treatment. And receiving appropriate medical treatment should 
not be a matter of luck.
  We know that it is too easy for Americans to get inappropriate 
medical care. But there are patient groups throughout our country that 
are in even more medical danger. Disparities in health care quality in 
minority groups are well documented. This would mean that a Hispanic or 
African-American male is less likely to receive the right medication 
for a heart condition than a White male. These findings are not related 
to income, insurance status, age, or what hospital a person goes to, 
among other factors. Special attention must be paid to minority patient 
groups in our current efforts to improve the quality of medical care in 
the U.S.
  The 2003 Institute of Medicine report, Unequal Treatment, recommended 
that the ``collection, reporting, and monitoring of patient care data 
by health plans and federal, and state payors should be encouraged'' to 
move towards eliminating health disparities.
  My amendment to section 6110 S. 1932 addresses this IOM 
recommendation to more specifically encourage the collection and 
reporting of health care quality data for both majority and minority 
groups as Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Programs are being developed 
and established.
  My amendment encourages the Secretary of the Department of Health and 
Human Services to focus on diseases where there are disparities between 
majority and minority groups. Diseases such as infant mortality, 
diabetes, heart disease, breast cancer, cervical cancer, HIV/AIDS, 
childhood immunizations, and adult immunizations are all 
disproportionately problematic in minority patient groups. They must be 
considered in any systematic attempt to measure and improve health care 
quality.
  My amendment also encourages the collection of specific data on 
patient characteristics that are key to measuring and collecting data 
on health care quality. Collecting information on gender, race/
ethnicity, language spoken, and insurance status are encouraged. 
Without this information, we will not have any way of knowing whether 
or not disparities between majority and minority groups are decreasing.
  In the existing provisions of section 6110, the Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services will work with various expert 
groups in development and implementing quality measurement systems. 
However, experts in minority health are not currently included in the 
legislation. My amendment ensures that experts in minority health will 
be included in developing and implementing a health care quality 
measurement system.
  Lastly, my amendment would reward hospitals, physicians, clinics, and 
home health care providers, among other groups that demonstrate 
improvement in quality of care for patient subgroups and minorities.
  I thank Senators Grassley and Baucus and the Finance Committee staff 
for working with us to try to focus necessary attention on the health 
care needs of all Americans. This would mark the first time our Federal 
Government made a commitment to improving the quality of health care 
that minority groups--our constituents--are receiving. I believe this 
groundbreaking legislation to bring pay-for-performance accountability 
to Medicare is an important step forward and I believe it will be much 
more powerful and have much greater impact if we tackle how to 
eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in health care.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we now turn to Senator Reed for his second 
amendment.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2396.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2396.

  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page 24694]]



   (Purpose: To strike subtitle C of title II relating to FHA asset 
                              disposition)

       On page 86, strike line 22 and all that follows through 
     page 90, line 19.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, my amendment would restore the ability of 
HUD to preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing.
  The FHA upfront grant and below-market sales programs are designed to 
help local governments purchase FHA foreclosed multifamily properties 
in order to preserve and rehabilitate these units into affordable 
housing.
  Currently, the money for this program comes from the FHA General 
Insurance Fund, not from appropriations. This gives HUD significant 
flexibility in providing these funds if the need arises.
  The proposal before us today will restrict HUD from using the FHA 
General Insurance Fund to support both the below-market sales program 
and the upfront grant program. It is a program of about $50 million a 
year.
  My amendment would strike the language prohibiting the use of these 
funds to allow them the flexibility to continue this program. Because 
it strikes language, no supermajority vote is necessary, and no offset 
is necessary.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Reed 
amendment. In the Banking Committee, as part of the reconciliation 
process, we save, in this instance, $270 million. This proposal simply 
makes the FHA's use of rehab grants and below-market sales subject to 
appropriations.
  If these programs are, in fact, beneficial--some of them are--
appropriations can still be granted in the future, and using the 
appropriations process allows the Congress to better oversee the use of 
these dollars and to ensure that our resources are well spent.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This $270 million is a 
lot of savings that we can put forth today.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  If all time is yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 301 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2396) was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Smith be allowed to 
offer an amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Could we also put in order my amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. And at a later date, Senator Conrad be put on the list of 
Senators who can offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 2390

  Mr. SMITH. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2390. I 
also ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold be added as a 
cosponsor to my amendment. I am already pleased that Senator Clinton is 
a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith], for himself, Mrs. 
     Clinton, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2390.

  Mr. SMITH. 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 as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide for a demonstration project regarding medicaid 
            coverage of low-income HIV-infected individuals)

       On page 188, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 6037. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT REGARDING MEDICAID COVERAGE 
                   OF LOW-INCOME HIV-INFECTED INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Requirement To Conduct Demonstration Project.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     demonstration project under which a State may apply under 
     section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) to 
     provide medical assistance under a State medicaid program to 
     HIV-infected individuals described in subsection (b) in 
     accordance with the provisions of this section.
       (2) Limitation on number of approved applications.--The 
     Secretary shall only approve as many State applications to 
     provide medical assistance in accordance with this section as 
     will not exceed the limitation on aggregate payments under 
     subsection (d)(2)(A).
       (3) Authority to waive restrictions on payments to 
     territories.--The Secretary shall waive the limitations on 
     payment under subsections (f) and (g) of section 1108 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1308) in the case of a State 
     that is subject to such limitations and submits an approved 
     application to provide medical assistance in accordance with 
     this section.
       (b) HIV-Infected Individuals Described.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a), HIV-infected individuals described in this 
     subsection are individuals who are not described in section 
     1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(10)(A)(i))--
       (1) who have HIV infection;
       (2) whose income (as determined under the State Medicaid 
     plan with respect to disabled individuals) does not exceed 
     200 percent of the poverty line (as defined in section 
     2110(c)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397jj(c)(5)); and
       (3) whose resources (as determined under the State Medicaid 
     plan with respect to disabled individuals) do not exceed the 
     maximum amount of resources a disabled individual described 
     in section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of such Act may have and obtain 
     medical assistance under such plan.
       (c) Length of Period for Provision of Medical Assistance.--
     A State shall not be approved to provide medical assistance 
     to an HIV-infected individual in accordance with the 
     demonstration project established under this section for a 
     period of more than 5 consecutive years.
       (d) Limitations on Federal Funding.--
       (1) Appropriation.--
       (A) In general.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, there is appropriated to carry out 
     this section, $450,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2010.
       (B) Budget authority.--Subparagraph (A) constitutes budget 
     authority in advance of appropriations Act and represents the 
     obligation of the Federal Government to provide for the 
     payment of the amounts appropriated under that subparagraph.
       (2) Limitation on payments.--In no case may--
       (A) the aggregate amount of payments made by the Secretary 
     to eligible States under this section exceed $450,000,000; or
       (B) payments be provided by the Secretary under this 
     section after September 30, 2010.

[[Page 24695]]

       (3) Funds allocated to states.--The Secretary shall 
     allocate funds to States with approved applications under 
     this section based on their applications and the availability 
     of funds.
       (4) Payments to states.--The Secretary shall pay to each 
     State, from its allocation under paragraph (3), an amount 
     each quarter equal to the enhanced Federal medical assistance 
     percentage described in section 2105(b) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(b)) of expenditures in the 
     quarter for medical assistance provided to HIV-infected 
     individuals who are eligible for such assistance under a 
     State Medicaid program in accordance with the demonstration 
     project established under this section.
       (e) Evaluation and Report.--
       (1) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall conduct an evaluation 
     of the demonstration project established under this section. 
     Such evaluation shall include an analysis of the cost-
     effectiveness of the project and the impact of the project on 
     the Medicare, Medicaid, and Supplemental Security Income 
     programs established under titles XVIII, XIX, and XVI, 
     respectively, of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et 
     seq., 1396 et seq., 1381 et seq.).
       (2) Report to congress.--Not later than December 31, 2010, 
     the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the 
     results of the evaluation of the demonstration project 
     established under this section.
       (f) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     January 1, 2006.

     SEC. 6038. ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN REBATE FOR SINGLE SOURCE 
                   AND INNOVATOR MULTIPLE SOURCE DRUGS.

       Section 1927(c)(1)(B)(i)(VI) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-
     8(c)(1)(B)(i)(VI)), as added by section 6002(a)(3), is 
     amended by striking ``17'' and inserting ``17.8''.

  Mr. SMITH. The amendment I am offering authorizes $450 million for 
State demonstration projects to provide Medicaid coverage to low-income 
individuals living with HIV. It is similar to S. 311, Early Treatment 
for HIV Act. I introduced this earlier this year with strong support of 
33 of my colleagues. As Medicaid generally covers only those disabled 
by full-blown AIDS, the amendment would vastly improve the treatment 
available to some of our most vulnerable citizens.
  With more States having difficulty maintaining their AIDS drug 
assistance program, it is imperative that we provide alternative 
methods of delivering treatment to those individuals with HIV who are 
living in poverty. It is simply the right thing to do. I ask for my 
colleagues' support for this fiscally and morally defensible policy.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2390) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2371

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2371 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe], for herself, Mr. Wyden, 
     Mr. McCain, Ms. Stabenow, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2371.

  Ms. SNOWE. 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 as follows:

 (Purpose: To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 
  the authority for negotiating fair prices for medicare prescription 
                                 drugs)

       After section 6115, insert the following:

     SEC. 6116. NEGOTIATING FAIR PRICES FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION 
                   DRUGS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1860D-11 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111) is 
     amended by striking subsection (i) (relating to 
     noninterference) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) Authority To Negotiate Prices With Manufacturers.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (4), in order to 
     ensure that beneficiaries enrolled under prescription drug 
     plans and MA-PD plans pay the lowest possible price, the 
     Secretary shall have authority similar to that of other 
     Federal entities that purchase prescription drugs in bulk to 
     negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered part D 
     drugs, consistent with the requirements and in furtherance of 
     the goals of providing quality care and containing costs 
     under this part.
       ``(2) Mandatory responsibilities.--The Secretary shall be 
     required to--
       ``(A) negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered 
     part D drugs for each fallback prescription drug plan under 
     subsection (g); and
       ``(B) participate in negotiation of contracts of any 
     covered part D drug upon request of an approved prescription 
     drug plan or MA-PD plan.
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in paragraph (2) shall 
     be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1) to the mandatory responsibilities under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(4) No particular formulary or price structure.--In order 
     to promote competition under this part and in carrying out 
     this part, the Secretary may not require a particular 
     formulary or institute a price structure for the 
     reimbursement of covered part D drugs.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Clinton be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf of 
myself and Senator Wyden, who has offered considerable leadership on 
this issue over the years providing affordable medications to our 
seniors, along with Senator McCain and Senator Stabenow. So many of us 
in Congress have worked to make prescription drug coverage a part of 
the Medicare Program, but the fact remains that the costs are rising 
since the time we first created this program, from $523 billion to now 
up to $720 billion for the Part D Program.
  As we see in this first chart, the brand-named prices are 
consistently outpacing inflation because they have no competition. As 
we can see with the generic drugs, where there is competition, the 
price is lower. We want to give the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services the ability to negotiate prices, particularly for those 
seniors who will not have access to more than two prescription drug 
plans or where the plans ask for negotiating authority.
  This is not price setting. This is price saving. In fact, we have 
explicit language in the legislation that says this is not about price 
setting. It does not give the Secretary that authority. It allows him 
to save money for the Part D Program that is expected and projected to 
increase in cost by more than 8.5 percent as called for by the 
Congressional Budget Office. That is the CBO's very own numbers.
  Finally, 80 percent of seniors in America have called for the 
Secretary to have this authority.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for 
amendment No. 2371 offered by Senators Snowe and Wyden, which I am 
pleased to cosponsor. The amendment ensures that the Health and Human 
Services, HHS Secretary has an active role in managing the costs of the 
newly-created Medicare prescription drug program, part D, by striking 
language in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 that prohibits the 
HHS Secretary from using the bulk purchasing power of the Federal 
Government to obtain prescription drugs at the lowest possible cost to 
taxpayers.
  On the eve of the vote on the final Medicare bill, my colleague 
Senator Wyden and I agreed that this prohibition language, also 
referred to as ``the noninterference clause,'' was a major flaw in the 
overall bill. Although we both voted in favor of the bill because it 
afforded seniors and the disabled the first-ever opportunity to 
voluntarily sign up for a drug benefit in Medicare, we agreed to work 
to repeal this prohibition language in the bill. I have been pleased to 
join with Senators Snowe and Wyden on legislation the past two 
Congresses to do just that.
  Since casting my vote on the final Medicare bill which, at the time, 
I believed was for a $400 billion bill, we have all learned that more 
accurate estimates of the cost of the overall bill were withheld from 
Congress and that

[[Page 24696]]

the true cost of the bill will now exceed $720 billion over the next 10 
years. Now, more than ever, Congress must do everything it can to 
ensure that the government and taxpayer dollars are getting the best 
deal out there on the cost of drugs covered by Medicare.
  That is what this amendment will do. The amendment strikes the so-
called ``noninterference'' clause, gives the HHS Secretary authority to 
negotiate prices with drug manufacturers, and requires that the HHS 
Secretary do so for covered part D drugs for each fallback prescription 
drug plan--plans where the Federal Government is assuming the risk--and 
upon the request of an approved prescription drug plan or a medicare 
advantage prescription drug plan.
  What the amendment does not do is require the Secretary to set drug 
prices or formularies. I have heard the argument that this amendment 
will result in price controls. That argument has been made time and 
time again by drug companies who would rather profit from the Federal 
Government paying too much for drugs than allow the Federal Government 
to use its purchasing power to negotiate for the best deals on drug 
prices.
  The reality is that this amendment specifically states that the 
Secretary may not require a particular formulary or institute a price 
structure for the reimbursement of covered part D drugs.
  I have also heard the argument that the Secretary won't be able to 
negotiate better drug prices than private plans currently do. I come 
from a State with the largest purchasing power in the country for drugs 
in its Medicaid program and it is clear that the size of California's 
market has helped California's ability to negotiate more competitive 
drug prices in Medicaid.
  But don't take my word for it. In 2004, CBO stated, ``giving the 
Secretary an additional tool--the authority to negotiate prices with 
manufacturers of such drugs--would put greater pressure on those 
manufacturers and could produce some additional savings.'' With respect 
to sole source drugs, CBO went on to say, ``there is potential for some 
savings if the Secretary were to have the authority to negotiate prices 
with manufacturers of single-source drugs that do not face competition 
from therapeutic alternatives.''
  Prescription drug prices for existing drugs--these are not new drugs, 
but old ones--have been rising at two to three times the inflation 
rates, according to the Government Accountability Office. So I ask the 
question: Why are we not doing everything in our power to ensure the 
Federal Government is getting the lowest prices for drugs?
  The Snowe-Wyden amendment ensures fiscal responsibility in an 
entitlement program whose escalating costs pose a very serious problem 
for future generations. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this 
amendment and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. SNOWE. The former Secretary of HHS said: I would like to have had 
the opportunity to negotiate.
  Let us give this power to the Secretary to save money for the program 
and to save money for seniors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the fact is that the Government does not 
negotiate prices, it sets prices. The second thing is that we set in 
place in the Medicare bill plans to negotiate prices, and we know now 
from experience, and I did not know it when this amendment was offered 
before, that these plans are negotiating prices that are much lower for 
beneficiaries and the taxpayers than we even anticipated when we passed 
the bill 2 years ago.
  One thing that ought to be taken into consideration is the fact that 
there is no savings from this amendment. I would like to quote from The 
Washington Post, February 17: Governments are notoriously bad for 
setting prices, and the U.S. Government is notoriously bad at setting 
prices in the medical realm.
  We need to defeat this amendment as we defeated it a few months ago.
  Ms. SNOWE. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kerry and Senator 
Dodd as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the amendment is not germane to the 
measure before the Senate so I raise a point of order under section 305 
of the Budget Act.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I move to waive that.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 302 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 51, the nays are 
48. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. GREGG. I would now like to turn to the amendment of Senator 
Cornyn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 2408

  Mr. CORNYN. I call up amendment No. 2408 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2408.

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

       (Purpose: To eliminate the converter box subsidy program)

       On page 94, strike line 7 through 12.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in 1928, Herbert Hoover ran for President 
based on the slogan ``a chicken in every pot and a car in every 
garage.''
  Under the provisions of this bill, the American taxpayer is being 
asked to subsidize television--digital television to be specific--to 
the tune of $3 billion.

[[Page 24697]]

  I congratulate the leadership and particularly Chairman Gregg for the 
good work he has done trying to save the beleaguered American taxpayer 
quite a bit of money and to reduce the Federal deficit. What we are 
being asked to do here, what the taxpayers are being asked to suffer is 
a transfer of money from their pocket basically to the living rooms of 
the television-watching public so we can transition from analog to 
digital TV. But to make things even more ironic, what this $3 billion 
is supposed to do is to provide converters so they can take the digital 
signal and transition it back to the analog and reverse the action of 
this Congress. It makes no sense. We can do better than this.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2408) was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. At this point, I believe the Senator from North Dakota has 
an amendment to offer.


                           Amendment No. 2422

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2422.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The Journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself and 
     Mr. Salazar, proposes an amendment numbered 2422.

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

     (Purpose: To ensure Medicaid enrollees have access to small, 
      independent pharmacies located in rural and frontier areas)

       On page 121, after line 25, add the following:
       ``(5) Rules applicable to critical access retail 
     pharmacies.--
       ``(A) Reimbursement limits.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (2)(A), in the case of a critical access retail pharmacy (as 
     defined in subparagraph (C)), the upper payment limit--
       ``(i) for the ingredient cost of a single source drug, is 
     the lesser of--

       ``(I) 108 percent of the average manufacturer price for the 
     drug; or
       ``(II) the wholesale acquisition cost for the drug; and

       ``(ii) for the ingredient cost of a multiple source drug, 
     is the lesser of--

       ``(II) 140 percent of the weighted average manufacturer 
     price for the drug; or
       ``(II) the wholesale acquisition cost for the drug.

