Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to state my intention to vote against the nomination of Judge Alito to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Let me start by saying I certainly do not doubt Judge Alito's qualifications, his integrity, his temperament. He has served on the Federal bench for over 15 years, and he has demonstrated during that time that he is, indeed, a very capable jurist. Nonetheless, after carefully looking at his judicial record and listening to his answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is also clear to me that if confirmed, Judge Alito will move the Court in what I believe is the wrong direction for our country. Judge Alito has been nominated to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. She is a moderate who has been a critical fifth vote in cases impacting privacy rights, disability rights, civil rights, the environment, consumer protections, discrimination laws, access to the courts and campaign finance reforms, among others. It has taken us years to enact legislation aimed at protecting the rights of all Americans in these areas I have mentioned. Other Justices on the Court, particularly Justices Scalia and Thomas, have pressed to reverse many of the advances the Congress has made in these areas. They have pressed to limit congressional power under the commerce clause and the ability of Congress to enact Federal civil rights legislation. I fear that Judge Alito will join Justices Scalia and Thomas in this regard. Justice O'Connor's vote has also been instrumental in ensuring that we do not surrender our civil liberties in times of war. Justice O'Connor's statement in the Hamdi decision was just quoted by my colleague from Iowa. It was a resounding reaffirmation that the President could not indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen without providing adequate due process. The quote which was just made, and has been made by many of my colleagues, is that: We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for a President when it comes to the rights of our Nation's citizens. At a time when the President has asserted expansive powers with regard to imprisoning U.S. prisoners without charges, with regard to wiretapping without warrants, with regard to using interrogation techniques that amount to torture, it is essential that we have Justices on the Supreme Court who are willing to provide a check on the authority of the executive branch. Judge Alito's record indicates that he may not be the right person to provide this important check. For example, he stated his support in varying degrees for this so- called unitary executive theory. This relatively obscure legal theory has very little support in the mainstream legal community, but it has profound implications for our understanding of the Constitution. Just recently, Congress passed a law reiterating the prohibition on the use of torture. In signing the legislation, the President issued a statement reserving the right to take whatever action he deems necessary as Commander in Chief--in effect reserving the right to ignore the very law which he was at that time signing. The President cited this unitary executive theory as the legal basis for his power to disregard the plain text of the legislation. We need to have a Supreme Court that is prepared to provide the necessary checks and balances crucial to our democratic system of government. I believe Justice O'Connor charted a moderate course in terms of the authority of Congress to enact legislation aimed at protecting the welfare of Americans and with regard to upholding the rights of citizens vis-a-vis their own government, and I believe it is important to maintain that same course. This is not to say that I have agreed with all of Justice O'Connor's decisions. But her swing vote has helped to maintain a balance on the Court that has kept many decisions within the mainstream, and I believe Judge Alito's confirmation will sway the existing balance on the Court in a manner that will jeopardize many of the protections afforded to the American public, many of which have been the result of many years of struggle. For this reason, I am not able to support his nomination. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Protecting America's Competitive Edge (PACE) Act that will enable us to build on our existing strengths to help secure America's continued economic prosperity in the twenty-first century. I want to gratefully acknowledge at the outset that I am introducing this legislation with Senator Domenici, Senator Alexander, Senator Mikulski, and others. This measure is the product of our combined best efforts from both sides of the aisle, and our sole focus has been only on what is in the best interests of the Nation as a whole. For the last 200 years, our investments in science and technology, both public and private, have driven our economic growth and improved the quality of life in America. They have generated new knowledge and new industries, created new jobs, ensured economic and national security, reduced pollution and increased energy efficiency, provided better and safer transportation, improved medical care, and increased living standards for the American people. America's scientists and engineers through their unmatched vitality, creativity, and curiosity have helped us not only imagine but invent the future. In large measure, their contributions have made this new century before us so full of promise--molded by science, shaped by technology, and powered by knowledge. One of the bedrock policies of our Nation's economic security must be to sustain our investments in science and technology. Today there is no dispute that science, and the technology that flows from it, is duly recognized as the piston that drives the economic engine that enriches the quality of our lives. Yet today our preeminence is precarious. Numerous thoughtful leaders in government, industry, and academia who are concerned about sustaining U.S. leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge are expressing growing uneasiness over troubling trends regarding the Nation's future prosperity. They warn we are slipping in our world leadership role in science and engineering, and losing sight of the importance of long-term investments in creating the conditions of prosperity. Other nations are coming up fast behind us on the scientific track and are pouring resources into their scientific and technological infrastructure. There is the distinct possibility that U.S. competitiveness in key high-tech areas will fall behind the major Pacific Rim countries of India, China, Taiwan, and South Korea. Moreover, the focus of our fundamental R&D has shifted away from the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering--the critical areas of R&D most closely correlated with innovation and economic growth. Many of our foremost research programs