       ``(B) Application of other provisions.--The preceding 
     provisions of this subsection shall apply with respect to 
     reimbursement to a critical access retail pharmacy in the 
     same manner as such provisions apply to reimbursement to 
     other retail pharmacies except that, in establishing the 
     dispensing fee for a critical access pharmacy the Secretary, 
     in addition to the factors required under paragraph (4), 
     shall include consideration of the costs associated with 
     operating a critical access retail pharmacy.
       ``(C) Critical access retail pharmacy defined.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `critical access 
     retail pharmacy' means an retail pharmacy that is not within 
     a 20-mile radius of another retail pharmacy.''.
       (2) Increase in basic rebate for single source drugs and 
     innovator multiple source drugs.--Section 
     1927(c)(1)(B)(i)(VI) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(c)(1)(B)(i)(VI), as 
     added by section 6002(a)(3), is amended by striking ``17'' 
     and inserting ``18.1''.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in the interest of time, very briefly, 
this is to help rural remote pharmacies with modestly enhanced 
reimbursement. I very much thank my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle who have agreed to support this amendment. I especially thank the 
chairman of the Finance Committee for his support.
  Mr. GREGG. I urge the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2422) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2392

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to reiterate my statement which was 
inadvertently omitted from yesterday's Record with regard to amendment 
No. 2392 that we will support an effort to pass legislation to make the 
technical change deleted from our bill in a more appropriate vehicle.


                        Pharmacy Dispensing Fees

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I engage my colleague, the Chairman of the 
Senate Finance Committee, in a colloquy about his intent regarding 
Medicaid pharmacy dispensing fees in the Medicaid pharmacy 
reimbursement reform section of the Budget Reconciliation Act.
  As I understand the intent of these provisions, States are required 
to pay dispensing fees to pharmacies for Medicaid prescriptions, but 
there are no specific minimum fees set forth in the bill. States are 
given some guidance regarding the factors to use when setting the fees, 
but there are no requirements to do anything more than take those 
factors into ``consideration'' when setting fees.
  I am concerned that the States will not be able to accurately account 
for these factors when setting these dispensing fees. As a consequence, 
pharmacies will be paid significantly less for the drug product that 
they provide to Medicaid recipients. This could make it difficult for 
Medicaid recipients to continue to obtain their prescription 
medications from their neighborhood pharmacy, and many pharmacies may 
have to close or reduce hours. The total payment to pharmacies for the 
drug product and dispensing fee must be adequate to pay pharmacies to 
buy the drug, dispense the medication, and have a reasonable return. It 
is my understanding that States would have to pay double or triple the 
dispensing fees currently being paid to he pharmacies just to break 
even.
  I am also concerned that States do not have any guidance or direction 
in the bill on how to set their dispensing fees for generic drugs in 
relation to brand name drugs. While the bill does say that States 
should set dispensing fees for non innovator multiple source drugs 
higher than innovator multiple source drugs that are therapeutically 
equivalent and bioequivalent, I urge that the language require that 
fees for generic drugs in general be set higher than fees for brand 
name drugs. This will encourage the dispensing of generic drugs which 
can be one-fifth the cost of a brand name drug.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator for his concerns and want to 
clarify for him the intent of the bill regarding dispensing fees and 
respond to some of his concerns. I agree that States will need to 
review and increase the fees that they pay pharmacies for dispensing 
Medicaid prescriptions. We want to be sure that Medicaid recipients can 
continue to have access to prescription medications from their local 
pharmacies. Coming from a rural State, I know that many of my 
constituents rely on pharmacies for health care services and the 
pharmacist may be the only health care professional for many miles.
  The overall assumptions made in the bill is that States will increase 
their dispensing fees to account for the fact that States would 
probably be paying pharmacists a lower amount for the drug product that 
more accurately reflects the cost of the drug product that is being 
dispensed. The amount of the dispensing fee increase will depend on 
many factors in each State.
  We expect that each State will regularly undertake surveys of current 
pharmacy dispensing costs to determine their dispensing fees, and that 
such costs would include those that are listed in the bill. States 
would set their dispensing fees based on those surveys. We also expect 
that States will pay pharmacies a reasonable return for dispensing 
Medicaid prescriptions.
  Our expectation is that States will do all they can to encourage the 
dispensing of generic drugs in Medicaid. It is my expectation that 
States will set significantly higher fees for generics than for brands, 
such as one and a half or twice the brand name fee. If an innovator 
multiple source drug is less than

[[Page 24698]]

or equal to the cost of a generic, then the State should pay the 
generic dispensing fee for that drug.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Chairman for his clarification regarding 
dispensing fees. I look forward to working with you as this process 
moves forward to ensure that any reforms in the Medicaid pharmacy 
payment system will provide adequate reimbursement to pharmacies for 
dispensing Medicaid prescriptions since beneficiary access to 
lifesaving medications depends on pharmacies to dispense them.


                            medicaid waivers

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Last month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services--CMS, approved a comprehensive Section 1115 waiver for the 
State of Florida, the latest in a string of waivers that allows States 
to dramatically reshape the financing and entitlement guarantees 
established by law in the Medicaid program. These far-reaching Medicaid 
waivers are generally negotiated in secret without input from the very 
beneficiaries who would be affected by such drastic changes to the 
program. That is why I have filed an amendment to this budget 
reconciliation bill that will require CMS to post public notification 
on their website within 5 business days whenever a State submits a 
waiver concept paper for feedback or a formal waiver proposal for 
discussion and review.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Senator Rockefeller, I share your concerns about the 
Section 1115 waivers recently negotiated by CMS and several States, 
including Florida and Vermont. I am also concerned about pending 
waivers being negotiated in South Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia and West 
Virginia. Medicaid is a joint Federal-State partnership in all 
respects, including its financing, and both Congress and beneficiaries 
should be aware of the extent to which CMS is negotiating waivers with 
States that modify the Federal-State financing relationship or the 
Federal guarantee of health benefits. CMS has taken several steps to 
improve the waiver information available on its website since early 
2002. However, as you pointed out at the Finance Committee hearing last 
week, CMS does not post notification on their website when they have 
received formal or informal communication from a State regarding a 
waiver and the ``State Waiver Programs and Demonstrations'' portion of 
the website is not updated by CMS on a regular basis.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Senator Grassley, I think it is more than just a question 
of transparency. It is also a question of legality. In many cases, the 
content of the waivers that CMS is negotiating fundamentally alters the 
Federal guarantee of Medicaid benefits. This is not the intended 
purpose of Medicaid demonstration authority. Section 1115 waiver 
authority allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 
Services to waive certain provisions of the Medicaid program if the 
changes are determined to ``promote the objectives'' of Medicaid. I am 
concerned that the current waivers being approved by CMS go well beyond 
CMS' authority and that Congress should be more vigilant in its 
oversight.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Senator Baucus, I certainly appreciate your views on 
this issue. You and I have worked hard over the last couple of years to 
improve Medicaid waiver transparency, and I think we have made some 
progress. But, I understand your desire to do more. I want to continue 
working with you to ensure that the Senate Finance Committee fulfills 
its oversight obligation in this area. I also think that the Medicaid 
waiver amendment that Senator Rockefeller is offering has merit, and I 
would like to continue working with him to improve the waiver 
information available on CMS' website.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Chairman Grassley, I thank you for your willingness 
to work with me. This is a matter of good government. The Government 
Accountability Office has published several reports which indicate that 
the Department of Health and Human Services has failed to follow its 
own policy on providing opportunities for the public to learn about and 
comment on pending waiver requests. Congress has a responsibility to 
assert its oversight authority on Section 1115 waivers because Medicaid 
is too important a program to allow it to be waived away through secret 
negotiations and without input from those who will be affected or their 
advocates.


           medicaid pharmacy, reimbursement for prescriptions

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I applaud your leadership on the 
Medicare and Medicaid portion of this reconciliation package and am 
committed to working with you to achieve reductions in mandatory 
spending programs under your jurisdiction as instructed in the 
congressional budget resolution. I believe that it is necessary to 
maintain fiscal constraint and recognize the difficult task involved in 
achieving that end while ensuring that the country's health care safety 
net remains available for our citizens who truly need it the most.
  As we move forward in advancing that goal, I understand that there 
are several changes included in the reconciliation package being 
considered today that address Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement for 
prescription drugs dispensed in the pharmacy setting. I know you and 
your staff worked very hard to craft the Medicaid provisions contained 
in this legislation and that we both share the common goal of ensuring 
that Medicaid beneficiaries continue to have access to cost-effective 
prescription drugs reimbursed at an appropriate rate.
  In that light, I understand that it is not your intent to 
inadvertently disrupt the highly efficient drug distribution system 
responsible for assuring access to needed drugs across the Nation's 
pharmacies. I think we both believe that the drug distribution system 
can best be preserved if prompt-pay discounts paid to distributors are 
excluded from the new Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement methodology. Was 
this the Chairman's intention?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I do recognize the valuable role drug distributors play 
in the delivery of prescription medication and our Nation's health care 
and did intend to exclude prompt pay discounts from the methodology.
  I say to my colleague from Ohio that I will work with him to ensure 
that my intention to exclude the discounts is preserved through the 
conference and enacted into law.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the chairman and look forward to working with 
him in this effort. I know he agrees with me that Congress should not 
establish a Medicaid pharmaceutical reimbursement system that might 
discourage manufacturers from paying distributors prompt-pay discounts 
if wholesalers pay their bill prior to their contractual obligation--a 
practice that has occurred for the past 30 years.
  We both understand that the drug distribution system has consistently 
ensured that every pharmacy in the Nation has access to prescription 
drugs in a timely manner. This system is highly complex but provides an 
extremely efficient delivery model that reduces health care costs to 
the overall health care system.
  Within the system, pharmaceutical distributors are able to reduce the 
cost by minimizing the overall number of transactions required to 
distribute prescription drugs, over-the-counter products, and medical 
supplies. Nationally, wholesalers serve more than 130,000 customers. 
The typical distributor purchases products from an average of 850 
vendors. These distributors take ownership of the products and 
responsibility for warehousing and distributing individual orders to 
retail pharmacies and other sites of care on a daily basis. This 
efficient model ensures that pharmacies have pharmaceutical products 
available for their patients.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley to maintain this 
current drug distribution system and to ensure that when the 
legislation before us is enacted into law, it clearly excludes prompt-
pay discounts from the pharmacy reimbursement methodology that will be 
used to pay pharmacies for drugs dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries.


                     medicare bad debt, collection

  Mrs. LINCOLN. I will discuss today with my distinguished colleague 
from Idaho, Senator Crapo, to discuss the change in Medicare bad debt 
policy as

[[Page 24699]]

proposed in this budget reconciliation bill. I feel there is a need to 
differentiate between debt owed by individuals and debt owed by States. 
The sponsors of this policy argue that it will encourage skilled 
nursing facilities to be more efficient in the collection of bad debt. 
However, how can the facility be more efficient if the state simply 
refuses to pay the Medicare copayments through its Medicaid program? In 
2003, nursing homes in my home state of Arkansas never received the 
$589,263 in coinsurance owed to them from the Medicaid program. This 
body should examine the root of this problem before implementing the 
bad debt policy in this bill. It is my hope that the conference 
committee considers this when examining this policy.
  Mr. CRAPO. Senator Lincoln makes a good point. While I support the 
Finance Committee's goal of encouraging accountability and 
incentivizing the collection of Medicare bad debt by skilled nursing 
facilities, I do see the need to differentiate between debt owed by 
individuals and debt owed by States. I believe this conference should 
consider this point as well.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
say how deeply concerned I am over the wrong priorities in the spending 
reconciliation bill that is before us today.
  The United States faces a Federal deficit of $331 billion for fiscal 
year 2005 alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This is 
a complete turnaround from when President Bush took office just under 
five years ago. He inherited record budget surpluses and turned them 
into record deficits. Unfortunately, that has not stopped Republicans 
from pushing relentlessly for the wrong priorities and irresponsible 
policies.
  As a result, we now have encountered years of record deficits that 
have contributed to $3 trillion added to our country's debt. Moreover, 
under President Bush's watch, American debt to foreigners has doubled. 
Japan holds $680 billion of our debt, China holds $240 billion, and the 
Carribean Banking Centers hold over $100 billion. Increasingly, our 
fate is in the hands of their central banks and investors.
  We must take action so that we don't put this burden on our Nation's 
future generations. The budget reconciliation process was designed for 
such a situation: to give Congress the tools necessary for deficit 
reduction. Reconciliation could have offered us the opportunity to work 
across the aisle to take responsible steps toward reducing the deficit.
  Instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are pushing for 
the wrong priorities. Take for example their opposition to Senator 
Conrad's commonsense amendment on fiscal responsibility. His amendment, 
called paygo, would have reinstated a rule meant to stop Congress from 
worsening the deficit. It was my hope that it would have once again 
served as a check against irresponsible spending or new rounds of tax 
cuts at a time when the Nation cannot afford them.
  My colleagues across the aisle say that tough choices are needed to 
get our fiscal house in order. I agree--we should balance the federal 
budget just as every American must balance theirs, unless a natural 
disaster or other national crisis demands it. Anytime Congress wants to 
raise spending--or lower revenue--Congress should pause and be required 
to stand up to vote and defend its action. That is what this amendment 
would have required, but Republicans voted against fiscal 
responsibility.
  Today, we are debating the spending reconciliation bill for fiscal 
year 2006, but it is only half of the equation. This bill makes $39 
billion in cuts to critical spending programs. Many of these cuts will 
directly hurt low- and middle-income Americans. The bill takes away 
Americans' access to health care and affordable housing and jeopardizes 
their pensions. The bill attacks important conservation efforts by 
cutting funding and opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 
drilling. But the bill stays silent on lowering energy prices for 
working families who can no longer afford to pay their monthly gas 
bills. Simply put, it leaves too many Americans out in the cold.
  In several weeks, the Senate will be taking up a tax reconciliation 
bill. That bill will cut taxes by $70 billion, with an average giveaway 
of $35,500 for those making more than $1 million each year. Those with 
incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would get just over $100 on 
average. The difference is striking, but not so much as the fact that 
this will all be done under the Senate's procedure of reconciliation--
which was designed to lower the deficit, not raise it. These tax cuts 
will undermine the cuts that the bill is making today to critical 
spending programs and will add an additional $31 billion to the 
deficit. This is irresponsible. It's just another example of how the 
President and his allies in Congress have the wrong priorities, and not 
the best interest of America, at heart.
  What is most frustrating is the knowledge that the final budget will 
likely be even worse than what we pass in the Senate. The House of 
Representatives plans to cut $50 billion in critical services, 
including student loans, food stamps, child support enforcement, foster 
care, and health care. Again, these cuts will not go to lowering the 
deficit. Instead, they will finance another round of tax cuts at a time 
when we also have staggering energy costs, a war in Iraq, many unfunded 
education needs, an exploding population of seniors, and an 
unprecedented relief and rebuilding effort stemming from Katrina.
  I believe we must work together to realign priorities so they reflect 
those of the American people. Working together, we can do better. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided bill.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the so-called Deficit 
Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005. This reconciliation bill 
and the administration's budget are fiscally irresponsible and reflect 
misguided priorities. As a matter of fact, the reconciliation bill at 
the end of the day will further increase the deficit by more than $35 
billion over the next 5 years.
  In 2 weeks, both the Senate Finance and the House Ways and Means 
Committees are expected to report a second reconciliation bill that 
will cut taxes by $70 billion. This $70 billion reduction in tax 
revenue will more than eliminate the effect of the cuts to critical 
programs in the reconciliation bill that we are considering this week. 
With the enactment of two reconciliation bills, there is a real effort 
by this administration and the majority to perform a bait and switch on 
the American people.
  Significant portions of the reduction that are achieved in this 
reconciliation bill are achieved by cuts in programs on which low- and 
moderate-income Americans rely. The Senate reconciliation package 
includes a total of $39.1 billion in spending cuts over 5 years, of 
which $10 billion will come from Medicaid and Medicare. The House 
reconciliation package could have cuts as high as $50 billion over the 
same period, with $9.5 billion coming out of Medicaid.
  In contrast, the benefits of the second reconciliation bill that this 
body will soon undertake will go overwhelmingly to high-income 
individuals. The tax reconciliation bill is expected to extend many 
provisions from the 2003 tax cut that expire in 2008 to 2010 that lower 
the rate on dividend income and capital gains. Just extending these 
provisions through 2010 is likely to cost nearly $23 billion.
  The bill before us today includes a series of spending reductions 
that target pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement, curtail the 
definition of `targeted case management' under Medicaid, and eliminate 
the `HMO slush fund' under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and 
the Federal Housing Administration's affordable housing preservation 
programs. A provision to update reimbursements for doctors will have a 
direct impact on seniors in the form of higher Medicare part B 
premiums.
  Republicans have tried to disguise these cuts by restoring funding 
for the State Health Insurance Program SCHIP for States such as Rhode 
Island, allowing parents of severely disabled