that have been curtailed or cut back in recent years have been the cornerstone for much of our economic progress and spurred the creation of high paying jobs. Budget increases have been disproportionately concentrated primarily in two departments--Defense and Homeland Security--leaving other vital R&D agencies with very modest increases, or with an increase for some agencies offset by flat funding, or cuts in others. In the name of national security, we have been building a swaying tower of insecurity. We are on the brink of a new industrial and commercial world order. The reality of the twenty-first century global economy is that China, India, and other nations once considered economic backwaters have discovered how to build strong economies around very sophisticated technology. On the Pacific Rim, China has increased spending on colleges and universities almost tenfold in the last decade, and is doubling the proportion of GDP invested in that same period on R&D to promote competitiveness and growth. India is raising its funding of science agencies by 27 percent, and Japan is increasing its investments in life science by 32 percent, while South Korea is upgrading research spending by 8.5 percent. As our share of the world's technical graduate workforce slips, European and Asian universities are churning out ever greater numbers of workers in scientific fields. And while young Americans may shy away from technical careers because they perceive better opportunities in other high-level occupations, there are still sufficient rewards to attract ever-increasing numbers of foreign graduate students eager to pursue science and engineering degrees. All of these signs, granted, are a cause for concern. Yet none of them, however, is a cause for panic. To state the facts frankly is not to despair about the future, nor is it to indict the past. Our task today is not to fix the blame for yesterday, but to set the proper and prudent course for tomorrow. These revolutionary changes in the global marketplace for highly skilled technical workers are dislodging the long-standing dominance of the U.S. scientific enterprise. That is causing our comparative advantage in high tech production to suffer and, despite the extraordinary power and resilience of our economy, signals a lengthy and difficult period of adjustment for American industry, its workforce, and ultimately our strong middle class standard of living which makes this country great. It also flags a pivotal moment in American history--a time of national peril, as well as a time of national opportunity. What should we do about these international challenges? We have absolutely no choice but to emphasize what we do best in this coming rivalry. Our most important strengths have always been education and innovation. Our can-do spirit of commercializing technological innovation has always been America's core competence. We do it far better than anyone else--we have done it before, and we can continue to excel at it. Last May, Senator Lamar Alexander and I asked the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study to identify ``specific steps our government should take to ensure the preeminence of America's scientific and technological enterprise to enable us to successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century.'' The Academy assembled an extraordinarily distinguished panel of America's best scientific minds, including three Nobel Prize winners, business executives, and university leaders and reported their findings back to us in October in a sobering report entitled, Rising Above the Gathering Storm. The National Academy's report proposes four broad recommendations: 1. Increase America's talent pool by vastly improving K-12 science and mathematics education; 2. sustain and strengthen the Nation's traditional commitment to long-term basic research; 3. make the United States the most attractive setting in which to study and perform research; and 4. ensure that the United States is the premier place in the world to innovate. First and foremost, we need to fix our math and science education system from kindergarten through high school. We should establish a merit-based, 4 year undergraduate scholarship program to annually recruit 10,000 students per year to careers teaching math and science who then commit to working for at least 4 years in K-12 public schools. Using incentives and scholarships, our aim should be to quadruple the number of America students enrolled in advanced math and science courses to four and a half million by 2010. A U.S. high school student has about a 70 percent chance of being taught English by a teacher with an English degree, but only a 40 percent chance of being taught chemistry by a teacher with a degree in chemistry. And the situation is worse for middle school students: 70 percent of them are taught math by a teacher lacking a certificate or major in math. It takes many years to educate a citizen. There are no short term solutions to this problem, and workforce issues rarely respond to quick fixes and often span generations. That is why there is such a sense of urgency to recruit thousands of new math and science teachers in the years ahead through the award of competitive scholarships. Additionally, we must strengthen 250,000 current teachers' math and science teaching skills with enhanced training and education by leveraging the expertise of the world's best physicists, mathematicians, and engineers to help provide that training. This legislation will also provide greater opportunities for students to take advanced math and science classes by increasing the number of students who enroll in Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate science and math courses. Second, we must steadily increase our investment by 10 percent each year for the next 7 years in long-term basic research, with special attention devoted to the physical sciences, engineering, mathematics, and information sciences. The Federal Government supports a majority of the Nation's basic research and nearly 60 percent of the R&D is performed in U.S. universities. At the same time, this investment at universities and colleges plays a key role in educating the next generation of scientists and engineers and a technically skilled workforce. We ought to provide 200 new research grants annually--worth $500,000 each payable over 5 years--to the Nation's most outstanding early-career researchers. Additionally, we should consider creating a revolutionary agency in the Energy Department modeled on the highly successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to sponsor research to meet the Nation's long- term energy challenges that industry by itself cannot or will not support. Just as Olympic-caliber athletes need the finest equipment and training protocols to triumph in their events, so do scientists, engineers and their students need the most modern research instruments and facilities with the best capabilities, the farthest reach, and the finest accuracy and resolution. To enable us to push beyond the frontiers of our current knowledge, we should create a centralized research infrastructure fund of $500 million annually over the next 5 years to ensure we have the equipment necessary for breakthrough scientific discoveries. Third, we must increase the number of U.S. citizens earning science, engineering, and math degrees. We must redouble our efforts to encourage gifted young American men and women to pursue these high tech disciplines which require so much from them and which have so much to offer all of our people. We can do so by providing annually 25,000 competitive undergraduate scholarships in physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics, and fund 5,000 new portable graduate fellowships in those fields. Equally important, we need a global recruitment strategy to attract the best and brightest to learn and live in America as part of our high tech workforce. Our visa, immigration and export control policies desperately need reform. Delays and difficulties in obtaining visas to the U.S. are contributing to a declining in-flow of scientific talent. We need to ensure the best and brightest come here, stay here, and obtain legal residency after college to contribute to our national economy instead of being forced back to their home countries to compete against us. Finally, we need to be able to assure investors that the U.S. is the preferred site for investments in new or expanded businesses that create the best jobs and provide the best services. To spur U.S.-based research and experimentation to meet global competition, we need to modernize the patent system, realign our tax policies to encourage long-term investments in innovation, and ensure the Nation meets the goal of affordable broadband Internet access by 2007. Our patent laws must also be reformed by moving to a first-to-file instead of a first-to-invent, thus bringing us into line with the rest of the world while reducing expensive litigation. Infrastructure planning grants and loan guarantees could also ensure that U.S. science parks are competitive with those throughout Asia. Additionally, we should eliminate uncertainty by doubling the R&D tax credit and making it permanent. Studies document that this tax credit encourages as much R&D spending as it costs in foregone revenue--and perhaps even twice that amount over the long haul. We face a competitive challenge of historic proportions today due to several new factors: The growing number of countries with advanced skills, multinational corporations placing their R&D centers, fueled by high education and low labor costs, wherever the profits are the greatest, and virtually every service being electronically communicable. It will be difficult to ever match our populous economic competitors in the quantity of their scientists and engineers. Ours is an even tougher task: to stay far ahead in the quality of our research and to keep pioneering scientific fields so cutting edge that others, for the most part, cannot duplicate them. We can readily meet this challenge and enjoy a prosperous future, even though these investments in education and research require incurring costs now for benefits later. The PACE Act will sustain our vibrant science and technology sector and with it our well-being, health, environment, and security. It will encourage education at home and attract talented scientists and engineers from abroad, as well as nurture a business environment that transforms new knowledge into new opportunities for creating high quality jobs and reaching shared goals. The passage of this farsighted public investment program will ensure that the United States is stronger, smarter, and leads the world in scientific and technological innovation in the twenty-first century.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Protecting America's Competitive Edge (PACE) Act that will enable us to build on our existing strengths to help secure America's continued economic prosperity in the twenty-first century. I want to gratefully acknowledge at the outset that I am introducing this legislation with Senator Domenici, Senator Alexander, Senator Mikulski, and others. This measure is the product of our combined best efforts from both sides of the aisle, and our sole focus has been only on what is in the best interests of the Nation as a whole. For the last 200 years, our investments in science and technology, both public and private, have driven our economic growth and improved the quality of life in America. They have generated new knowledge and new industries, created new jobs, ensured economic and national security, reduced pollution and increased energy efficiency, provided better and safer transportation, improved medical care, and increased living standards for the American people. America's scientists and engineers through their unmatched vitality, creativity, and curiosity have helped us not only imagine but invent the future. In large measure, their contributions have made this new century before us so full of promise--molded by science, shaped by technology, and powered by knowledge. One of the bedrock policies of our Nation's economic security must be to sustain our investments in science and technology. Today there is no dispute that science, and the technology that flows from it, is duly recognized as the piston that drives the economic engine that enriches the quality of our lives. Yet today our preeminence is precarious. Numerous thoughtful leaders in government, industry, and academia who are concerned about sustaining U.S. leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge are expressing growing uneasiness over troubling trends regarding the Nation's future prosperity. They warn we are slipping in our world leadership role in science and engineering, and losing sight of the importance of long-term investments in creating the conditions of prosperity. Other nations are coming up fast behind us on the scientific track and are pouring resources into their scientific and technological infrastructure. There is the distinct possibility that U.S. competitiveness in key high-tech areas will fall behind the major Pacific Rim countries of India, China, Taiwan, and South Korea. Moreover, the focus of our fundamental R&D has shifted away from the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering--the critical areas of R&D most closely correlated with innovation and economic growth. Many of our foremost research programs that have been curtailed or cut back in recent years have been the cornerstone for much of our economic progress and spurred the creation of high paying jobs. Budget increases have been disproportionately concentrated primarily in two departments--Defense and Homeland Security--leaving other vital R&D agencies with very modest increases, or