[[Page 24700]]

children to `buy-into' Medicaid, and by increasing student financial 
aid.
  Meanwhile, the House reconciliation bill is truly an even worse deal 
for low-income and vulnerable Americans, as it would impose new 
copayments on Medicaid beneficiaries and allow States to scale back 
coverage. It also would tighten rules designed to limit the ability of 
elderly people to shed assets in order to qualify for nursing home 
care. And, for the first time, people with home equity of $500,000 
would be ineligible for nursing home care under Medicaid.
  The House bill also includes $844 million in cuts to food stamps, 
overturns a critical court ruling, Rosales v. Thompson, which allows 
for Federal support of abused and neglected children in foster care who 
reside with family members, weakens States' ability to establish and 
enforce child support orders, and raises interest rates and fees that 
students pay on their college loans.
  The House package takes almost $20 billion out of child support and 
student loans alone, compounding the effect on struggling working 
families.
  I commend Chairman Grassley and the rest of the Finance Committee for 
their diligence in attempting to craft a reconciliation measure that 
would not directly impact Medicaid beneficiaries. By contrast, the 
House, targeted beneficiaries through increased Medicaid cost sharing 
among other program changes.
  In an effort to further minimize the impact of the reconciliation 
bill on these populations, I offered two amendments. The first 
amendment would restore Targeted Case Management services, TCM, to 
assist eligible high-need Medicaid beneficiary groups, such as children 
in foster care, children and adults with HIV/AIDS, children with 
developmental disabilities and mental retardation, individuals with 
substance abuse disorders and mental illness, and at-risk tribal 
populations, access to needed medical, social, educational, and other 
services. States have flexibility whether to offer TCM services and 
which population to cover, and, nearly every state now offers TCM 
services. We should not jeopardize an essential bridge to services for 
these populations.
  By focusing cuts on Medicaid and other essential Federal programs, 
the reconciliation package will most harshly impact those who cannot 
advocate for themselves--abused and neglected children in foster care, 
at-risk youth, single parents, the disabled, persons with mental 
illness, and vulnerable elderly.
  I understand that the intent of the TCM provision was to codify a HHS 
policy from January 2001. Again, I applaud the Chairman for attempting 
to clarify this provision, however, I am deeply concerned that the 
provision, when implemented, will severely restrict the providers' 
ability to serve our most vulnerable Medicaid beneficiaries.
  The second amendment would strike the Banking Committee's portion of 
the reconciliation bill that eliminates the ability of HUD to use the 
FHA General Insurance Fund to provide grants to help preserve FHA-
foreclosed multifamily properties as affordable housing. Given the 
current affordable housing crises in our country, the grants are more 
important than ever and should be maintained. I am disappointed that 
these and other amendments that would have addressed many of the 
deficiencies of the bill failed.
  One such amendment was Senator Cantwell's amendment to protect the 
Artic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling. Earlier this year, the 
Senate Budget Committee included in the fiscal year 2006 budget 
resolution provisions that paved the way to arctic drilling. Senator 
Cantwell offered an amendment to strike language authorizing artic 
drilling from the reconciliation bill, which would undo this 
exploitation of the budget process and permit an open debate of the 
issue. Unfortunately, her amendment failed. The bill not only opens up 
the Artic to oil and gas development, but does so in a way that does 
not accord this pristine wilderness protection under existing mineral 
leasing laws and regulations, existing environmental protections, and 
existing rules of administrative procedure and judicial review. In 
short, it affords the Arctic Refuge less protection than current law 
affords other refuge or public land that is open to oil and gas 
development. Drilling in the Artic will not help us address our 
nation's energy problems. It is yet another giveaway to big oil 
companies.
  The reconciliation bill also includes a provision that would extend 
agricultural commodity payments until 2011. Extending existing subsidy 
programs will continue policies that are bad for the environment. While 
the bill extends the life of subsidy programs and three conservation 
programs until 2011, it does not extend the life of four other 
conservation programs past 2007. These programs, which restore 
wetlands, grasslands, and other wildlife habitat and protect farmland 
and ranchland are critical to meeting some of the Nation's most 
significant environmental challenges.
  In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, escalating home energy 
prices, and stagnant wage growth, taking money from important federal 
programs in order to pave the way for billions of dollars in tax cuts 
shows how out of touch the majority and administration are with 
hardworking Americans.
  The bill before us is lamentable, and I only hope that those who 
support it today will reassess their positions in the weeks ahead as we 
consider other reconciliation bills that will further add to our 
deficit and continue a path towards misguided priorities.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my Amendment No. 2415 would inject a dose 
of accountability and responsibility into America's efforts to rebuild 
the gulf coast and Iraq.
  It will bar from all reconstruction efforts, both at home and in 
Iraq, all firms found--over the last 5 years--to have overcharged or 
improperly billed the government by more than $10 million on one or 
more occasions.
  It will also bar from all reconstruction efforts--both at home and in 
Iraq--all firms that have overcharged or defrauded the Government of 
more than $10 million over the last 5 years.
  It will also bar from all reconstruction efforts--both at home and in 
Iraq--all firms that have been suspended or debarred from competing for 
federal contracts.
  It includes a national security waiver for those instances where 
dealing with such firms may serve the national interest.
  These are serious penalties, but in both Iraq and on the gulf coast 
we face serious challenges, and we should not do anything less than our 
very best to face those challenges.
  We cannot move forward on the gulf coast without looking at the 
administration's weak oversight of funds in Iraq. The amendment I offer 
today seeks to do that by assuring the American people that the 
Government will spend gulf coast reconstruction funds wisely.
  The bill we are debating is ultimately about saving taxpayer dollars. 
Why not start by weeding out companies that have overcharged the 
taxpayer in the past?
  We enjoy the privilege of living in a vastly diverse country of 
vastly talented citizens. In the country with the world's biggest 
economy, we don't need to rely on just a few privileged firms to do 
America's work.
  We don't need over-billers, underperformers, or those who have 
defrauded the American taxpayer to do America's work. We need to 
entrust America's work, and American taxpayer dollars, to firms that 
embrace hard work, accountability, and a sense of responsibility about 
the public trust into which they enter when they serve as a Government 
contractor.
  America has countless firms that fit that bill. They come from across 
the gulf coast region and from across the country. This amendment 
simply helps assure that they will have a clear opportunity to shoulder 
the burden of rebuilding, by clearing away those firms that have abused 
the public trust.
  Last Friday, the President announced that he would ask this Congress 
to reallocate $17.1 billion in hurricane emergency funding, taking it

[[Page 24701]]

away from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief 
Fund, and dedicating it to rebuilding and repairing of the gulf coast. 
The President wants the authority to replace critical infrastructure, 
facilities, and equipment damaged during this year's hurricanes. These 
are important projects addressing important needs, and I fully support 
them. We must move forward, but we have to do it right.
  These are big projects, including the rebuilding of key stretches of 
Interstate 10, a main artery connecting Texas cities such as San 
Antonio to New Orleans and New Orleans to points east. The proposed 
projects include two Veterans Administration hospitals, major military 
bases, and other highways and bridges damaged by the storms.
  This work will help shape the gulf coast region for a generation or 
more. We cannot afford to get it wrong.
  Sadly, this administration has gotten it wrong before. On Sunday, the 
Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, 
released his latest report on reconstruction in Iraq. Bowen's report 
makes for sobering reading.
  It tells a cautionary tale as we look forward to rebuilding our gulf 
coast communities. It paints a grim picture of conditions in Iraq and 
it tells a story of administration hubris, lack of foresight, poor 
planning, poor execution, and the squandering of millions and perhaps 
billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
  The Special Inspector General has warned us all that America's 
ambitious reconstruction effort in Iraq, an effort managed by this 
administration, is, ``likely to fall far short of its goals.''
  We cannot let the same fate befall our communities here at home. We 
need to ensure--here at home--the accountability that the 
administration's efforts in Iraq have sorely lacked. In both 
situations, the situation demands that we act with speed. In neither 
case, though, should we ignore our oversight responsibilities.
  Special Inspector General Bowen's work assessing the administration's 
Iraq reconstruction efforts reveals the challenges we now face at home.
  Since November 2003, Congress has appropriated $21 billion for Iraq 
reconstruction and relief. The President came to us that fall, seeking 
support for his ambitious plans to build Iraq anew, and in a bipartisan 
fashion, we gave him everything he asked for.
  Billions of dollars later, Iraq is still struggling to rebuild.
  As Michael O'Hanlon and Nina Kamp of the Brookings Institution 
described Iraq last month in the New York Times:

       On balance, the indicators are troubling. Electricity 
     production remains stuck at prewar levels even as demand 
     soars, and the power is off in Baghdad more often than it is 
     on. Unemployment is stubbornly high. Infant mortality rates 
     are still among the Middle East's highest. And Iraq is the 
     most violent country in the region, not only in terms of war 
     casualties but of criminal murders as well.

  How did we come to this pass?
  Secretary Rumsfeld and his tight circle of Defense Department 
advisors--awash in unreality--failed to plan for occupation and 
reconstruction. Their plans for rebuilding postwar Iraq were, according 
to the Inspector General, ``insufficient in both scope and 
implementation.''
  The Coalition Provisional Authority managed Iraqi oil revenues placed 
in the Development Fund for Iraq. The Special Inspector General has 
found that it did so erratically and irresponsibly, often with no 
accountability, and no records.
  The Special Inspector General found that in the town of Hillah, for 
example, the CPA left 7 million dollars worth of projects uncompleted. 
What's more, the money allocated for these projects is missing.
  Indeed, the Special Inspector General has found that the CPA burned 
through nearly $100 million in Development Fund for Iraq money without 
keeping adequate records, and in too many instances, the money just 
vanished.
  That is simply inexcusable, and there may be no way now to trace and 
recover those funds. But where we can track fraud and overbilling to 
specific companies, why should we keep giving more money to the 
offenders? If they won't protect the public trust, why should we trust 
them with new money?
  Where is the accountability? Do we want any of the firms involved in 
the most egregious of these abuses handed new sums of money to rebuild 
New Orleans and the gulf coast?
  Many of our Republican colleagues are demanding that we provide 
offsets for every penny we dedicate to Katrina reconstruction. In too 
many instances, they seek to place the burden for rebuilding the gulf 
coast squarely on the poor. Yet they failed to demand offsets, or even 
simple accountability, when the administration came to Congress looking 
for reconstruction funds for Iraq.
  By adopting this amendment, we would promote honesty, transparency, 
and accountability in hurricane reconstruction and we would bar the 
door to contractors that have abused the public trust. We need to learn 
from the gross failings we have seen in Iraq, learn and do better.
  Now we face a crisis at home. The President has waited 2 months to 
create his Gulf Coast Recovery and Rebuilding Council, which he 
announced yesterday, and 2 months to name Donald Powell to serve as 
Coordinator of Federal Support for the Gulf Coast's Recovery and 
Rebuilding. Let us hope history is not repeating itself.
  Does the administration have a plan to hold accountable those who 
have misused Iraq reconstruction funds, and to ensure that the same 
companies, or similar firms, are not handed more taxpayer dollars in 
massive contracting projects?
  All the major multinational firms working in Iraq have ``cost plus'' 
contracts. Under such contracts, the Government reimburses companies 
for all their costs, plus a percentage of those costs as a fee.
  I don't think that is the best way to protect the taxpayer, but that 
is what this administration has done. If we are going to give 
corporations cost-plus contracts, is it too much to ask that they take 
care to charge us only for legitimate costs and not to take advantage 
of our trust, the public trust, to sneak in millions of dollars in 
illegitimate expenses? Why should we give this important work to 
companies that will pad their expense sheets and hope that we don't 
catch their overbillings?
  Writing big, no-bid deals was quick and easy, but it wasn't good for 
America, and it wasn't good for our reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The 
administration has shown itself unable or unwilling to manage these 
contracts.
  America can do better than this. At home on the gulf coast, it 
absolutely must do so. It is time to cut off companies that gorge 
themselves at the public trough.
  General John Abizaid, the Commander of U.S. Central Command, said 
recently that the key to military success in Iraq, ``is whether we can 
learn from our mistakes.''
  The same holds true for our reconstruction efforts, both at home and 
abroad. Yet poor financial controls and questionable performance by 
contractors continues to squander an important part of the treasure we 
sink into this effort. We already have seen how FEMA and the 
Administration dropped the ball in planning for disaster, and in 
responding to the crisis.
  We must not fail. The reconstruction challenge now before us is here 
at home.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the average American might not follow the 
intricacies of our budget reconciliation process. However, they do know 
when the government has misplaced its priorities, shirked its 
responsibilities and shortchanged the families who need help the most.
  Given our record budget deficits, I am prepared to make tough 
decisions to cut government spending, but what this bill represents is 
a misguided effort to balance the budget on the backs of hard-working 
families.
  I question the rationale of some of my colleagues in this body who 
propose providing tax breaks for multimillionaires and special 
interests, while cutting resources that are critical to the families of 
Arkansas. For example, I

[[Page 24702]]

am particularly disappointed that this package slashes: health care by 
$27 million for seniors and the poor; agriculture supports for farmers 
by $3 billion.
  Mr. President, I want to tell you about Maya Romney of Arkansas. A 
Down's syndrome patient, Maya is able to receive critical therapies 
through Easter Seals, allowing her to interact in a classroom setting 
and live more independently. Quite simply, Maya's therapy services 
could be in jeopardy because Easter Seals is funded primarily through 
Medicaid. And while this saddens me greatly, it should also sadden 
everyone in this body because we all have Mayas in our State or others 
who depend on Medicaid.
  This program, that some of my colleagues look to cut, provides vital 
resources for persons with disabilities and seniors. In my State, 
almost 50 percent of our Medicaid recipients are children. 
Additionally, 958 beneficiaries in Arkansas right now are Hurricane 
Katrina evacuees.
  I know that in the long-term we can find ways to save money and 
improve the efficiency of Medicaid--in fact the Senate has supported 
measures to do just that. But, it is unacceptable to impose arbitrary 
cuts for a program that does so much to support families. By taking 
away these services we are endangering the health of too many 
Americans.
  As an Arkansan, I am particularly disappointed in proposed cuts to 
agriculture. I know that the chairman of the Agriculture Committee has 
worked hard to make sure these cuts are distributed fairly, and he has 
done the best he can. I commend him for that.
  But now is not the time to be cutting our support of agriculture in 
this country. Our farmers have gone through too much in the past year--
rising energy costs, drought, and storm damage. They need us now more 
than ever.
  But instead of reaching out to help the community that feeds America, 
some of my colleagues have proposed slashing $3 billion from 
agricultural programs, and imposing further payment limits that will 
dramatically hurt family farms.
  Rural America is fed up. It seems as though every time this 
administration has needed to find revenue, whether to pay for the war 
in Iraq, cut the deficit, or provide relief from Hurricane Katrina, 
agriculture has been first on the chopping block.
  Our farmers know they must do their fair share, but they are 
currently doing much more than that.
  For the government's part, we should be investing in rural America 
not taking from it. There is enormous potential in rural communities 
and we should harness that potential to help drive our economy.
  Now as I said earlier, the budget process requires us to take 
responsibility in balancing our books. But in the dense pages of the 
reconciliation package, we have lost sight of fiscal responsibility and 
are blithely ignoring several issues that will affect our budget for 
years to come.
  After the Senate considers these budget cuts we will then vote on a 
set of tax breaks totaling $70 billion. It is no secret that the only 
reason we are looking at these budget cuts is to make room for tax 
cuts--most of which could be argued will not make it in to the pockets 
of people that need it the most.
  And oddly enough, some of the tax cuts that we will be voting on, 
such as the capital gains and dividends cuts do not even expire for 
another 2 years.
  But even more baffling is the fact that neither this budget bill or 
the tax cut bill we will consider in the coming weeks takes into 
account the billions of dollars we have spent and will continue to 
spend in Iraq. Neither bill takes into account the billions of dollars 
we have spent and will spend in the gulf coast.
  I have voted for tax cuts in the past, and I will vote for them in 
the future but if we were truly being honest brokers this body would 
have the courage to look at all of our fiscal issues in a single 
package. Instead, we seem content to legislate in a vacuum where we 
refuse to recognize the reality of our fiscal situation.
  We separate tax cuts bill from the budget bill, and the budget bill 
from emergency spending bill because deep down we know that we are 
wrong. We know that if we were to look at this fiscal puzzle as a 
whole, there would be no way to justify our actions. We would have to 
finally admit that we are being fiscally irresponsible.
  Overall, this measure shows America that their government is willing 
to turn their backs on the families who need our help the most in order 
to provide favors for special interest groups. I cast my vote in 
opposition to this bill: it does not reflect my priorities, and it 
certainly does not reflect America's priorities.
  Mr. President, I would like to express my serious concerns about 
efforts today, and possibly during the conference committee, that could 
dramatically cut Medicaid funding through this bill. Medicaid provides 
vital services for millions of Americans, especially persons with 
disabilities, children, and seniors. As we all know, access to health 
care is critically important for improving the quality of life and 
promoting greater independence for these individuals.
  In my State alone, 17 percent of Arkansans depend on the Medicaid 
Program. An additional 1,000 Hurricane Katrina evacuees currently 
residing in Arkansas are receiving their health care through the 
State's Medicaid Program. It is essential that State Medicaid Programs 
and patients get the support they need, particularly at a time when 
States are facing budgetary crises and struggling to deal with 
skyrocketing costs associated with providing health care.
  I understand that tough financial decisions have to be made in order 
keep this country's fiscal house in order, but I do not believe it is 
fair that we require our seniors, our children, and the disabled to 
shoulder this burden. It is simply unacceptable to impose arbitrary 
cuts for a program that does so much to support families in need. I 
believe we can find appropriate savings in Medicaid without 
jeopardizing the health care of so many Americans, and this body has 
supported measures to do that in the past. For example, I supported a 
bill to charge the Institutes of Medicine with evaluating Medicaid to 
find appropriate cost savings and improve efficiency within the 
program. But the proposals many Members of the House of Representatives 
are promoting in their version of this legislation completely fail to 
consider the implications for the health and well-being of Medicaid 
recipients. Rather, these cuts would have more to do with paying for 
tax cuts targeted to benefit the wealthiest Americans.
  I believe Senator Grassley and some members of the Finance Committee 
tried hard to soften the blow of the cuts required by the budget 
resolution, but I recognize that a much worse bill will likely emerge 
from the conference committee with the House of Representatives, and we 
will likely regret starting down this slope toward drastic cuts to an 
essential part of our Nation's health care system.
  I have heard from many organizations and constituents who have 
expressed their concerns. Dana Plunkett and Angela Romney have both 
sent letter expressing their concerns for their children. Both of these 
mothers' children participate in the Easter Seals program which relies 
heavily on Medicaid. Dana's son Larry is able to live in an independent 
living facility because of Medicaid. Angela's daughter Maya who has 
Down's syndrome has been able to receive vital therapies to allow her 
to interact in a classroom setting and live more independently.
  I am aware of the challenges many families, health care providers, 
States, and private payers for health care face under our burdened 
health care system. I appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to find a solution to adequately fund Medicaid and avoid gutting 
the program during conference negotiations.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this week, the Senate is undertaking a 
significant effort to reduce Federal spending and return fiscal 
responsibility to