with an increase for some agencies offset by flat funding, or cuts in others. In the name of national security, we have been building a swaying tower of insecurity. We are on the brink of a new industrial and commercial world order. The reality of the twenty-first century global economy is that China, India, and other nations once considered economic backwaters have discovered how to build strong economies around very sophisticated technology. On the Pacific Rim, China has increased spending on colleges and universities almost tenfold in the last decade, and is doubling the proportion of GDP invested in that same period on R&D to promote competitiveness and growth. India is raising its funding of science agencies by 27 percent, and Japan is increasing its investments in life science by 32 percent, while South Korea is upgrading research spending by 8.5 percent. As our share of the world's technical graduate workforce slips, European and Asian universities are churning out ever greater numbers of workers in scientific fields. And while young Americans may shy away from technical careers because they perceive better opportunities in other high-level occupations, there are still sufficient rewards to attract ever-increasing numbers of foreign graduate students eager to pursue science and engineering degrees. All of these signs, granted, are a cause for concern. Yet none of them, however, is a cause for panic. To state the facts frankly is not to despair about the future, nor is it to indict the past. Our task today is not to fix the blame for yesterday, but to set the proper and prudent course for tomorrow. These revolutionary changes in the global marketplace for highly skilled technical workers are dislodging the long-standing dominance of the U.S. scientific enterprise. That is causing our comparative advantage in high tech production to suffer and, despite the extraordinary power and resilience of our economy, signals a lengthy and difficult period of adjustment for American industry, its workforce, and ultimately our strong middle class standard of living which makes this country great. It also flags a pivotal moment in American history--a time of national peril, as well as a time of national opportunity. What should we do about these international challenges? We have absolutely no choice but to emphasize what we do best in this coming rivalry. Our most important strengths have always been education and innovation. Our can-do spirit of commercializing technological innovation has always been America's core competence. We do it far better than anyone else--we have done it before, and we can continue to excel at it. Last May, Senator Lamar Alexander and I asked the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study to identify ``specific steps our government should take to ensure the preeminence of America's scientific and technological enterprise to enable us to successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century.'' The Academy assembled an extraordinarily distinguished panel of America's best scientific minds, including three Nobel Prize winners, business executives, and university leaders and reported their findings back to us in October in a sobering report entitled, Rising Above the Gathering Storm. The National Academy's report proposes four broad recommendations: 1. Increase America's talent pool by vastly improving K-12 science and mathematics education; 2. sustain and strengthen the Nation's traditional commitment to long-term basic research; 3. make the United States the most attractive setting in which to study and perform research; and 4. ensure that the United States is the premier place in the world to innovate. First and foremost, we need to fix our math and science education system from kindergarten through high school. We should establish a merit-based, 4 year undergraduate scholarship program to annually recruit 10,000 students per year to careers teaching math and science who then commit to working for at least 4 years in K-12 public schools. Using incentives and scholarships, our aim should be to quadruple the number of America students enrolled in advanced math and science courses to four and a half million by 2010. A U.S. high school student has about a 70 percent chance of being taught English by a teacher with an English degree, but only a 40 percent chance of being taught chemistry by a teacher with a degree in chemistry. And the situation is worse for middle school students: 70 percent of them are taught math by a teacher lacking a certificate or major in math. It takes many years to educate a citizen. There are no short term solutions to this problem, and workforce issues rarely respond to quick fixes and often span generations. That is why there is such a sense of urgency to recruit thousands of new math and science teachers in the years ahead through the award of competitive scholarships. Additionally, we must strengthen 250,000 current teachers' math and science teaching skills with enhanced training and education by leveraging the expertise of the world's best physicists, mathematicians, and engineers to help provide that training. This legislation will also provide greater opportunities for students to take advanced math and science classes by increasing the number of students who enroll in Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate science and math courses. Second, we must steadily increase our investment by 10 percent each year for the next 7 years in long-term basic research, with special attention devoted to the physical sciences, engineering, mathematics, and information sciences. The Federal Government supports a majority of the Nation's basic research and nearly 60 percent of the R&D is performed in U.S. universities. At the same time, this investment at universities and colleges plays a key role in educating the next generation of scientists and engineers and a technically skilled workforce. We ought to provide 200 new research grants annually--worth $500,000 each payable over 5 years--to the Nation's most outstanding early-career researchers. Additionally, we should consider creating a revolutionary agency in the Energy Department modeled on the highly successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to sponsor research to meet the Nation's long- term energy challenges that industry by itself cannot or will not support. Just as Olympic-caliber athletes need the finest equipment and training protocols to triumph in their events, so do scientists, engineers and their students need the most modern research instruments and facilities with the best capabilities, the farthest reach, and the finest accuracy and resolution. To enable us to push beyond the frontiers of our current knowledge, we should create a centralized research infrastructure fund of $500 million annually over the next 5 years to ensure we have the equipment necessary for breakthrough scientific discoveries. Third, we must increase the number of U.S. citizens earning science, engineering, and math degrees. We must redouble our efforts to encourage gifted young American men and women to pursue these high tech disciplines which require so much from them and which have so much to offer all of our people. We can do so by providing annually 25,000 competitive undergraduate scholarships in physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics, and fund 5,000 new portable graduate fellowships in those fields. Equally important, we need a global recruitment strategy to attract the best and brightest to learn and live in America as part of our high tech workforce. Our visa, immigration and export control policies desperately need reform. Delays and difficulties in obtaining visas to the U.S. are contributing to a declining in-flow of scientific talent. We need to ensure the best and brightest come here, stay here, and obtain legal residency after college to contribute to our national economy instead of being forced back to their home countries to compete against us. Finally, we need to be able to assure investors that the U.S. is the preferred site for investments in new or expanded businesses that create the best jobs and provide the best services. To spur U.S.-based research and experimentation to meet global competition, we need to modernize the patent system, realign our tax policies to encourage long-term investments in innovation, and ensure the Nation meets the goal of affordable broadband Internet access by 2007. Our patent laws must also be reformed by moving to a first-to-file instead of a first-to-invent, thus bringing us into line with the rest of the world while reducing expensive litigation. Infrastructure planning grants and loan guarantees could also ensure that U.S. science parks are competitive with those throughout Asia. Additionally, we should eliminate uncertainty by doubling the R&D tax credit and making it permanent. Studies document that this tax credit encourages as much R&D spending as it costs in foregone revenue--and perhaps even twice that amount over the long haul. We face a competitive challenge of historic proportions today due to several new factors: The growing number of countries with advanced skills, multinational corporations placing their R&D centers, fueled by high education and low labor costs, wherever the profits are the greatest, and virtually every service being electronically communicable. It will be difficult to ever match our populous economic competitors in the quantity of their scientists and engineers. Ours is an even tougher task: to stay far ahead in the quality of our research and to keep pioneering scientific fields so cutting edge that others, for the most part, cannot duplicate them. We can readily meet this challenge and enjoy a prosperous future, even though these investments in education and research require incurring costs now for benefits later. The PACE Act will sustain our vibrant science and technology sector and with it our well-being, health, environment, and security. It will encourage education at home and attract talented scientists and engineers from abroad, as well as nurture a business environment that transforms new knowledge into new opportunities for creating high quality jobs and reaching shared goals. The passage of this farsighted public investment program will ensure that the United States is stronger, smarter, and leads the world in scientific and technological innovation in the twenty-first century.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I humbly rise today to pay tribute to SGT Clifton Yazzie. Sadly, this outstanding and brave young man was killed in Hawijah, Iraq, on January 20, 2006. As a cross-country runner and basketball player in high school, SGT Yazzie was not known for his innate athletic ability. Instead, his coaches and teammates remember him as a consummate team player who worked to improve his skills in every practice and every game. He enlisted after the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001, fully knowing that his country would soon be going to war abroad. His quiet demeanor and steadfast service is at the core of what the American military service is about: honor, duty, humility, and loyalty. His wife Michelle, children Chaynitta and Cayden, and parents Clifford and Jeanette will be in all of our thoughts. He and Michelle, who met at a high school dance, had been planning to renew their vows this spring. He was on his second tour of duty as an infantryman in the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division. We can never fully express our gratitude for our veterans' service; I ask that we stop now to honor Sergeant Yazzie and acknowledge his sacrifice, and that of his family and friends, for our Nation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, across the country, more than 6 million children live with relatives, and of those, 4.5 million live with grandparents. A majority of relatives providing care for children are not part of the child welfare system. In fact, only a quarter of all relatives caring for a child receive either a foster care payment or another source of payment. Most relatives do not receive any Federal financial support, and sadly, nearly 20 percent of all grandparents raising their grandchildren live in poverty. Unfortunately, the conference agreement on the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 severely cuts Federal assistance to foster care funding and makes it significantly harder for relatives to provide care for a child. I believe this is a step in the wrong direction, and I oppose these cuts. Kinship care is an important option for permanency for children in the child welfare system and often appropriate when adoption is not possible. Subsidized guardianship makes it possible for a relative to step in and care for a child. In my State of New Mexico, subsidized guardianship is available, and nearly 10 percent of children live with nonparent relatives. Grandparents and other relative caregivers are often the best chance for a loving and stable childhood for a child in their care, and it is important that we acknowledge their hard work and dedication. I commend grandparents and other relatives who step forward to care for a child. Their efforts help keep children out of foster care and provide safe, permanent and stable homes, often at great personal sacrifice. Supportive programs like subsidized guardianship allow caring relatives to provide care that they may not otherwise be able to give, and help children exit foster care into the care of nurturing relatives. I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation for the invaluable care provided by relatives for children in need.