[[Page 24703]]

the Congress. Not since 1997 has Congress attempted a budget 
reconciliation bill. But the fiscal situation facing the American 
people today demands a serious commitment from the Federal Government 
to reduce deficit spending. This reconciliation package is an important 
part of that process.
  I recommend the chairman of the Budget Committee for his efforts on 
reconciliation. He has been an outstanding advocate for fiscal 
restraint, while trying to respond fairly to the competing demands for 
increased spending. While I do have some concerns about certain cuts 
included in this bill, on the whole I think it is a balanced package 
that accomplishes meaningful restraints on Government spending.
  One of the positives of this bill is the provisions relating to 
energy production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is time to 
open ANWR for oil production to increase our domestic supply of 
petroleum. We need to look no further than the gas pump to see what 
happens when U.S. oil production lulls. High gas prices hurt Montanans 
and dependence on foreign oil hurts our national security.
  The Energy Information Administration states that the coastal plain 
region harboring the 1.5 million-acre 1002 Area is ``the largest 
unexplored, potential productive onshore basin in the United States.'' 
Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, estimate that drilling in 
ANWR could yield up to 16 billion barrels of oil--an amount roughly 
equal to 30 years of oil imports from Saudi Arabia.
  Most people don't understand that the 1002 Area is only 1.5 million 
acres within the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This 
budget allows for development of only 2000 of those 19 million acres in 
ANWR. That means 99.99 percent of ANWR will be untouched. If this 
tragedy-filled hurricane season has taught us anything, we should 
realize that by concentrating our production and refinery capability in 
the Gulf of Mexico, we are risking supply disruption.
  We need to do more offshore, and more onshore across this country. 
Last week, I held a hearing on onshore oil and gas development. The 
backlog we face in processing permits for reasonable onshore production 
contributes to the energy crisis we are facing now. All segments of the 
economy are directly impacted by the costs of fuel to produce and move 
our output. From keeping warm in our homes to moving food to the 
market, the American taxpayer faces a tighter budget as a result of 
skyrocketing energy costs. We simply must consider all options when it 
comes to increasing production, and ANWR are an important part of that.
  The United States has some of the strictest environmental laws in the 
entire world. We can safely and carefully produce oil within our own 
shores, or we can ignore our responsibility to domestically produce 
this resource. Royalty revenues from oil production in ANWR is expected 
to produce $2.5 billion for the Federal Government over the next 5 
years alone, plus provide valuable jobs, and reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  It is time for this body to do the right thing and increase our 
domestic production of energy, and ANWR is a good place to start. So I 
applaud the work of the chairman of the Energy Committee for including 
ANWR in this budget.
  I am also pleased with the provisions to address digital television 
transition. Setting a firm date of April 7, 2009, allows the FCC to 
make critical spectrum available for the emergency workers who protect 
our communities. Our first responders need access to this spectrum to 
ensure communications in times of national emergencies.
  In a rural State like Montana, this spectrum can also be used to 
expand broadband access, linking rural communities not just for 
emergency needs, but for education, telehealth, and economic 
development.
  The revenues generated by this spectrum auction generate billions 
toward paying down the national debt, but also give us the flexibility 
to address some other priorities, including essential air service. I 
was pleased to be able to include language in this bill that will 
provide an additional $75 million for essential air.
  Thirty-seven States rely on essential air, but skyrocketing fuel 
prices are placing that service in jeopardy. The provision I included 
will increase EAS funding over the next 5 years, and ensure that 
communities relying on essential air will continue to have 
transportation options.
  Also important to Montana is ensuring that Federal incentives for 
higher education remain intact. Though significant cost savings have 
been achieved in the reconciliation package adopted by the Senate's 
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, many positive changes 
have been made to benefit the students who most need assistance.
  The higher education reforms save $9.8 billion over 5 years, while 
still preserving critical benefits for students across the country. For 
first- and second-year college students, the loan limits will be 
increased to $3,500 for the first year and $4,500 for the second year. 
This is especially important in a State like Montana, which ranks 
third-from-last in retention of first-year college students who 
continue on to their second year.
  Not only are we increasing the overall aid available, but are also 
emphasizing the various types of education needed from the current 
workforce. This bill provides for additional funding for grants for 
Pell-eligible students who major in math, science, technology, 
engineering, and some foreign languages. All too often, employers 
comment that they have skilled jobs available, but are unable to find 
the kind of specialization they need from students, and by providing 
incentives for students to study in these under-utilized areas, they 
are able to obtain an affordable education and fill a much-needed place 
in the workforce.
  I am especially proud of the provision in this bill which provides 
for deferment on loan payment for borrowers serving in active duty or 
in the National Guard. This provision sends a strong message of support 
to our men and women in uniform, and I am pleased to support its 
inclusion.
  While there is plenty to praise in this reconciliation package, I 
have very strong concerns about the proposals to cut $4 billion out of 
agriculture programs. When this Senate debated the spending cuts and 
reconciliation instructions earlier this year, this body agreed to $3 
billion in agriculture cuts.
  While I would prefer no cuts to farm bill programs, I understand that 
everyone must do his or her part to reduce Government spending. The 
House of Representatives wanted to cut more out of farm programs, as 
did the President. I think the Senate settled on a fair amount, and I 
applaud the chairman of the Budget Committee for retaining that level 
in conference.
  But we are not talking about $3 billion in cuts, the $3 billion that 
we all agreed to. Instead, farm programs are taking a massively 
disproportionate cut. Commodity and conservation programs are being 
reduced by nearly $4 billion. The extra money is not being returned to 
the Government to pay down the debt. It is going to a select group of 
interests, to subsidize small dairies. These budget cuts pit one 
producer against another. My Montana wheat growers are being asked to 
pay for dairy subsidies. That is simply unreasonable.
  In these times of high energy and fertilizer costs, we are asking 
farmers to bear much more than their fair share of program cuts. I urge 
my colleagues to reconsider this proposal. Cuts to agriculture spending 
need to be fair and shared across the board. Giving one sector of one 
industry a billion dollars for 2 years, at the expense of farmers all 
over the country sends a terrible message to the hardworking families 
that feed this Nation.
  Lastly, I want to turn to the issue of cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. 
While I believe the proposals to reform and strengthen Medicare and 
Medicaid included in this reconciliation package are generally good, 
there are some issues I want to highlight.
  I remain concerned about our community and independent pharmacists. 
In Montana, they are small business

[[Page 24704]]

men and women, and, all too often, they are the only place in small 
towns where folks can get the medication they need. I remain concerned 
about how this package may affect them and will do what I can to make 
sure they are not adversely affected by provisions in this bill.
  However, this bill also provides funding to states that face 
shortfalls in the State Children's Health Insurance Program. SCHIP, and 
expands outreach and enrollment activities to cover more children. The 
SCHIP program has been incredibly important in Montana, in ensuring 
children have the health care they need to lead healthy, fruitful 
lives. I am glad to see that this bill also establishes a new grant 
program to finance innovative outreach and enrollment efforts designed 
to increase enrollment and promote an understanding of the value of 
health insurance coverage. I expect this outreach to be helpful in 
Montana, where reaching those in need is often difficult because of the 
vastness of our state.
  This bill will also extend the Medicare Dependent Hospital program, 
which provides financial protections to rural hospitals with less than 
100 beds that have a greater than 60 percent share of Medicare 
patients. Many of Montana's hospitals fall into this category, as our 
Medicare population, especially in the most rural areas continues to 
grow rapidly.
  Medicaid options are expanded through the Family Opportunity Act, so 
that parents of severely disabled children can go to work, without 
risking Medicaid benefits. New incentives are provided to purchase 
long-term care, and new resources are provided to help states combat 
fraud and abuse that steal money away from low-income families that 
need it the most. These are good reforms, and they will greatly benefit 
Montanans.
  Undertaking spending cuts on any scale is a difficult task. But 
Congress must do its duty to rein in the growth of the Federal 
Government, provide incentives to economic growth, and ensure that the 
safety nets we have in place are truly benefiting those who need 
assistance most. Although there are certainly things I would change 
about this package, I urge my colleagues to support it. The American 
public must know that Congress is willing to make difficult choices to 
reduce runaway Government spending and use tax dollars wisely. This 
budget is a good start, and I look forward to supporting its passage.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I oppose the legislation the Senate 
is considering today. This bill does not reflect American values. 
Although proponents of the bill try to claim that this is a deficit 
reduction bill, it is transparently not so. This bill is only the first 
half of their budget policy. The second half, which we will see in a 
couple of weeks, provides tax cuts almost double the size of these 
spending cuts. In the end, the policy advanced by this reconciliation 
process is to increase the deficit by more than $30 billion in order to 
provide additional tax cuts while shortchanging valuable programs.
  I am extremely concerned about how this legislation will affect the 
people in my State of West Virginia. I believe that the effect will be 
very painful indeed. This bill cuts $10 billion from Medicaid, on which 
our most vulnerable members of society depend for basic health care. I 
have fought very hard to improve the provisions of this bill related to 
Medicare and Medicaid, but I am sorry to say that in the end, this bill 
will deal a terrible blow to those programs. And the effects will 
certainly be felt by our neediest and sickest citizens.
  In a letter to the Congress, the National Council of Churches said of 
this budget bill, ``It violates all the fundamental Christian values of 
loving thy neighbor, caring for the poor, and showing mercy.'' In fact, 
they said that this proposed budget would be a ``moral disaster of 
monumental proportion.'' I think it is a very sad day when the Senate 
of the United States would vote for such legislation, especially in the 
context of a fiscal policy that is focused on giving additional tax 
cuts.
  In a broader sense, I am very concerned about what this bill says 
about the state of Congress' budget process. I am afraid that the 
budget reconciliation process that was originally intended to help 
Congress enact difficult policies to reduce deficits is being utterly 
abused by the majority to enact policies that not only cannot garner 
broad support but also do nothing to improve our nation's fiscal 
situation. The unique role of the Senate is undermined when the 
reconciliation process is used to enact policies that are not related 
to deficit reduction, most egregiously in this bill drilling for oil in 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Today, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan testified to the Joint 
Economic Committee that unless reversed the nation's ``budget trends 
will cause severe economic disruptions.'' I agree with Mr. Greenspan, 
and I stand ready to work with my colleagues toward the goal of deficit 
reduction. However, the reconciliation process underway in Congress 
today, in fact, will exacerbate our runaway deficits.
  I vehemently oppose this bill. I ask my colleagues to join me in 
defeating it so that we can make real progress toward improving our 
Nation's budget situation in a way that is consistent with our American 
values, in a way that is truly compassionate toward the least fortunate 
of our fellow citizens.
  Mr. President, I also wanted to make a brief statement about the 
fundamental importance of providing help and support to the families 
devastated by Hurricane Katrina. This is an unprecedented disaster. 
Many families lost every thing they own and they have been displaced 
for months, and that sadly will continue to be the case for quite some 
time.
  For weeks, I joined Senators Grassley, Baucus and others to fight for 
legislation to expand health care coverage for these needy families. 
Today, I voted for Senator Lincoln's amendment to expand Medicaid 
coverage to help the evacuees of this disaster. I am disappointed that 
this amendment failed by a vote of 52 to 47. These families need and 
deserve health care. It is tragic that the Senate refused to help 
vulnerable Americans.
  On the education front, the reconciliation package included by voice 
vote an Enzi-Kennedy amendment to provide support to the schools that 
have already accepted evacuee students. The children and all the 
schools that accepted such students, without knowing how or when they 
would get funding deserve our support.
  I voted against the Ensign-Santorum amendment that sought to change 
the Enzi-Kennedy bill into a direct voucher program. It would have 
removed the carefully negotiated provisions designed to maintain the 
basic civil rights protections in the underlying education package. 
This legislation, in my view, merely provides a one time emergency 
financial grant to the schools and communities that opened their doors 
and classrooms to evacuee students following such an historic disaster.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the leadership for giving me an 
opportunity to express some concerns with the version of ``value-based 
purchasing'' for physicians in the Medicare program, as presented in 
the Senate reconciliation legislation. While I commend the committee's 
efforts in finding budget off-sets to stop the Medicare payment cuts 
facing physicians next year I believe the committee, and Congress as a 
whole, has accepted the idea of ``value-based purchasing'' with little 
discussion, vetting and evidence that it will actually do what people 
say it will do.
  We have a big problem in the Medicare system. Our physicians, the 
bread and butter of the Medicare program who provide millions of 
services each year to Medicare beneficiaries, are facing unprecedented 
cuts in their reimbursement at a time when their own costs are 
skyrocketing. We have known about this problem for years, have taken 
action to prevent previously scheduled cuts and once again we must take 
action this year to prevent more cuts. I commend the Senate Finance 
Committee's efforts for at least preventing these cuts for a year and 
recommending that physicians receive a modest one percent increase 
instead of

[[Page 24705]]

a 4.4 percent cut. I know the physician community is grateful for this 
effort in a time of budget deficits, hurricanes and other problems.
  I am concerned about another provision included in the bill--
specifically, value-based purchasing, a.k.a. ``pay-for-performance.'' 
My concern is that this concept is not ready to be codified and be 
taken to prime-time. In the last decade, we have already declared two 
Medicare physician payment systems--the current sustainable growth rate 
formula and the volume performance standard--dysfunctional and 
unworkable. I do not see the value of diving so quickly into adding a 
new, untested and unproven system on top of an already declared 
disaster--the sustainable growth rate or ``SGR.''
  As a physician, I can attest that most doctors are dedicated to 
improving the quality of care they provide their patients. The concept 
of continuing medical education and continuous quality improvement is 
engrained in our medical culture. For years, physicians have been 
involved in peer review, the development of clinical guidelines and 
best practices, and outcome measurement. The concept of value-based 
purchasing is to turn these practices into a payment system that pays 
higher performers more and pays less to those who cannot make the 
grade. In theory, this has great promise and I believe it will improve 
the quality of care provided to all Medicare beneficiaries while 
increasing efficiency in the system.
  However, I am concerned that the language included in S. 1932, the 
``Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005'' will not 
achieve these goals. While it does give physicians a 1 percent update 
for 2006, it does not address the impending cuts scheduled for January 
1, 2007. The proposed legislation does not fix the SGR, it instead 
places cuts on top of cuts, and infuses a system that mandates greater 
volume on top of one that penalizes physicians for volume increases. 
Value-based purchasing and the SGR are not compatible and cannot work 
together. In exchange for a one percent increase in 2006, physicians 
could receive cuts of up to 7.5 percent in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 
2011. If you think your physician constituents are frustrated now, wait 
until they understand this.
  Under the suggested program, some physicians may have the opportunity 
to earn back that additional two percent cut if they meet specific 
``quality'' and/or ``efficiency'' measures. Many of these measures have 
not yet been developed, have not yet been vetted by consensus building 
groups like the National Quality Forum and may or may not be evidenced-
based. Before there is value-based purchasing, there must be agreed 
upon, comprehensive quality and efficiency measures for each medical 
specialty developed by the specialties themselves. In this proposed 
legislation, bureaucrats in Baltimore would primarily develop the 
measures that physicians across the country--with limited input from 
the physician and specialist community. I can tell you as a doctor that 
I am not interested in having some bureaucrat in Baltimore tell me how 
to deliver a baby in Muskogee, OK, and my patients are not either. 
Physicians must be the ones to develop these measures if they are going 
to be held accountable and if it is really going to improve quality and 
not just be another layer of paperwork and bureaucratic administration.
  I believe pay-for-performance is critical to improving quality in our 
healthcare system. But we must get it right. Our physicians are facing 
year after year of cuts and beneficiaries are facing a loss of access 
to the physicians they know and trust. I believe the correct course is 
to deliberately and methodically build up toward a new physician 
payment system that accurately accounts for the cost in providing care 
to beneficiaries while encouraging and rewarding high quality and 
improvement.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the 
spending reconciliation bill, which has been misleadingly titled the 
``Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005.'' As some of my 
colleagues have mentioned, the spending bill before us today is only 
one-third of the budget reconciliation picture--the other two pieces 
are a tax cut bill and a bill to increase the debt limit. Taken 
together, this package of reconciliation legislation would increase the 
budget deficit and impose greater costs on some of the most vulnerable 
members of our society. It would also allow for drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, which would be environmentally damaging and 
do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The bill fails to 
reflect the priorities of the people of our nation and it fails to 
seriously address the major challenges we face as a Nation.
  We are living today in an increasingly global society, one that 
presents tremendous opportunities. But with those opportunities come 
challenges. Today, countries like China and India are becoming 
increasingly desirable for venture capitalists interested in 
investment, for students interested in higher education, and for 
companies interested in labor that is not only inexpensive but well-
educated and well-trained, too. With economic development and expansion 
have come greater competitive pressures.
  Our labor market is under strain--real wages are stagnating, health 
care is becoming increasingly unaffordable, and pension benefits are 
being eroded and cut. The science and math scores of our high school 
seniors are at the bottom of the pack of industrialized nations. And we 
are the only nation in the developed world where literacy levels of 
older adults are higher than those of young adults.
  Our Nation faces a choice. Are the administration and Congress going 
to respond to new challenges in a sensible and progressive way or will 
they continue to ignore the facts and adhere to policies that have 
brought Americans higher deficits, higher unemployment, and lower 
incomes? Will they continue to hold to the primitive philosophy that 
lower taxes on the most affluent, higher taxes on everyone else, and 
less investment in education, research, and business growth will 
somehow magically restore us to our place of economic preeminence in 
the world?
  This view is naive and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of our 
history. Our economic success has not been achieved despite investments 
we made in our people, but because of them. The not-so-benign neglect 
that characterizes much of our current national economic policy is not 
a strategy for success. It's an excuse for complacency, and ultimately 
a recipe for mediocrity.
  Regrettably, this reconciliation package continues failed policies 
that will only continue to erode our Nation's place in the world.
  First and foremost, the budget reconciliation package takes the worst 
fiscal record of any president in history and makes it worse. It takes 
procedural rules specifically designed to reduce the deficit and uses 
them to increase the deficit by $30 to 35 billion over the next 5 
years. Part one of this reconciliation legislation may be cutting 
spending by $35 billion, but part two will provide tax breaks costing 
even more--$70 billon.
  This fiscal irresponsibility is not an isolated case. Under President 
Bush, the Federal budget has gone from a surplus of $236 billion in 
2000 to a deficit of $319 billion in 2005. The national debt has risen 
by nearly two and a half trillion dollars since 2000, totaling roughly 
$8 trillion as of this morning. That amounts to $27,041.81 for every 
man, woman, and child in the United States. Every minute in 2005, 
Republican budget policies have added $1,048,952 to the national debt.
  As we have borrowed more, we have been forced to rely increasingly 
heavily on foreign lenders--particularly the central banks of countries 
like China and Japan--to fund our profligate ways. Foreign holdings of 
U.S. Treasury debt have more than doubled under the Bush administration 
from $1.01 trillion in January 2001 to $2.06 trillion in August 2005. 
Japan now holds $684 billion of that debt and China now holds $248 
billion. We are playing a dangerous game here by relying so heavily on 
borrowing from abroad.
  Some in this administration have reportedly argued that deficits 
don't