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I speak briefly in opposition to the motion to invoke cloture. The point I want to make, which has not been made to an adequate extent here, is that the provisions to open the Arctic Wildlife Refuge that are contained in this conference report are very different from what the Senate adopted in the budget reconciliation. In fact, the version of the legislation that is before us has never passed the House. It has never passed the Senate. It has been substantially changed from what we previously sought. First, the Department of Defense conference report language limits the ability of the Secretary to protect environmentally sensitive areas in the Coastal Plain to only 45,000 acres out of the 1.5 million-acre Coastal Plain. It cuts off the ability of the Secretary to withhold lands from leasing under other authority. In addition, the language that is before us requires the Secretary to offer for lease no less than 200,000 acres of the Coastal Plain within 22 months of the date of enactment. That is new. In addition, there are provisions with regard to judicial review that are new and unprecedented. Unlike the budget reconciliation language, the conference report prohibits review of a secretarial action in a civil or criminal enforcement proceeding of any action that the Secretary takes subject to judicial review under these provisions. In addition, there is a new presumption put forth in this language that the Secretary's preferred action related to any lease sale is correct unless otherwise provided by clear and convincing evidence. We should not be taking this action. We should clearly not be taking this action as part of a Defense appropriations bill, which is very much needed in order to provide the resources for our troops in harm's way today. I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on this provision, on this conference report as it is currently constituted. We can come back at a time when we can actually look at the provisions we are being forced to vote on and consider them on their merits. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong disagreement with the language in the Defense appropriations and Defense authorization conference reports concerning the treatment of prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Under the McCain amendment, U.S. personnel are prohibited from engaging in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. I strongly support this. This ban applies to all military and intelligence personnel regardless of where they are located throughout the world. This is a clear statement that the United States will abide by its obligation to follow the law, and it is a step forward in reinstating our Nation's moral authority. However, the Graham amendment would undercut much of what we are accomplishing with the McCain amendment in two respects. First, it would undercut our commitment to prohibiting the use of torture by allowing evidence produced as a result of torture to be used in military legal proceedings. Second, it would undercut any enforcement of this prohibition by barring individuals from seeking judicial review of the legality of their detention or bringing a suit to stop unlawful treatment. When the Graham-Levin compromise passed the Senate, it had some good language in it, and it had some very troubling language. On the good side, the amendment provided that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals at Guantanamo, which are charged with determining whether individuals should be classified as so called enemy combatants, are not allowed to use evidence that is derived through ``undue coercion,'' such as torture. This was an important step forward. We should not be relying on information that is inherently unreliable in deciding whether to indefinitely detain a person. Unfortunately, this provision is now gone. In the conference report the outright prohibition on using evidence derived through torture was replaced with a mere assessment of whether the evidence has been derived through coercive means, such as torture, and whether the evidence has any probative value. I would hope that a military tribunal assessing such evidence would realize that evidence derived through torture is not reliable. However, as drafted, this bill would allow a Combatant Status Review Tribunal to use evidence derived through torture if the tribunal finds that the evidence is helpful. To the best of my knowledge this would be the first time in U.S. history that the United States would be on record as allowing this type of evidence in any type of legal proceeding. This is wrong and a huge step backwards. Furthermore, from a practical standpoint the assessment with regard to whether the evidence is derived though torture is essentially pointless. The conference report states that this assessment is only applicable prospectively. The problem is that of the over 500 prisoners being held at Guantanamo, every single one has already undergone a status hearing to determine whether or not they are an ``enemy combatant.'' Under the existing procedures, there is no exclusionary rule prohibiting the use of evidence derived through torture. Therefore, the Government may be basing its finding that some of these prisoners are ``enemy combatants'' on faulty evidence that is completely unreliable. Let me provide an example of why this language is so problematic. Suppose a person is detained by the U.S. Government and handed over to a foreign intelligence service for interrogation. While U.S. personnel are prohibited from using interrogation techniques that amount to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, other countries use interrogation techniques, such as electric shock or pulling off a person's fingernails, which do not comply with this standard. If a person is tortured while in the custody of one of these intelligence services, any statements that the person makes, either incriminating himself or another person, could be admissible in the Combatant Status Tribunal Review, or CSRT, process. Frankly, I, and most people, would confess to nearly anything to avoid the harshest forms of torture. We should not be permitting the use of this type of evidence in any legal proceeding. It is inconsistent to say that we will prohibit the use of torture by our military and intelligence personnel because it is legally and morally repugnant, but we will allow evidence derived in this manner to be used in our military proceedings. ``We don't do it, but if you do it we will use it,'' is hardly a position of clarity with regard to our commitment to uphold the prohibition on torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The conference report also limits the ability of a prisoner at Guantanamo to file a writ of habeas corpus. This fundamental right has its foundation in the Magna Carta and is enshrined in our Constitution. Simply, it is the right to go to court when a person is detained by the Government and ask whether or not one's detention is justified. Contrary