[[Page 24706]]

matter. I strongly disagree. By blowing a massive hole in our budget, 
this administration and the Republican majority in Congress have 
seriously jeopardized our ability to meet the needs of our nation's 
other critical priorities.
  The cost of the Bush administration's deficits is reflected right 
here in this spending reconciliation bill. In order to pay for just a 
small piece of the Bush tax cuts for the most affluent, this 
legislation would impose harmful cuts that would fall 
disproportionately on working Americans and the most vulnerable in our 
society.
  For example, this bill cuts funding for Medicare and Medicaid, which 
provide health care to poor children, working men and women, the 
disabled, and the elderly. It cuts funding to rehabilitate FHA-insured 
multi-family housing. It dramatically increases the premiums paid by 
pension plans to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, the Federal 
pension insurer, making it more expensive for companies to offer 
defined benefit pension plans for their employees.
  While many of the health care cuts in the Senate's reconciliation 
bill are less severe than what is contained in parallel House 
reconciliation proposal, I remain concerned that even under the Senate 
plan Medicare beneficiaries will have to pay more for critically needed 
services and access to Medicaid services could be limited for some 
beneficiaries.
  As bad as the cuts are in the bill before this body, the companion 
legislation in the House of Representatives is much, much worse. It 
contains food stamp cuts for roughly 300,000 people, most of them in 
working families. It contains Medicaid cuts that would reduce health 
care benefits and increase health care costs for roughly 6 million 
children, as well as many low-income parents, the elderly, and people 
with disabilities. And it contains cuts in child support enforcement, 
child care assistance, and Federal foster care assistance.
  So let us not be under any illusions: any conference agreement with 
the other body is likely to be even more harmful to the well-being of 
Americans.
  The reason for these cuts is to pay for a small portion of President 
Bush's tax breaks for those who need them least. More than 70 percent 
of the benefits of the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax break packages have gone 
to the 20 percent of taxpayers with the highest incomes, according to 
the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the 
Brookings Institution. More than 25 percent of the tax-cut benefits 
have gone to the top one percent. I believe these priorities are 
seriously out of step with the values of this Nation.
  In addition to cutting assistance for the poor to pay for tax cuts 
for the wealthy, this legislation would open the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Not only would such drilling be incredibly 
damaging to the region's fragile ecosystem, it would do nothing to 
reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Reasonable estimates 
project that drilling in the Refuge would provide only enough oil to 
satisfy U.S. demand for 6 months. Moreover, this supply would not even 
come on-line for 10 years. The belief that our country can drill our 
way out of dependence on foreign energy sources is misguided.
  As a nation, we face significant challenges in both the short and 
long term. Americans are concerned about finding and keeping good jobs, 
paying for soaring energy prices, and whether they will have good 
health care when they need it. They are concerned about hurricane 
disaster relief and rebuilding assistance, and preparedness for the 
threat of an avian flu crisis. They are concerned about the war in Iraq 
and protecting the homeland from terrorist attacks. They are concerned 
about our education system and our competitiveness in the global 
economy.
  The budget resolution--and the reconciliation legislation that 
carries out its instructions--is a statement of priorities. 
Unfortunately, the bill before this body today fails to seriously 
address the concerns of American families and businesses.
  We can do better than this legislation. We can do better than harmful 
cuts for the poor and for children and for seniors. We can do better 
than using these cuts to pay for tax breaks for the most well-off in 
our society--who are, by the way, hardly clamoring for the kind of tax 
largesse that this Administration and its allies in the Congress insist 
on heaping upon them.
  We should be investing in our society--in our education system and 
our knowledge base. We should be investing in science and technology 
and research and development. This legislation is not about investing 
in America. It is about fiscal irresponsibility in the name of tax 
breaks for those who need them least. Therefore, Mr. President, I 
cannot support this bill.
  While I am unhappy with this reconciliation package overall, I am 
pleased that this bill does contain lifesaving legislation that I have 
introduced the past two Congresses that will provide Medicare coverage 
for screening for a dangerous condition known as abdominal aortic 
aneurysm--or AAA--a silent killer that claims the lives of 15,000 
Americans each year. AAAs occur when there is a weakening of the walls 
of the aorta, the body's largest blood vessel. This artery begins to 
bulge, most often very slowly and without symptoms, and can lead to 
rupture and severe internal bleeding. AAA is a devastating condition 
that is often fatal without detection, with less than 15 percent of 
those afflicted with a ruptured aorta surviving. Estimates indicate 
that 2.7 million Americans suffer from AAA. Further, research indicates 
that when detected before rupturing, AAAs are treatable and curable in 
95 percent of the cases. And while most AAAs are never diagnosed, 
nearly all can be detected through an inexpensive and painless 
screening.
  I want to thank my colleague Senator Jim Bunning for joining me in 
supporting this important and lifesaving legislation. When we first 
introduced this legislation in the last Congress, we were joined by 
patients who had suffered a ruptured aorta as result of an AAA and 
their families. At this event these patients shared with us their 
harrowing and personal stories of battling this deadly condition. It is 
because of struggles like theirs that we are here today at the outset 
of an effort to prevent abdominal aortic aneurysms from advancing to 
the point of rupture by providing coverage for a simple yet lifesaving 
screening. Simply put this legislation is about saving lives and I am 
pleased that it is contained in the bill passed today.
  Finally, I would also like to say a brief word about the amendment 
being offered by Senator Byrd that deals with the issue of H-1B and L-1 
visas. His amendment would strike the text in the underlying bill 
dealing with immigrant worker visas and replace it with a $1,500 fee 
for employers who file a petition to hire a foreign worker under the L-
1 visa program.
  Immigration reform is a critical issue that this body must address. 
It is a matter of national security, of overall economic well being, 
and of protecting American workers. Simply put, the underlying bill is 
not the appropriate place to address such critical and complicated 
immigration issues as the H-1B visa. So I thank Senator Byrd for 
offering his amendment. I strongly support it and I hope that my 
colleagues will as well when it comes to a vote.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today's vote is the first part of a 
three-step budget reconciliation package that actually leaves this 
Nation's budget worse off than it is now, not by tens of millions of 
dollars, which itself would have been a disservice to the American 
public, but by tens of billions of dollars.
  Using reconciliation to push through legislation that will worsen our 
budget deficit and add billions more to the mountain of debt our 
children and grandchildren will have to pay is a perversion of a 
process designed to expedite measures to reduce the deficit.
  Reconciliation was intended to help facilitate the enactment of 
measures to reduce the deficit. It is ironic, to say the least, that it 
should be used to enact measures that only aggravate our budget 
deficits and increase our massive debt.

[[Page 24707]]

  No one who has served in this body for the past 10 years, and 
especially the past 4\1/2\ years, should pretend to be shocked, 
however. This is only the latest abuse of a reconciliation process that 
in recent years has been the principal tool used to enact some of the 
most reckless fiscal policies in recent history.
  But for even the most cynical, there are new lows in this bill, most 
notably the use of reconciliation to jam through a controversial policy 
measure to permit drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. At the very least, the Senate should be allowed to conduct a 
full and open debate on this misguided decision to undermine the crown 
jewel of our National Wildlife Refuge System. To say that the inclusion 
of this provision in the reconciliation package is based on dubious 
revenue assumptions would be kind. By perverting the budget process to 
push through oil and drilling in the Arctic Refuge, the majority has 
successfully squandered away the legacy of environmental stewardship 
initiated by President Eisenhower in 1960.
  Also of concern are the significant changes to the Medicare and 
Medicaid programs, cutting programs that offer critical health care 
services to people who most need it. The Senate package does adopt some 
positive changes, such as cutting the Medicare Advantage slush fund, 
preventing Medicare cuts to physician payments, and protecting 
inpatient rehabilitation hospitals. Unfortunately, the President has 
made it clear that he does not support many of the provisions that will 
protect beneficiaries, but instead would rather give money to insurance 
and pharmaceutical companies.
  The administration has stated that it prefers provisions offered in 
the House budget package. The House plan for Medicaid cuts includes 
cutting programs for children, pregnant mothers, the disabled, and the 
elderly, while including stipulations to shift costs onto already poor 
and vulnerable populations. This bill will result in considerable 
changes to these programs that could negatively affect multiple 
generations of American families, and I am deeply concerned about the 
possibility of a final conference report that adopts the House approach 
on these issues.
  In one of the few bright spots in this package, the Agriculture 
Committee overwhelmingly and in a bipartisan manner proposed an 
extension of the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, program as part of 
its reconciliation package. This committee action and the lack of an 
attempt to remove the extension on the floor show the strong support 
for this vital dairy safety net. I renew my call to the administration 
to fulfill the President's campaign promise and actively work with 
members of the House to reaffirm the Senate's strong support for MILC.
  I close by cautioning my colleagues in the majority party that the 
precedents set by previous reconciliation bills and being set in this 
one lay the groundwork for the leveraging through of policies they may 
find troubling the day Democrats become the majority party in the 
Senate. And that day will come.
  My friends across the aisle may be thinking, ``We have nothing to 
lose. When Democrats take control, there will be enough of them who 
will object to the kinds of abuses of the reconciliation process in 
which we engaged.''
  Well, if that is their thinking, they may be right. But I suggest 
that it is an unreliable strategy. The best protection against possible 
Democratic abuse of reconciliation in the future is to ensure that the 
rules are enforced as they were intended at all times, not just when 
they serve your immediate policy objectives.
  Using reconciliation to enact controversial energy and health 
policies is an abuse of that process. Using reconciliation to enact 
legislation that will worsen budget deficits and increase the debt is 
an abuse of that process.
  And, please, let's not waste the Senate's time with arguments that 
somehow this particular bill before us isn't an abuse because this 
bill, by itself, does not worsen the deficit. No matter how many pieces 
you slice it into, the reconciliation package will leave us with bigger 
deficits, not smaller ones.
  When Congress and the White House become serious about cleaning up 
the fiscal mess they created, and when they are willing to spread the 
burden of that clean up across all programs--defense and nondefense 
discretionary programs, entitlements, and the spending done through the 
Tax Code--I am ready to help. But so long as we see reconciliation 
measures that are contemptuous of the principles on which 
reconciliation was based, I must oppose them.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the reconciliation bill 
before the Senate.
  The bill would cut vital programs for the middle class, elderly, and 
poor in order to pave the way for yet another tax cut for the richest 
individuals in the county.
  Hurricane Katrina focused the Nation's attention on America's poor 
and displaced. In the wake of the storm, the people demanded that 
Congress act to help Americans in need and were justifiably angry at 
the administration's slow and inadequate response. Americans recognize 
that their government should aid those in distress in order to make 
this a better country for everyone.
  That is why I cannot believe only 2 months after Katrina, we have a 
bill that would cut Medicare and Medicaid by $27 billion, increase 
Medicare premiums for seniors, cut the availability of affordable 
housing, and cut support for our farmers by $3 billion.
  Even worse, the House of Representatives is looking to make even 
deeper cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and to cut the food stamp program, 
child support enforcement, the foster care program, and student loan 
programs.
  These cuts will harm millions of Americans.
  And why are the Republicans doing this? Not to reduce the deficit, 
which is spinning out of control, but to provide tax cuts for 
millionaires that will at the end of the day actually increase the 
deficit.
  The tax portion of the reconciliation package will provide $70 
billion in tax breaks--$30 billion more than the proposed spending 
cuts. In a perversion of the budget reconciliation process, the 
Republicans will be adding to, not decreasing, the Nation's $8 trillion 
debt.
  The majority of those $70 billion in tax breaks will go to the 
wealthy. People making over $1 million a year will get an average tax 
cut of $35,491. In comparison, those making between $50,000 to $200,000 
a year will get a break of $122. And those making less than $50,000 a 
year will get an average tax cut of $6.
  That means that people who are most hurt by the spending cuts--the 
middle class, seniors, and the poor--will get almost no benefit the tax 
cuts.
  The reconciliation package also is a windfall for big oil. It would 
allow them to drill in one of American's most pristine areas--Alaska's 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Fragile wilderness will be opened, 
threatened, and ultimately ruined for the sake of 6 months' worth of 
oil.
  What makes America the greatest Nation in the world is our sense of 
community and compassion. Americans look out for each other, and our 
government should do the same.
  The budget reconciliation package reflects none of the core American 
values of compassion and equity. Instead, it harms those who are most 
vulnerable in order to benefit the rich and a handful of special 
interests.
  For these reasons, I cannot support the budget reconciliation 
spending bill and will vote against it.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, Earlier today, an amendment I have worked 
closely with Senator Dodd from Connecticut on was passed as part of the 
budget reconciliation package. The amendment is based on legislation we 
introduced which would provide a new, one-time screening benefit for 
abdominal aortic aneurysms, AAAs, under Medicare for certain, eligible 
beneficiaries.
  I am pleased this amendment was accepted, and I appreciate the hard 
work from Senator Dodd in helping get this amendment passed. I hope 
that we can continue working to ensure that this provision is included 
in the final reconciliation package.

[[Page 24708]]

  AAAs occur when there is a weakening of the walls of the aorta, the 
body's largest blood vessel. The artery begins to bulge and can lead to 
a rupture and often severe internal bleeding. In cases where an artery 
ruptures, the survival rate is less than 15 percent, and approximately 
15,000 people die from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms each year.
  When detected before rupturing, AAAs are treatable and curable in 95 
percent of cases. Nearly all AAAs can be detected through an 
inexpensive ultrasound screening. Once detected, a physician can 
monitor small aortic aneurysms and begin treating the risk factors, 
such as high blood pressure and smoking. Large or rapidly growing 
aneurysms are often treated using either an open surgical procedure or 
a less invasive stent graft, both of which serve to repair the artery.
  It is estimated that between 5 to 7 percent of adults of the age of 
60 have AAAs.
  Our amendment targets AAA screenings to Medicare beneficiaries with a 
family history and those who exhibit risk factors recommended for 
screening by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, specifically 
men who smoke. The amendment also limits screening to those eligible 
beneficiaries who participate in the Welcome to Medicare Physical.
  This amendment could save thousands of lives each year, and I am 
pleased we were able to include it in this package.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am in reluctant but adamant opposition to 
the reconciliation bill before us. I say reluctant, because I am glad 
to see the Senate using the reconciliation procedure for the purposes 
for which it was intended: making difficult choices to reduce spending. 
And reluctant because some of the policy changes incorporated in this 
bill are necessary and worthy of the Senate's support.
  One such provision relates to extension of the Milk Income Lost 
Contract, MILC, program. MILC, which expired at the end of the last 
fiscal year, provides counter-cyclical support for the nation's dairy 
sector. It is targeted. It is fair. It is essential. Moreover, it 
enjoys the President's support. It makes sense as part of the balanced 
Agriculture package in this bill.
  But my opposition to the entire package is adamant because this bill 
is just one piece of a fiscally and morally bankrupt budget. Though 
this bill asks for sacrifices from seniors, students, farmers and 
working families, the budget of which it is part will add over $30 
billion to the deficit over the next 5 years. Though this bill makes 
real cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, aid to farmers and funding for 
conservation programs across the country, the budget of which it is 
part will add $3 trillion to the national debt by 2010.
  If this bill was what many on the floor have argued--a carefully 
crafted compromise to cut $39 billion from our growing federal deficit, 
I would have to think hard before opposing it. But the budget calls for 
today's bill to be followed with $70 billion tax cut, the bulk of which 
will go to those with more than $1 million in annual income.
  I am willing to make the hard choices to bring our budget deficit 
down. I am not willing to support taking needed services away from 
those that need them the most--and use those cuts as a fig leaf to hide 
tax breaks for those who need them the least.
  Our budget is the most basic expression of what we stand for as a 
government. Is this budget really what we want to vote to say? That we 
are the sort of country that threatens our own economic stability by 
piling deficit upon deficit? That we show our fiscal toughness by 
chopping aid to those in need? That we show our compassion only to 
those whose biggest problem is finding a really good tax shelter for 
their growing capital gains?
  Make no mistake, this bill is the first piece of the budget that says 
just that, and for that reason alone, it deserves our solid opposition. 
But beyond that, there are individual provisions in this bill to which 
I take exception. One is the use of this bill's extraordinary fast 
track procedures to accomplish what big Oil's proponents have not been 
able to get through the Senate in the past: opening the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
  I have long supported protecting this valuable and fragile natural 
wonder, and I think it is unfortunate that we are drilling in this 
wilderness for a relatively small payback. Those on the other side of 
this issue who use the current high price of oil to justify the 
violation of this pristine area are short sighted. According to the 
Department of Energy's own analysis the oil from the refuge will only 
lower the price of a barrel of oil by one penny. In addition, this oil 
will not come on line for almost a decade. Instead of threatening our 
natural heritage, I believe we should be looking instead at encouraging 
conservation efforts, and taking a careful look at high oil company 
profits. We do need to act to lower our dependency on foreign oil, but 
we cannot drill our way out of dependency.
  I'm also particularly disappointed that the bill we are considering 
today contains harmful program cuts that would fall disproportionately 
on the most vulnerable in our society. This legislation cuts funding 
for health care provided through the Medicaid program, which provides 
health insurance to poor children, pregnant women, and elderly. My 
Republican colleagues argue that we must cut waste and fraud in 
Medicaid and I am not opposed to that. However, I do not agree with the 
arbitrary way they have gone about cutting funding from this critical 
safety net program--without which millions of Americans would be 
uninsured--and using that money to pay for tax cuts for people with 
high incomes. I'm also concerned about the increased burden this bill 
places on seniors through additional cuts in the Medicare program and 
an increase in Medicare Part B premiums. I hope my colleagues will 
support several of the amendments offered today to help minimize the 
impact these cuts could have on our Nation's elderly.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill--and the irresponsible and 
cruel budget of which it is part.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today truly alarmed about the 
administration's fiscal irresponsibility. In the past 5 years, the 
President's policies have turned record surpluses into record deficits. 
Just a few weeks ago, the Department of Treasury announced that this 
year's budget deficit is the third largest in history at $319 billion.
  But, that is not where the bad story ends.
  By sleight of hand, the administration continues to use other 
resources to finance debt, including foreign lenders and Social 
Security. The real deficit is a staggering $551 billion, 4.5 percent of 
GDP.
  Administration officials are nonchalant about the fiscal disarray.
  I am deeply worried. We all should be.
  On October 18, the national debt passed the $8 trillion mark. Even 
more disturbing, the national debt is being financed by Chinese, 
Japanese, and other overseas lenders. To put this into perspective, in 
absolute dollars, the country is borrowing more than ever in its 
history, close to $2 trillion from foreign nations. We owe over $680 
billion to Japan, $390 billion to the European Union, $240 billion to 
China, and $57 billion to OPEC nations, to name a few.
  It is beyond me how this administration can turn a blind eye to these 
numbers, or how Congress can approve legislation that exacerbates these 
fiscal problems.
  Instead of facing up to the fiscal truth, President Bush ignores the 
mountain of debt that will burden generations to come.
  First, this President shortened the budget timeline from 10 years to 
5 years. Relying on this kind of gimmickry covers up for the 
President's destructive fiscal decisions, especially as they relate to 
tax cuts for the rich.
  Second, this Republican Congress voted against a system to keep the 
budget in balance. I am referring to the pay-go rule endorsed by 
Federal Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Secretary of Treasury Robert 
Rubin. Pay-go would have required an offset for any decrease in 
revenue. The method

[[Page 24709]]

would have ensured a balanced approach to tax cuts. Unfortunately, 
Republican congressional leaders opted for shunting aside integrity in 
budgeting. They back pay-go in name, but not in practice.
  By any standard, the decisions to ignore a 10 year budget timeline 
and disregard balancing methods have caused massive red ink and send 
the country precisely in the wrong direction.
  In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan put it this way:

       The federal budget deficit is on an unsustainable path, in 
     which large deficits result in rising interest rates and 
     ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in 
     future years . . . Unless this trend is reversed, at some 
     point these deficits will cause the economy to stagnate or 
     worse.

  I fear this reconciliation package, coupled with the administration's 
tax cuts, will lead us to even worse times.
  Reconciliation is simply asking too much of middle income families 
who are facing cost increases for basic needs.
  For instance, energy costs to heat one's home have increased 20 
percent from last year. Education costs for public universities have 
increased 7.1 percent. Interest rates that impact college loan payments 
have doubled over the last 10 months. And, gas prices have increased 19 
percent over the last 4 months.
  Instead of assisting families with these increased costs, raising the 
standard of living for the poor, or improving the opportunities to 
attain a college education, this package adds to financial pressures.
  For health care alone, premiums have climbed higher than $10,000 for 
families, and this bill will do nothing to reduce out-of-pocket health 
care spending.
  More perniciously, what the bill does do is cut $10 billion in health 
care spending for the poorest Americans.
  While the bill provides a 1-year temporary relief to physicians, a 1 
percent increase in Medicare reimbursements is not enough. This is a 
Band-Aid fix, at best. When expenses to practice are increasing at a 
rate of 3 to 5 percent annually, a 1-year 1 percent increase in 
reimbursements is insufficient. In my State, where the cost of living 
is beyond the reach of many Californians, doctors are simply choosing 
not to see any new Medicare patients or are retiring early due to low 
reimbursement levels.
  To make matters worse, the temporary relief for physicians in the 
bill is borne on the back of Medicare beneficiaries in the form of 
higher Part B premiums. This provision will directly increase the 
amount Medicare beneficiaries pay each month in premiums by $2.90 in 
2007. That is a 33-percent increase in monthly premiums. While it is 
vital that Congress prevent future cuts in Medicare reimbursement to 
physicians, the provision in this bill amounts to a $1.4 billion tax on 
seniors. That is unacceptable.
  Further, it is no secret that increased debt puts pressure on 
inflation. In just this past year, the Federal Reserve enacted 11 
consecutive interest rate increases.
  This means the American people will have to make higher mortgage 
payments, pay higher interest, and for those who own debt, it will take 
even longer to pay off their credit cards.
  For some, this bill will put a college education out of reach. 
Middle-income families, who have no choice but to borrow money for 
college, will struggle even more to pay tuition bills.
  Due to increasing costs of basic needs, there are 1 million more 
Americans living in poverty this year than there were last year. Not 
only does this budget reconciliation do nothing to reduce that number, 
it puts many more Americans at risk of poverty due to higher health 
care costs and reduced access to social services and education.
  As for the environment, this reconciliation blatantly undermines the 
natural wonders of our country. Shamefully, it opens the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge for drilling to already profit-soaked oil 
companies.
  And, if that is not enough, this administration's fiscal policy 
forces our children to pay it all back--not only to the Social Security 
Trust Fund, but to foreign nations.
  At any point, foreign countries can stop investing in the dollar, and 
any small movement could have a significant and immediate impact on the 
fiscal stability of our Nation's currency.
  Does this Congress believe it is good foreign policy to put our 
economic interests and security in the hands of China, Japan, and the 
European Union?
  Let me be clear, this budget reconciliation is asking Americans to: 
pay more in interest payments, pay more in health care premiums without 
improving benefits, borrow more from foreign lenders, further damage 
our habitat and environment, and leave an even larger bill for future 
generations to pay.
  We should be talking about helping American families, not punishing 
them with new financial burdens. And, for what good reason? None 
whatsoever.
  The Bush administration's Pavlovian response to everything that ills 
the economy is: tax cuts--not to middle- and low-income families, who 
need it most, but, instead, to the wealthiest Americans.
  The wealthiest Americans have received tax cuts that are 140 times 
the size of the average tax cut for middle-income families. That means 
millionaires have received an average tax break of $100,000 a year 
while middle-income families have received a mere $742.
  Let me be frank, the President's tax cuts do not help working 
Americans. In fact, the after-inflation wages of the average American 
earners have dropped for the first time in a decade.
  Meanwhile, the President's tax cuts account for 57 percent of the 
deficit increase. In fact, President Bush's tax cuts are more expensive 
than all spending increases combined, including new spending for 
homeland security, the war in Iraq, operations in Afghanistan, expanded 
antiterrorism efforts, and all domestic spending increases. It is a 
fiscal record of excess and recklessness.
  And without batting an eye, this President goes right along, 
reiterating his intention of making tax cuts permanent--at a cost of 
$11 trillion over 75 years--making it clear that even in the wake of 
hurricanes, rising gas prices, increasing interest rates, and higher 
health care costs, this administration will continue to push for lining 
the pockets of the wealthy.
  I believe we can do better. I believe we can bring fiscal 
responsibility back to the budget process and help middle-income 
families. We have done it in the past. We can do it now.
  In 1982, Ronald Reagan agreed to undo a significant share of tax cuts 
to combat substantial budget deficits.
  Ten years later, President George H.W. Bush changed his position on 
taxes and signed a bipartisan deficit-reduction package.
  More recently, in the late 1990s, after inheriting a national deficit 
totaling 4.7 percent of GDP, the Clinton administration turned deficits 
into our first budget surpluses since 1969.
  Today, with the national deficit including trust fund accounts 
reaching 4.5 percent of GDP, it is time to do the same.
  In the words of Former Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin:

       We are at a critical juncture with respect to the longer-
     term future of our economy, and the outcome at this juncture 
     will be enormously affected--for good or for ill--by the 
     policy action we take in response to the great issues we 
     face.

  It is time to have the courage to act responsibly. This so called 
deficit reduction package is not what it claims to be. Yes, it will cut 
spending by more than $30 billion, but in a few weeks these savings 
will be spent on tax breaks for the rich. In the end, this 
reconciliation package titled ``Deficit Reduction'' will actually 
increase the deficit by $36 billion. This fiscal strategy edges us 
closer to fiscal insanity and leaves our children and their children 
impoverished and riddled with debt. The first step to doing better is 
voting no on this reconciliation bill.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in order to meet its reconciliation 
instructions, the Banking Committee recommended that S. 1562, the Safe 
and Fair Deposit Insurance Act of 2005 be included in the banking title 
of the budget reconciliation bill.
  Earlier this year, I joined with Senators Enzi, Hagel, and Allard in 
introducing this important legislation

[[Page 24710]]

which has garnered strong bipartisan support and was overwhelmingly 
approved by the Banking Committee last month. Additionally, it has the 
strong support of the administration, Treasury Department, the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the financial services industry.
  Deposit insurance is one of the cornerstones of our country's 
financial system. It protects depositors against risks they cannot 
control, ensures stability, and allows deposits to remain in our local 
communities. This important legislation will ensure that deposit 
insurance maintains its strength even during times of economic 
weakness.
  Borne out of the need to promote financial stability during the Great 
Depression, deposit insurance has served depositors well by providing 
stability to banks and to the economy, and it is especially critical to 
our Nation's smaller financial institutions and community banks.
  While there have been differing opinions as to how deposit insurance 
should be reformed, there is general agreement that the system needs to 
be reformed and modernized. The banking industry is rapidly evolving 
and is becoming increasingly complex and sophisticated. Yet the last 
time any change was made to our system of deposit insurance was over 20 
years ago. Reform is long overdue. The time has come for the system 
that was put in place to promote the stability of the banking system be 
appropriately reformed to keep pace with the evolution of that system.
  Depositors must have confidence that their hard-earned money is 
protected, including the funds that cover their daily living expenses 
to the funds they are saving for retirement and a rainy day. To that 
end, this legislation introduces some very key reforms.
  First, it merges the bank insurance fund with the savings association 
insurance fund to create the deposit insurance fund. By doing so, we 
create a stronger and more diversified fund, and eliminate the 
possibility for disparities in premiums between banks and thrifts.
  Second, insurance premiums will be risk-based to ensure that banks 
pay based on the risk they pose to the system, and the FDIC will be 
able to price insurance premiums accordingly. The current system does 
not allow for premium assessments to be based on risk, and therefore, 
safer banks are subsidizing riskier banks. This inflexibility will be 
eliminated and the assessment burden will be distributed more evenly 
and fairly over time. When deposit insurance is priced for risk, 
whether the coverage limit is higher or lower is less relevant. Banks 
will have to pay higher premiums for riskier behavior, reducing any 
moral hazard. It is important to note, however, that in developing a 
new risk based premium system, the FDIC should not negatively impact 
the cost of homeownership or community credit by charging higher 
premiums to institutions simply because they fund mortgages and other 
types of lending through advances from Federal Home Loan Banks. 
Congress reaffirmed this relationship between community lenders and 
Home Loan Banks most recently in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and 
deposit insurance reform is not intended to impose any financial cost 
on the relationship through direct or indirect premiums.
  Third, the FDIC will have the discretion to periodically index 
coverage levels for both general and retirement accounts to keep pace 
with inflation. This is a compromise made in order to secure the Bush 
administration's support. Frankly, I feel some form of automatic 
indexation would be far preferable, and I am disappointed that 
indexation is left as a discretionary matter. The real value of deposit 
insurance coverage is now less than half of what it was in 1980 when it 
was set at $100,000. By increasing the level of coverage for retirement 
accounts, we are adjusting for the real value of coverage. Insuring 
retirement accounts up to $250,000 will keep the coverage level up with 
inflation and will promote financial stability for individual retirees. 
Retirement accounts are the only accounts under this bill that will get 
a higher coverage level. I believe in the current environment, with the 
uncertainty surrounding social security and pension benefits, that it 
is critical that we provide appropriate coverage for the hard-working 
Americans who have saved for their retirement and long-term care needs. 
This legislation strikes the appropriate balance in that regard.
  Finally, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the banking 
community in South Dakota for the invaluable and critical role they 
have played in this process over the past 5 years. I truly appreciate 
the input and recommendations that I have received from the industry 
overall. I would also like to thank Chairman Shelby, and Ranking Member 
Sarbanes for their leadership, Senators Enzi, Hagel and Allard for the 
many hours of hard work, and FDIC Chairman Don Powell for his 
commitment to deposit insurance reform.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I voice my opposition to the 
reconciliation bill before the Senate today. America can and should do 
better. This bill, which masquerades as a vehicle to help shrink the 
deficit, is actually a part of a broader, fiscally irresponsible 
package of policy and legislation that will actually increase the size 
of the deficit by over $30 billion in the next 5 years, even as this 
bill cuts programs that are important to the most vulnerable Americans. 
In other words, this series of proposals moves America in exactly the 
wrong direction.
  This bill moves in the wrong direction when it comes to agriculture. 
Agriculture program spending amounts to about 1 percent of the spending 
in the Federal budget, however, at a time when fuel prices are at a 
record high and many rural areas in Colorado across the country 
continue to feel the effects of weather-related natural disasters, 
agriculture programs have been forced to take $3 billion worth of cuts. 
These cuts will come out of the programs that farmers, ranchers and 
rural communities count on most, including commodity program payments 
and conservation programs like the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP. 
During my time in the Senate I have spoken many times about my concern 
that too often Washington leaves our rural communities to wither on the 
vine. I believe that this budget reconciliation package only 
contributes to their decline.
  This bill moves in the wrong direction when it comes to health care 
and education. The bill cuts college student aid by over $7 billion, 
creating less opportunity for young Americans when we should be in the 
business of creating more. It makes deep Medicaid and Medicare cuts, 
hurting the poor, elderly, and disabled who struggle with healthcare 
costs. Because of this bill, seniors will see a 33 percent increase in 
premiums for Medicare Part B. Because of this bill, independent, 
community pharmacies, particularly in rural areas, will see a change in 
reimbursement formulas that could force them to close their doors, 
further eroding access to health care in this country.
  This bill moves in the wrong direction when it comes to the 
environment and to energy policy. It would open the pristine Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Ultimately, this fight is not 
about barrels of oil, it's about the deeper moral decisions we make as 
a nation about how best to address our energy needs. Drilling for oil 
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge won't do a thing for gas prices 
this winter. It won't do a thing for gas prices in 10 years or even 15 
years. In fact, it won't do a thing for energy prices ever, because 
even if this provision passes and becomes law, the total amount of 
``technically recoverable oil,'' according to the administration's own 
estimates, would reduce gas prices by only a penny--and then, not 
before 10 to 15 years from now.
  This reconciliation bill does not reflect the right budget 
priorities. This bill tightens the squeeze already being felt by so 
many hardworking Americans trying to make ends meet as oil and gas 
prices soar and winter approaches. Adding insult to injury, these 
irresponsible cuts will not even help the country with the bottom line, 
because they are being combined with tax breaks for the wealthiest 
Americans that exceed, by tens of billions of

[[Page 24711]]

dollars, the value of the cuts themselves. The average benefit of these 
tax breaks for those with incomes more than $1 million would be 
$35,491. But for those with incomes under $50,000, the average benefit 
comes to $6. America can do better.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this year I voted against the 
budget resolution that passed the Congress because it reflected the 
wrong priorities. That budget resolution short changed vital public 
needs such as education and health care for all Americans in order to 
further cut taxes mainly for the wealthiest Americans. The bill before 
us today is the first part of a three-part budget reconciliation 
process set up to help carry out that misguided budget. Budget 
reconciliation is a special process that gives privileged short cuts 
under the rules of the Senate. For many of the same reasons that I 
opposed the original budget resolution, I must also oppose this 
reconciliation bill. Instead of improving our fiscal situation, the 
reconciliation package worsens the problem.
  This first of the three reconciliation bills is focused on spending 
cuts. It cuts funding for Medicaid, Medicare, low-income housing grants 
and other important programs. These cuts, along with the revenue that 
could be generated as a result of a shortsighted decision to drill in 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, in Alaska, are projected to 
reduce the deficit by $39.1 billion over the next 5 years.
  However, at the same time, both Houses of Congress are working on 
separate versions of the second part of the reconciliation package--the 
tax bill. That bill would extend $70 billion worth of tax cuts 
benefiting largely the wealthiest Americans. It simply does not make 
sense to say we need to cut $39.1 billion out of vital programs to 
reduce the deficit while at the same time increasing the deficit with 
$70 billion in tax cuts. These bills continue an irresponsible and 
inequitable tax policy that recklessly adds to our deficit.
  The third part of this three-part reconciliation process will be a 
bill to allow the national debt to increase by another $781 billion. 
The need for that third bill shows how dreadful our budget situation 
has become. The U.S. national debt has already climbed above $8 
trillion. In the fiscal year that just ended, we spent over $350 
billion just to pay the interest on that debt. That is 14 percent of 
the Federal Government's spending last year. That is money that doesn't 
go toward important infrastructure improvements, homeland security or 
other priorities like health care, education or environmental 
protection. We simply cannot afford to continue building up this 
massive debt.
  Not only is it financially irresponsible to add to this already heavy 
debt, but it adds risk to our national security. Forty-four percent of 
our national debt is held by foreign investors. If these investors ever 
decide, for economic or political reasons, to stop financing our debt, 
our markets could be severely impacted. This can provide other 
countries with greater leverage during trade or other negotiations with 
us.
  In addition to the fiscal irresponsibility in this reconciliation 
package, it is unconscionable that this body would once again decide to 
cut services for the poor and the disabled and the elderly and 
disadvantaged children and then to turn around next week and provide 
the mostly the wealthiest Americans with $70 billion of tax cuts. I 
will say at the outset, this bill contains some good provisions. This 
bill halts an unwise looming 4.4 percent decrease for physicians 
treating Medicare patients and instead provides a 1 percent increase. 
This bill was amended and now contains a provision that will prevent a 
reduction in Federal money for Michigan Medicaid. This bill also has 
several provisions to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.
  However, a large portion of the spending cuts in this reconciliation 
bill impacts the millions of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries as 
well as providers. This is not the first time Congress has attempted to 
balance the budget on the backs of people who rely on Medicare and 
Medicaid. In 1997, Congress cuts payments to providers and services to 
beneficiaries and the cuts were overreaching. It is my fear the same 
result will come from our actions today. This bill before us cuts 
reimbursement for several types of Medicare providers including nursing 
facilities, hospitals and managed care. This bill also places caps on 
payments for Medicare and Medicaid services. People who rely on 
Medicare and Medicaid are going to be hurt by this bill. I hope that my 
colleagues take a long look at by how much the bad outweighs the good 
in this bill.
  In addition, I also regret that the majority decided to include in 
this budget reconciliation the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, ANWR, to oil and gas development.
  I have consistently opposed opening ANWR to oil and gas development 
because I believe it is the wrong approach to addressing our Nation's 
need for long-term energy security. The actual reserves in the area 
that will be available for leasing under this provision are too small 
to have a significant impact on our Nation's energy independence and 
will not produce any oil for more than a decade. I do not believe that 
this limited potential for oil and gas development in ANWR warrants 
endangering what is one of the last remaining pristine wilderness areas 
in the United States.
  But, also, the process for consideration of ANWR on the budget 
reconciliation bill has been flawed from the start. Including this 
important issue in the budget reconciliation bill has short-circuited 
the normal legislative process and has eliminated the opportunity for 
Congress to give the issue the consideration it deserves. In fact, this 
issue was not even considered when the Senate debated the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 for 2 weeks this past summer. Opening ANWR to oil and gas 
development was not considered on the Energy bill because the votes 
were not there to pass it except by including it in the budget 
reconciliation bills that we are considering now.
  On a positive note, I am pleased that I was able to include language 
in this bill that recognizes the needs of border States when awarding 
emergency and interoperable communications grants.
  First responders in border States like Michigan, New Mexico, and 
Minnesota face unique challenges and must be able to communicate with a 
number of Federal, State, and local entities including FEMA, Customs 
and Border Protection, and the National Guard in addition to police, 
firefighters and emergency medical services personnel from other 
jurisdictions who may assist in the event of a large scale disaster or 
terrorist attack. What is often overlooked is that first responders 
near border crossings must also be able to maintain seamless 
communication with their Canadian or Mexican counterparts across the 
border. My amendment would assist our first responders by creating 
demonstration projects at our northern and southern borders. The 
amendment provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
establish at least two International Border Community Interoperable 
Communications Demonstration Projects--with at least one of these 
demonstration projects on each of the northern and southern borders. 
These interoperable communications demonstrations will address the 
interoperable communications needs of police officers, firefighters, 
emergency medical technicians, National Guard, and other emergency 
response providers at our borders.
  In closing, I sincerely hope that future budgets coming from this 
body will be more responsible than this one. Furthermore, as imprudent 
as this bill is, I hope it won't be made worse in conference after 
merging with the even more misguided House bill. Major bipartisan 
efforts will be needed to make true progress on the long-term fiscal 
problems we face. I will continue to fight for fair and fiscally 
responsible policies that help generate jobs and economic security from 
which all Americans can benefit.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this past March, I stood here to express my 
reluctant support for the fiscal year 2006 concurrent budget 
resolution. My support was reluctant for one reason only. I believed 
the budget did not go far

[[Page 24712]]

enough in slowing the growth of Federal spending.
  My colleagues will remember that passing that budget resolution was 
not an easy thing. Both the original Senate version and the conference 
report passed by very narrow margins. Not one Democrat voted in favor 
of the budget resolution, so it was left up to those of us on this side 
of the aisle to pass that resolution.
  The major reason why the budget was so difficult to pass was the 
inherent problem in getting a majority to agree on legislation that 
cuts the growth in spending for entitlement programs. Entitlement 
programs are those that grow automatically without any action from 
Congress. While they are many of the most important programs in the 
Government, they are also the most expensive. Some Senators wanted more 
cuts in spending growth than did others, and it was hard to get a 
consensus, especially when there was absolutely no support from the 
other side.
  Nevertheless, we did manage to pass the budget resolution, which was 
the first step in the process we are trying to complete here tonight 
with the budget reconciliation bill. This bill ``reconciles'' the 
spending in the budget with the programmatic changes necessary to 
achieve the budget numbers. And while the projected spending growth in 
this budget over the next few years is still alarming, the cuts in that 
growth included in this bill are very much a good first step in the 
right direction.
  What Senator Gregg, the chairman of the Budget Committee, emphasized 
in his opening remarks is very significant. This is the first time 
since 1997 that Congress has attempted to restrain the growth of 
entitlement spending programs. I think we can conclude that although 
the magnitude of the change is not as large as many of us would like to 
see, the directional change is very important.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, this reconciliation 
bill would reduce federal outlays by more than $39 billion over the 
next 5 years and by almost $109 billion over the next 10 years. I 
realize that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
scoffing at the idea these numbers are not large enough in terms of 
reducing the deficit. Why, then, are we not seeing any spending 
reduction proposals from them? It is because it is much easier to throw 
rocks at our attempts to rein in spending growth than it is to make the 
hard choices themselves.
  Rather than having an honest debate about how best to deal with out-
of-control budgets, most of what we are hearing from our friends on the 
other side is the same old tiresome accusation that we are reducing 
spending for lower-income Americans so that we can cut taxes, once 
again, for those Americans who are wealthy and do not need a tax 
reduction. This, of course, is a gross distortion of the truth.
  As Chairman Gregg has pointed out, the spending growth reductions in 
this bill are not directed at low-income individuals. We worked very 
hard to make sure that was the case, especially in the Finance 
Committee which has jurisdiction over such important safety-net 
programs as Medicaid.
  Indeed, the bill includes a significant amount of new spending. The 
amount of this new spending, some of which I recognize is necessary, is 
one of the problems I have with the bill. In addition, a great deal of 
the deficit reduction in this bill is achieved by raising fees or 
selling a portion of the broadcast spectrum. That being said, I will 
detail some of my specific objections about this in a little while.
  As to criticisms about so-called tax cuts, there are not any in this 
bill. The tax reconciliation bill comes later, after this bill has 
passed. And the tax provisions that will be in that bill are generally 
in the nature of preventing tax increases on the middle class, not tax 
cuts for the wealthy. Moreover, most of those provisions enjoy broad 
support on both sides of the aisle.
  Do I believe this reconciliation bill is perfect? Far from it.
  Do I think we could have and should have done more in trimming the 
spending growth of entitlement programs? Absolutely.
  As I mentioned before, the significance of this bill is not in the 
amount of deficit reduction it delivers, but in the change in direction 
that it represents. I hope we can pass it and then use it as a building 
block for more deficit reduction next year.
  We have only a few short years to make much larger changes in our 
entitlement spending programs. All of us know that they are on an 
upward trajectory that is simply not sustainable. Passing this 
reconciliation bill now begins to turn the tide. It sets the stage for 
more responsible spending. With a smart mix of pro-growth policies that 
will help ensure continued economic growth and future spending 
restraint, we can begin to lower the deficit and put our budget in a 
condition to withstand the storms ahead.
  Now, I would like to take the time to get into some of the details of 
the changes included in the bill by the three committees on which I 
serve.
  As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I worked hard 
with Chairman Grassley to ensure that our Committee met the goal of 
finding $10 billion in savings. Unfortunately, the Finance package also 
spends a significant amount of money when I believe that our national 
focus needs to be on saving money. Some of it is necessary. Some not.
  And, I am very troubled by how we are paying for this spending. Close 
to $5 billion comes from eliminating the MedicareAdvantage Regional 
Plan Stabilization Fund, something I strongly oppose. The stabilization 
fund is a critical component to facilitating regional Preferred 
Provider Organizations, PPOs, in the Medicare Advantage program, thus 
providing these plans to beneficiaries throughout the country, 
particularly in rural areas.
  The MMA has made Medicare Advantage plans more widely available with 
greater beneficiary savings than ever before, including in rural areas 
and many other areas that previously were not served by Medicare 
Advantage plans.
  Since the MMA was enacted in 2003, there has been a large increase in 
the availability of Medicare Advantage health plans that provide 
additional benefits and corresponding reductions in total health care 
costs. For example, in rural areas where there has historically been 
minimal managed care available, there are now three regional PPOs 
offering an integrated package of medical and prescription drug 
benefits with extra coverage at lower prices, one of these regional 
PPOs even offers a zero drug deductible.
  The stabilization fund will help make it possible to provide secure 
access to these new, lower-cost coverage options in underserved areas. 
While more Medicare beneficiaries than ever will have regional Medicare 
Advantage options in 2006, further progress is needed for people with 
Medicare in 13 States, specifically: my home state of Utah; Alaska; 
Colorado; Connecticut; Idaho; Maine; Massachusetts; New Hampshire; New 
Mexico; Oregon; Rhode Island; Vermont; and Washington.
  When developing the MMA, the Congress recognized that some states 
might not be served by regional Medicare Advantage plans in the initial 
years of the program and strategically created the benefit 
stabilization fund, which sunsets in 2013, to encourage plans to 
operate in all areas of the Nation. Utah is one of those States and 
that is why I strongly supported the creation of the stabilization fund 
during the MMA negotiations.
  The stabilization fund helps to make sure that, in future years, 
plans will choose to serve the people with Medicare who do not have 
Medicare Advantage options in 2006. And, conversely, repealing the 
fund, or cutting its revenues, means reduced benefits and higher costs 
for these seniors in future years.
  Many Medicare Advantage plans are already serving Medicare 
beneficiaries with some very generous benefit offerings for 2006, with 
the expectation that there would be stability in the program. For the 
health plans that are interested in potentially providing this regional 
PPO coverage, it is essential for them to know that they will get some 
help with starting up if they need

[[Page 24713]]

it in areas that had been underserved before, and that the Medicare 
program will keep their payments predictable.
  If Congress and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, 
start cutting promised funding and/or changing program rules even 
before the first benefit is administered, we send a very negative 
signal to plans, and that may mean worse coverage options and higher 
costs for Medicare beneficiaries in the future.
  Cuts to or reductions in the stabilization fund, and therefore, 
payments to regional plans amount to adding costs for beneficiaries in 
the form of higher premiums, reduced benefits, or both. Without this 
fund, it will be difficult to convince plans to offer coverage to 
beneficiaries who currently do not have access to regional PPOs.
  Maintaining the current stabilization fund will encourage more 
regional PPOs to enter the Medicare Advantage program and make sure 
that significantly more people, including my fellow Utahns, have access 
to Medicare Advantage plans next year.
  I do not understand why we would be eliminating this fund, especially 
before the Medicare drug plan program is even operational. It just does 
not make good policy sense and that is why I oppose the elimination.
  This is especially vexing given that there are a number of other 
sources for revenue. I will be fighting for more extensive restrictions 
on asset transfers and the inclusion of provisions which would prohibit 
intergovernmental transfers. Including these provisions would have 
severely curtailed activities where individuals and some State 
governments have intentionally defrauded the Medicaid program.
  I have heard the arguments about why we should not have included them 
in the proposal, but I do not buy those arguments. More aggressive 
legislating in these areas would preclude some of the other reductions 
necessitated in this bill, such as those for the stabilization fund.
  The provisions on payment for prescription drugs under the Medicaid 
program are another deep concern of mine. These have only been made 
worse by adoption of amendments in the Chamber. Let me say that while I 
agree that changes are warranted, I am very worried about the approach 
included in the bill. I am not sure that the new definitions created 
for Average Manufacturer's Price, AMP, Weighted Average Manufacturer's 
Price, WAMP, and the new formula which were created for the Federal 
Upper Payment Limit, FUPL, will address the criticisms of the current 
policy. In fact, these new definitions could make the situation worse. 
I am also troubled that the genesis of these changes was not a desire 
for good policy, but rather an interest in seeking funding from a 
``deep pocket.'' That trend was only exacerbated during Senate 
consideration of the Finance title, as we added two rebate-related 
amendments with spending implications that totaled several billions of 
dollars more.
  It is clear to me that, as consideration of the conference report 
begins, we must continue discussions with the various stakeholders who 
have a vested interest in making this policy work, in particular, the 
pharmacists and the pharmaceutical companies.
  The budget resolution contained a reconciliation instruction 
directing the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP 
Committee, on which I serve, to reduce spending by $13.7 billion in 5 
years. We on the HELP Committee worked very hard to achieve this goal, 
which required difficult spending vs. savings decisions.
  Within the past months, as we wrote reauthorizing language for the 
Workforce Investment Act, WIA, Head Start, the Perkins Act, career and 
technical education, and the Higher Education Act, HEA, we kept in mind 
the need to meet the reduction in spending goals. Each of these 
reauthorization bills was unanimously approved in committee.
  While I recognize the tough choices we needed to make, I am pleased 
overall with the reconciliation bill as it relates to education 
provisions, accounting for a total savings of $9.8 billion. Spending 
increases in the bill include increases in Pell grants, along with 
ProGAP, a new grant assistance to Pell eligible students.
  Another new program, SMART grants, would provide assistance to 
students studying math, science, technology, engineering, or a foreign 
language. Subsidized borrowing levels were increased, along with a 
permanent extension of the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act. Additional 
loan deferments were made for members of the Armed Services or the 
reserves. These programs would give Utah students, particularly those 
of low or moderate income, greater access to college educations and 
will boast our local and national economy as we seek to meet the 
demands of the 21st century workforce.
  Significant savings were found in student loans, mostly from lending 
institutions, including a requirement for guaranty agencies to deposit 
one percent of their collections in the Federal Reserve fund, a 
reduction in lender insurance and repeal of the provision that 
guarantees 100 percent of loans for certain lenders. An additional fee 
is charged for lenders originating consolidation loans, and permanent 
restrictions are made on transfer or refunding of certain tax-exempt 
bonds that receive a 9.5 percent rate of return.
  I have concerns about last-minute changes to include major spending 
increases, even though they appear to have been reconciled by savings. 
However, my colleagues should know that I am paying particular 
attention to fixing the interest rate for undergraduate and graduate 
non-consolidation borrowing at 6.8 percent, preferring a choice of a 
variable rate similar to the House provision. I am also concerned about 
the way certain bills are structured that are currently before the 
Senate that deal with the inclusion of Katrina public and private 
school payments.
  The HELP Committee also included provisions increasing significantly 
the amounts of premiums employers that sponsor defined benefit pension 
plans must pay to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, PBGC. 
These increases were larger than they needed to be, and represent 
placeholders until we can pass the pension reform bill that was 
produced by the Finance and HELP Committees. I hope we will soon be 
able to consider and pass that legislation, partly for the reason of 
reducing these premium increases to more reasonable amounts.
  The Judiciary Committee greatly exceeded its reconciliation targets, 
and I applaud that accomplishment even though I do not support the 
means by which it was achieved. Federal spending is out of control and, 
as my colleagues know, this has been a concern of mine for a long time. 
I am gratified to see that so many others now share my concerns and, 
more importantly, that we are finally doing something about 
irresponsible spending despite the efforts of a few members on the 
other side of the aisle to scuttle this reconciliation bill.
  I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee did not report a proposed 
tax on the explosives industry. It was just plain wrong, and it would 
have hurt a lot of people in Utah. Naturally, I fought tooth and nail 
to make sure it was off the table and I, along with others, succeeded 
in stopping it.
  This brings us to the current Judiciary title. I do not think we 
should have used a reconciliation measure to alter immigration policy, 
particularly in light of the current debate on comprehensive 
immigration reform. For this, and other reasons, I offered an amendment 
that would have imposed a 5 percent increase in all immigration related 
fees instead of simply allowing more people into the country as a way 
of reducing our Nation's deficit. Unfortunately, my amendment was 
defeated in committee.
  That being said, I recognize that it is not easy to come up with 
savings. It means tough choices. But it is our job to make the tough 
calls and the Judiciary Committee did just that.
  I strongly support moving this package through the Senate. However, I 
want my colleagues to understand my concerns and that I intend to 
continue working with them on improving the package. I know this was an 
extremely difficult task, and I appreciate all the hard work of many of 
my colleagues,

[[Page 24714]]

and particularly the chairmen of the committees on which I serve.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate will vote shortly on final 
passage of S. 1932. We have had a good debate on this bill. I commend 
the chairman of the Budget Committee for his effective and fair 
management of the consideration of this bill this week.
  The Senate Finance Committee title was carefully crafted to address a 
wide range of member priorities. The Senate Finance Committee title is 
a compromise--one that was meticulously negotiated over many months. It 
represents clear-headed, commonsense reforms.
  But here is something that should make a lot of people wonder what is 
going on around here. I noted with interest a recent Washington Post 
article which notes:

       The Senate package is gaining kudos from some unlikely 
     sources. Liberal budget and antipoverty groups say the Senate 
     budget-cutting legislation largely avoids cuts that will hit 
     low-income beneficiaries . . .

  And here is another one. The Associated Press reports:

       As a result, the Senate's Medicare and Medicaid cuts 
     largely won't touch beneficiaries of the programs, instead 
     tapping drug companies, pharmacies and insurance subsidies 
     for much of the savings.

  I am therefore somewhat confused why more of my friends and 
colleagues from the Democratic side are not going to support final 
passage of this bill. I think I know partly what the answer is--is it 
because the House version of this bill is much more far-reaching than 
the Senate proposal? Is it because the same groups that praise the 
Senate bill oppose the process moving forward on that basis?
  I would make the point that I think the Senate's position in going to 
conference with the House would be strengthened if S. 1932 passed with 
strong bipartisan support. I do not understand why the liberal budget 
groups are not urging Democrats to unite in support of the Senate bill.
  I believe that the American people want us to join together to get 
things done. They want us to get our fiscal house in order, but they 
also want us to enact compassionate policies that help honest-to-
goodness working families. The Senate bill meets both of those 
priorities. Here is the bottom line, and I want all my friends on the 
other side of the aisle to hear this. Here is what a vote against the 
Senate bill we have before us today means. Opposition to the Senate 
bill's balanced approach to Medicaid reform and program improvements is 
opposition to achieving savings, preserving services, and protecting 
beneficiaries.
  A ``no'' vote is a vote against cutting wasteful spending in Medicaid 
and other changes that provide additional resources to State Medicaid 
programs.
  A ``no'' vote is a vote against having the State and Federal 
Government pay less for drugs.
  A ``no'' vote is a vote against tightening up asset transfers, 
thereby paying less for nursing home care through Medicaid.
  A ``no'' vote is a vote against increasing State and Federal payments 
from drug companies.
  A ``no'' vote is a vote against a $2 billion windfall to the States.
  Opposition to the Senate bill's balanced approach to Medicaid reform 
and program improvements is opposition to the bipartisan Family 
Opportunity Act.
  So that means that a ``no'' vote is a vote against the Family 
Opportunity Act's expansion of Medicaid eligibility for severely 
disabled children. Opposition to this provision means forcing many 
working families to refuse better jobs or promotions--keeping them poor 
in order to qualify for Medicaid or, worse, relinquish custody of their 
disabled child to the State so that their child can continue to get the 
services they need.
  A ``no'' vote is also a vote against the Family Opportunity Act's 
protection for families whose newborn is diagnosed with a severe 
disability from being liable for thousands of dollars of medical costs.
  A ``no'' vote is a vote against ``Money Follows the Person,'' which 
provides grants to States to increase the use of home and community 
based services, rather than institutional services. ``Money Follows the 
Person'' also eliminates barriers so that individuals can receive 
support for long-term services in the settings of their choice.
  Opposition to the Senate bill's balanced approach to Medicaid reform 
and program improvements is opposition to a down payment on Hurricane 
Katrina disaster relief.
  So that means that a ``no'' vote is a vote against providing $1.8 
billion to protect Medicaid benefits in Alabama, Louisiana, and 
Mississippi for people affected by Hurricane Katrina.
  Opposition to the Senate bill's balanced approach to Medicaid reform 
and program improvements is opposition to protecting health coverage 
for thousands of children and improving the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program.
  A ``no'' vote is a vote against preventing funding shortfalls in the 
Children's Health Insurance Program in 23 States.
  A ``no'' vote is a vote against providing new options for private 
coverage of long-term care through Long-term Care Partnerships.
  A ``no'' vote also means opposition to closing loopholes that permit 
the unscrupulous ``gaming'' of Medicaid eligibility rules to 
intentionally shelter assets to qualify for taxpayer-financed long-term 
care coverage in Medicaid.
  Those who vote against this bill are also opposing the Senate bill's 
balanced approach to Medicaid reform and program improvements is 
opposition to protecting access for rural beneficiaries.
  So that means that a ``no'' vote is a vote against protecting small 
rural hospitals and sole community hospitals by extending the hold-
harmless provisions that protect them from losses resulting from 
implementation of the hospital outpatient prospective payment system.
  A ``no'' vote is also opposition to extending the Medicare Dependent 
Hospital Program, which provides financial protections to rural 
hospitals with less than 100 beds that have a greater than 60 percent 
share of Medicare patients.
  A ``no'' vote also means opposition to expanding coverage of 
additional preventive benefits under Federal Qualified Health Centers.
  Why would my Democratic colleagues oppose such commonsense, practical 
policies that save the States money, expand access for low income and 
disabled children, help rural hospitals and make progress to 
rebalancing the institutional bias in the Medicaid program?
  I am saddened that it appears my colleagues cannot put partisan 
politics aside and get behind a bill that saves money for States, 
protects and expands access, and preserves benefits. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Senate bill. Let's show the American people 
that we can put politics aside and stand together and get things done 
for the good of the country.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, pursuant to section 313(c) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record a list of material in S. 1932 considered to be 
extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of 
section 313. The inclusion or exclusion of material on the following 
list does not constitute a determination of extraneousness by the 
Presiding Officer of the Senate.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 24715]]



                   EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS--SENATE BILL

          (Prepared by Senate Budget Committee Majority Staff)

              Title I--Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Provision                        Violation/comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A..........................  N/A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Title II--Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Provision                        Violation/comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2014(b)(3)(F)...........  313(b)(1)(A)--Report to Congress.
Sec. 2018(a).................  313(b)(1)(A)--Studies of potential
                                changes to the federal deposit insurance
                                system--just a study.
Sec. 2018(b).................  313(b)(1)(A)--Studies of potential
                                changes to the federal deposit insurance
                                system--just a study.
Sec. 2025....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Authorization of
                                Appropriations--no money involved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Title III--Commerce, Science, and Transportation

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Provision                        Violation/comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3005(c)(2)...................  313(b)(1)(E)--Low-power TV and translator
                                outlays occur after 2010, increasing the
                                deficit.
3005(c)(3)...................  313(b)(1)(E)--Interoperability grant
                                outlays occur after 2010, increasing the
                                deficit.
3005(c)(4)...................  313(b)(1)(E)--E911 outlays occur after
                                2010, increasing the deficit.
3005(c)(5)...................  313(b)(1)(E)--Coastal assistance outlays
                                occur after 2010, increasing the
                                deficit.
3005(d)......................  313(b)(1)(A)--Transferring offsetting
                                receipts that federal government has
                                already received does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
3005(f)......................  313(b)(1)(A)--Does not produce a change
                                in outlays as additional receipts could
                                not be spent and would be deposited in
                                Treasury anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 TITLE IV--ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Provision                        Violation/comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A..........................  N/A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 TITLE V--ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Provision                        Violation/comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A..........................  N/A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           TITLE VI--FINANCE

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Provision                        Violation/comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6012(a)(5)(F)................  313(b)(1)(A)--Requirements on insurance
                                sellers produce no change in outlays or
                                revenues.
6012(b)(4)...................  313(b)(1)(A)--State reporting requirement
                                produces no change in outlays or
                                revenues.
6012(c)......................  313(b)(1)(A)--Annual report to Congress
                                produces no change in outlays or
                                revenues.
6022.........................  313(b)(1)(A)--CBO score of zero
6026(a), Sec. 1937(a)........  313(b)(1 )(A)--Medicaid CFO produces no
                                change in outlays or revenues.
6026(a), Sec. 1937(b)........  313(b)(1)(A)--Oversight Board produces no
                                change in outlays or revenues.
6026(a), Sec. 1937(e)........  313(b)(1)(A)--Annual report produces no
                                change in outlays or revenues.
6036(e)......................  313(b)(1)(A)--Reports produce no change
                                in outlays or revenues.
6043(c)(2)...................  313(b)(1)(A)--Budget neutrality language
                                produces no change in outlays or
                                revenues.
6103(c)......................  313(b)(l)(A)--Study and Report by HHS
                                Inspector General produces no change in
                                outlays or revenues.
6103(d)......................  313(b)(1)(A)--Rehabilitation Advisory
                                Council produces no change in outlays or
                                revenues.
6110(a), 1860E-1(e)..........  313(b)(1)(A)--Arrangement with an Entity
                                to Provide Advice and Recommendations
                                produces no change in outlays or
                                revenues.
611O(b)(3)(E)................  313(b)(1)(A)--Report produces no change
                                in outlays or revenues.
6110(c)(1)(C)................  313(b)(1)(A)--Sense of the Senate
                                produces no change in outlays or
                                revenues.
6110(g)(1)...................  313(b)(i)(A)--Requirement for skilled
                                nursing facilities to report functional
                                capacity of Medicare residents upon
                                admission and discharge produces no
                                change in outlays or revenues.
6113(d)......................  313(b)(1)(A)--Evaluation of PACE
                                providers serving rural service areas
                                produces no change in outlays or
                                revenues.
6026(a), Sec. 1936(d)........  313(b)(1)(A)--5-year plan produces no
                                additional change in outlays or
                                revenues.
6026(a), Sec. 1936(3)(3).....  313(b)(1)(A)--Annual report requirement
                                produces no change in outlays or
                                revenues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Title VII--Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Provision                        Violation/comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7101(f).................  313(b)(1)(A)--Pro-GAP Sunset language/
                                does not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7101(b).................  313(b)(1)(A)--Pro-GAP Sense of the Senate/
                                does not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7102(a), (b) and (d)....  313(b)(1)(A)--SMART Grant findings/
                                purpose/name, do not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7102(i).................  313(b)(1)(A)--SMART Grant matching
                                assistance/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7109....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Single Holder Rule/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7122(b).................  313(b)(1)(A)--Evaluation of Simplified
                                Needs Test/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7153(h), (i), (j), and    313(b)(1)(A)--Authorizes waivers of
 Sec. 7155.                     provisions of discretionary and
                                programs, and addresses certain
                                reporting requirements/do not produce a
                                change in outlays.
Sec. 7201(d)(3)..............  313(b)(1)(A)--Pensions: (d)(3) special
                                rule regarding future legislation/does
                                not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7301, Sec. 7302 and Sec.  313(b)(1)(A)--HEA general provisions and
 7311.                          definitions/do not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7314....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Protection of Student
                                Speech and Assoc Rights/does not produce
                                a change in outlays.
Sec. 7315....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Nat'l Advisory Comm. on
                                Inst Quality/does not produce a change
                                in outlays.
Sec. 7316....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Drug and Alcohol Abuse
                                Prevention/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7317....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Prior Rights and
                                Obligations--updates discretionary
                                authorizations/does not produce a change
                                in outlays.
Sec. 7318....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Cost of Higher ED Consumer
                                Info/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7319....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Performance Based Org for
                                Delivery of Fed Student Assist/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7320....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Procurement Flexibility/
                                does not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7331....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Teacher Quality Enhancement
                                /does not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7341-7350 Sec...........  313(b)(1)(A)--Institutional Aid/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7351....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Technical Corrections/does
                                not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7361 2(A)...............  313(b)(1)(A)--Pell--max authorized grant.
                                Nothing in Pro-GAP is driven off of
                                ``max'' Pell Grant/does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
Sec. 7362....................  313(b)(1)(A)--TRIO Programs/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7363....................  313(b)(1)(A)--GEAR-UP/does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
Sec. 7364....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Repeal of Academic
                                Achievement Scholarships/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7365....................  313(b)(1)(A)--SEOG/does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
Sec. 7366....................  313(b)(1)(A)--LEAP/does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
Sec. 7367....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Migrant ED/does not produce
                                a change in outlays.
Sec. 7368....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Robert C. Byrd Honors/does
                                not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7369....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Child Care Access Means
                                Parents in School/does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
Sec. 7370....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Repeal of Learning Anytime
                                Anywhere Partnerships/does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
Sec. 7386....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Reports to Credit Bureaus &
                                Institutions/does not produce a change
                                in outlays.
Sec. 7387....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Common Forms and Formats/
                                does not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7388....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Information to Borrower and
                                Privacy/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7389....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Consumer Education
                                Information/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7391....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Federal Work Study/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7393....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Grants for Work Study
                                Programs/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.

[[Page 24716]]

 
Sec. 7394....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Job Location and
                                Development Programs/does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
Sec. 7395....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Work Colleges--
                                discretionary program/does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
Sec. 7412....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Terms of Loans--technical
                                change/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7422....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Discretion of Financial Aid
                                Administrators/does not produce a change
                                in outlays.
Sec. 7432....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Compliance Calendar/does
                                not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7437....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Institutional and Financial
                                Info/Assist to Students/does not produce
                                a change in outlays.
Sec. 7438....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Nat'l Student Loan Data
                                System/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7439....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Early Awareness of
                                Financial Aid Eligibility/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7442....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Reg. Relief and Improvement/
                                does not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7443....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Transfer of Allotments/does
                                not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7445....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Purpose of Admin Payments/
                                does not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7446....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Advisory Committee on
                                Student Financial Assist/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7447....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Regional meetings/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7448....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Year 2000/does not produce
                                a change in outlays.
Sec. 7451....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Recognition of Accrediting
                                Agency or Assoc/does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
Sec. 7452....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Administrative Capacity
                                Standard/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7453....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Program Review and Data/
                                does not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7501....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Developing Institutions
                                Definitions/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7502....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Auth Activities/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7503....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Duration of Grant/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7504....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Hispanic American Post
                                baccalaureate/does not produce a change
                                in outlays.
Sec. 7505....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Applications/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7506....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Cooperative Arrangements/
                                does not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7507....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Authorization of
                                Appropriations/does not produce a change
                                in outlays.
Sec. 7601....................  313(b)(1)(A)--International Education
                                Programs/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7602....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Graduate and Undergraduate
                                Language and Area Centers and Programs/
                                does not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7603....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Undergrad International
                                Studies and Foreign Languages/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7604....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Research Studies/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7605....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Tech Innovation and
                                Cooperation for Foreign Info Access/does
                                not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7606....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Selection of Certain Grant
                                Recipients/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7607....................  313(b)(1)(A)--American Overseas Research
                                Centers/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7608....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Auth of Appropriations/does
                                not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7609....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Centers for IntI Business
                                Education/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7610....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Education and Training
                                Programs/does not produce a change in
                                outlays..
Sec. 7611....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Auth of Appropriations/does
                                not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7612....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Minority Foreign Service
                                ProfDev Program/does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
Sec. 7613....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Institutional Development/
                                does not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7614....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Study Abroad Program/does
                                not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7615....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Advanced Degree in IntI
                                Relations/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7616....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Internships/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7617....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Financial Assistance/does
                                not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7618....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Report/does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
Sec. 7619....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Gifts and Donations/does
                                not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7620....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Auth. of Appropriations for
                                Inst of Intl Public Policy/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7621....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Definitions/does not
                                produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7622....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Assessment and Enforcement/
                                does not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7701-Sec. 7716..........  313(b)(1)(A)--Graduate and Postsecondary
                                Improvement Programs/does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
Sec. 7801....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Misc. Discretionary
                                Programs/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7901....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Amendments to Other Laws/
                                does not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7902....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Agreement with Gallaudet
                                University/does not produce a change in
                                outlays.
Sec. 7903....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Agreement with Nat'l Tech
                                Inst for the Deaf/does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
Sec. 7904....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Cultural Experiences Grants/
                                does not produce a change in outlays.
Sec. 7905....................  313(b)(1)(A)--Audit/does not produce a
                                change in outlays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time, we have come to the end of 
the amendment process. I now ask, before we go to final passage, we 
have 5 minutes equally divided between myself and Senator Conrad, and 
then we will go to final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the staffs, the very 
professional staffs on both sides. I especially thank the chairman of 
the Budget Committee for his professionalism and his diligence in 
working on this bill. He has been such a pleasure to work with. His 
word is gold.
  I appreciate very much his staff, as well--Scott Gudes, Gail Millar, 
Jim Hearn, Cheri Reidy, and the rest of the majority staff.
  I want to also thank my staff--Mary Naylor, John Righter, my counsel 
Lisa Konwinski, Jim Esquea, Sarah Kuehl, Mike Jones, Cliff Isenberg, 
Jim Miller, Kobye Noel, Shelley Amdur, Steve Baily, Rock Cheung, Dana 
Halvorson, Tyler Haskell, Jim Klumpner, Jamie Morin, Stu Nagurka, Anne 
Page, Steve Posner, and David Vandivier.
  Mr. President, you can't judge a book by its cover. The language 
being used here is that this is a package of deficit reduction. But 
this is the first chapter. The first chapter reduces spending by $39 
billion. But the next chapter will reduce taxes by $70 billion. The 
third chapter will increase the debt by $781 billion. You have to read 
the whole book to know the conclusion. The conclusion of their book is 
more deficits and more debt.
  No one should believe this vote is about deficit reduction while 
insisting on another $70 billion of tax cuts as part of this package. 
In the second chapter of the book, the deficit actually goes up. The 
majority's proposal to increase the debt limit by $781 billion, which 
is the third chapter of their book. With passage of this, the debt of 
this country will have increased by $3 trillion during just this 
President's administration.
  This package represents a continuation of the failed fiscal policies 
of this administration.
  We can do better as a nation, and we can do much better--and we must.
  This budget, if approved, will increase the debt of this country over 
the next 5 years by another $3 trillion.
  These policies are driving us deeper and deeper into debt to foreign 
nations.
  In just the 4 years or 5 years of this administration, we have seen 
the debt of the country multiplied by $3 trillion.
  I urge my colleagues to say no. Let us not continue any further down 
this course of deficits and debt.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking all my colleagues 
for their very constructive efforts today. The fact that we were able 
to complete the voting process today was a reflection of the 
willingness of people in this Chamber, especially the staff who acted 
in an extraordinarily professional way.
  Also, of course, I want to thank Senator Conrad and his staff, Mary 
Naylor and her team.
  Senator Conrad has been an incredibly positive, constructive, and 
professional individual to work with on this bill. This bill would not 
have been completed--even though he may not agree with the bill, which 
he doesn't, obviously, and he has argued his position--he has been more 
than fair in allowing us to proceed through the bill. And it is a 
reflection of his extraordinary professionalism.
  I thank everyone on the staff, except his chart maker.
  (Laughter)
  I also especially want to thank my staff--led by the inimitable Scott 
Gudes--Gail Miller, Jim Hearn, Cheri Reidy, and the rest of the staff--
Dave Fisher and Denzel McGuire. We have had two staff members who have 
had children just recently, Bill Lucia and Matt Howe. Matt's child was 
born just as the debate started. I am sure he called him ``deficit 
reduction.'' We are all very excited about that. We very much 
appreciate the extraordinary job the staff has done here.

[[Page 24717]]

  I think it is important for our membership to remember that this is 
the first time in 8 years that this Congress has stepped forward to try 
to reduce spending by addressing the entitlement and mandatory accounts 
of our Government. This is a major step forward in the activity of 
fiscal responsibility.
  The other side of the aisle has tried to join this bill with other 
bills. The simple fact is, the only vote you will cast--the only vote 
that will be cast in the next few minutes--will be the only vote you 
are going to have to significantly reduce the deficit. It will be a 
veto to reduce the deficit by approximately $35 billion.
  If you oppose the next bill that comes down the pike--the tax relief 
bill--that is your choice. But that is not what you are voting on here. 
What you are voting on here is the opportunity to reduce the deficit, 
and it is the only opportunity you are going to have, and it is the 
first time, as I mentioned, in 8 years that we will be proceeding down 
this road. It is a step toward fiscal responsibility, and it is a 
reflection of the Republican Congress's commitment to pursue a path of 
fiscal responsibility.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it has been a long day. The next vote on 
final passage will be our last vote of the day. This will be our 22nd 
rollcall vote of the day.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member for a tremendous job. 
About 4 or 5 days ago, we said it was going to be done by 6 o'clock. We 
were going to complete this bill. Indeed, they have accomplished just 
that.
  We will be in session tomorrow, but there will be no rollcall votes. 
We will go to the DOD authorization bill. Again, there will be no 
rollcall votes tomorrow. We will be on the DOD authorization bill on 
Friday and Monday.
  We will have rollcall votes Monday night. We will not be voting 
before 5:30 on Monday.
  With that, congratulations. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 303 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed (RI)
     Reid (NV)
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The bill (S. 1932), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FRIST. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________