to how this right was characterized during debate on this bill, this is not about prisoners suing to get access to DVD movies or because they are unhappy with the type of peanut butter that they are being served--the Great Writ, as habeas is known, is meant to provide a basic check in preventing the Executive Branch from exercising unfettered authority in imprisoning individuals without judicial review. The fact is that mistakes happen. For example, take the recent case of the innocent German citizen who was picked up by the CIA in Macedonia and flown to a prison in Afghanistan where he was held in a secret facility for over 5 months because he was thought to be involved in terrorism--he wasn't. We made a mistake. Judicial review is important in reducing the likelihood that we are wrongfully imprisoning people, and we should have a viable process for weeding out these mistakes. According to news reports, commanders in Guantanamo have estimated that 70 percent of the individuals imprisoned there may be no threat at all. Whether this number is correct or not, it is reasonable to require that there be some meaningful judicial review in place to make sure that we are not indefinitely imprisoning people who pose no threat. If you are going to hold someone indefinitely for years on end without affording them a trial, I think it is fair to allow a person to challenge the basic legality of their detention. The Graham amendment, as it passed the Senate, restricted habeas corpus. Unfortunately, the conference report goes much further. It also prohibits a prisoner from bringing ``any other action'' against the Government regarding ``any aspect'' of their detention. This is an excessively broad restriction. It seems to eliminate all other causes of action, including the ability of a person to bring a suit to stop ongoing torture. This significantly undermines the McCain amendment. Ultimately, I have confidence that a court will hold that this provision is overly broad and unconstitutional. In addition, it is also important to note what the conference report does not do. The language contained in the conference report limits access to U.S. courts. But the conference report does not provide an exception for people who have been found not to be a threat and have been determined to be ``non-enemy combatants.'' Recently, the Washington Post has done a series of articles highlighting the plight of the ethnic Uighurs, who are Chinese Muslims opposed to the Communist government in China and who are seeking their own homeland in northwestern China. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these Washington Post articles be inserted into the Record at the end of my statement. The Department of Defense has been holding a group of Uighurs in Guantanamo for the last 4 years. CSRT hearings have been held for these individuals, and the Department of Defense has determined that they are ``non-enemy combatants.'' They are not a threat to our country and are not part of the al Qaida terrorist organization. The problem is that despite the finding that they are not ``enemy combatants,'' the Defense Department has refused to release them from Guantanamo because it can't find a country to take them--if they are sent to China they will likely be arrested and tortured, and countries such as Saudi Arabia, where many have lived previously, won't take them back. And the United States will not allow them to enter our country because it does not want them to apply for asylum. In essence, we are taking away the right of a person who is being held without charge, indefinitely, to go to court and ask for their release after the Department of Defense has said that they are essentially innocent. Not only is this repugnant to our Nation's values, it is also blatantly unconstitutional. Mr. President, over the last several years this administration has diminished our standing in the world by backing away from our longstanding commitment to human rights and the rule of law. I look forward to the day when the United States is once again viewed as a leader in this regard.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, all over this great country in the last month or so, high school football championships have been won and lost. I am delighted to report that the team in my hometown of Silver City, NM, after decades of effort, has won the championship trophy in Class 4A football in New Mexico. All who attended Silver High School--and all of us who attended it before it changed its name to that--are thrilled with this achievement. Seven times in the past, our team has been in the final game, and seven times we have come in second. This year, the Silver High School Fighting Colts came away with the winner's trophy for the first time in the school's history. This was accomplished under the leadership of Head Coach David Carrillo and his fine staff, and because of the skill and heart of all those enthusiastic players and their supportive families. They all have the congratulations and good wishes of those of us who have watched the team over the years. Somehow it is reassuring to know that no matter how old we get, we are always Colts.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the budget conference report that is about to be voted on by the Senate decreases access to and affordability of needed health care through the Medicaid Program for low-income children, parents, seniors, and people with disabilities while protecting a $10 billion fund for Medicare private health plans that are already acknowledged to receive payments far in excess of Medicare fee-for-service. Clearly, the conferees made the choice to protect private health plan overpayments in Medicare while cutting access to care for some of our most vulnerable citizens enrolled in the Medicaid Program. The conference report permit States to cut back on benefits for nearly all of the 27 million low-income children enrolled in Medicaid, including allowing States to restrict and limit benefits even for those with little or no income. The language is ambiguous about whether Early Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment, EPSDT, services, which are critical to ensuring that children have access to all medically necessary services they need, will continue to be provided. Benefits that could be lost include comprehensive developmental assessments, assessment and treatment for elevated blood lead levels, eyeglasses, dental care, hearing aids, wheelchairs and crutches, respiratory treatment, comprehensive mental health services, prescription drugs, and speech and therapy services. While certain populations, like pregnant women, people with disabilities, dual eligibles, and people with long-term care needs, are explicitly protected from benefit reductions, all other children enrolled in Medicaid, with the exception of children in foster care, are no longer ensured such protections. The conference report also permits, States to reduce Medicaid benefits for many low-income parents and some people with disabilities to something called a benchmark package, even if it is bare-bones coverage with minimal benefits. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, had previously written that it expected a reduction in benefits by 15 percent to 35 percent due to this provision. The conference report estimates that over $6 billion in cuts will occur to benefits for low- income people in Medicaid. The conference report also allows States to impose substantial cost- sharing charges upon Medicaid beneficiaries that will impact millions of low-income beneficiaries. Currently, States can generally charge no more than $3 for copayments per service or prescription drugs with groups like children entirely exempt. That is all changed by the conference report. For very low-income people, the Secretary would increase the nominal copayments of $3 by the medical portion of the Consumer Price Index, or M-CPI, which rises twice as fast as inflation generally. Of course, it will result in sharp rises in cost-sharing for our Nation's most vulnerable citizens, which a large body of research indicates will result in having people forgo needed health care services and prescription drugs. Meanwhile, beneficiaries with income between 100 and 150 percent of poverty could be charged copayments up to 10 percent, and beneficiaries with income over 150 percent of poverty could be charged copayments of up to 20 percent of the cost of medically necessary care. Furthermore, providers are allowed to deny care to anyone that cannot afford such cost-sharing. There are not even protections for children facing life-threatening conditions and in dire need of medically necessary care, as the language states that it would be incumbent upon the provider to waive the copayment in this case and only if the State allows it. It should be further noted that there really are no statutory limitations because even those protections or limitations on cost- sharing that I have cited may be waived by the Secretary under the conference report. CBO estimates that the conference report will result in $10.1 billion in cuts over 10 years resulting from increases in beneficiary copayments and premiums and these reductions are about 90 percent of the size of the cuts in the House package that they previous analyzed. It is important to remind my colleagues what the CBO said about the House bill, as it so closely mirrors what came out of the conference. As CBO's analysis of the House bill states, ``We estimate that the number of affected enrollees [due to increased cost-sharing requirements] would increase from 7 million in 2010 to 11 million by 2015, and that about half of those enrollees would be children.'' CBO added that, due to added premiums, ``about 70,000 enrollees would lose coverage in fiscal year 2010 and that 110,000 would lose coverage in fiscal year 2015 because of the imposition of premiums.'' In sharp contrast, the Senate bill had nothing that increased premiums or cost-sharing. Without the Medicaid Program, the number of children without health insurance--8.3 million in 2004--would be substantially higher. In fact, the number of uninsured children has dropped by over 300,000 children over the past 4 years due in large part to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. We should not at this time be taking steps backward by reducing coverage for low-income and vulnerable populations, including children. Senators need to fully recognize, understand, and reject what the House of Representatives and conferees have done with respect to the health and well-being of children, seniors, and the disabled in their budget reconciliation bill. Our Nation's most vulnerable citizens should not be asked to bear the burden of billions of dollars in budget cuts--cuts that are not even being used to reduce the deficit but, rather, to help pay for tax cuts. There is also the fact that the conference report will significantly restrict eligibility for nursing home care under Medicaid. The conference report adopts most of the punitive provisions in the House- passed bill to limit eligibility for long-term care services, but adds additional restrictions so that savings in this area would actually be 11 percent larger than the House bill and 7 times larger than the Senate bill. There are numerous problems with the provisions in this section that I do not have time to address today, but I would like to ask unanimous consent to place into the Record a letter from AARP expressing concern about these provisions, that CBO estimates will cut $6.5 billion out of nursing home spending over the next 10 years. It should be noted that these figures are just Federal amounts and that if you add State cuts in spending that there are billions and billions more in cuts to eligibility and services to Medicaid beneficiaries. In addition, I also want to raise another major problem that I asked conferees to address and was highlighted by my introduction of S. 2074, the Medicaid Indian Health Act. That legislation would have exempted American Indians and Alaska Natives, AI/ANs, and Indian health programs from those provisions and changes being proposed to Medicaid that will all have devastating consequences for Native Americans. Unfortunately, the conference report failed mightily in this regard. In fact, there is not even a mention of Native Americans or Indian health program in the legislation despite the fact the Federal Government's responsibility for Indian health, the uniqueness of the Indian health care system, and the serious health problems of Indian people require that protection of access to health care services for Native Americans be reflected in Federal Medicaid policy. Failure of the conferees to address this fact will have significant harmful consequences for American Indians and Alaska Natives. For example, the budget conference report would allow States to impose cost-sharing on Medicaid beneficiaries similar to and at even higher levels than those allowed under the SCHIP program, with the stated policy objective of achieving more appropriate utilization of cored services. This objective, however, would not be achieved at Indian Health Service, IHS, or Indian tribal health facilities, as these programs do not charge their American Indian and Alaska Native patients for health care. Rather, imposition of premiums and copays would produce the following unintended--and very harmful impact--on the Indian health system: Medicaid enrollment of AI/ANs who are eligible for coverage is already low, since the IHS user population receives health care without charge at IHS and tribal facilities. The financial barriers imposed by assessment of Medicaid premiums would further depress AI/AN enrollment. Decreases in Medicaid enrollment would deprive already-underfunded Indian health programs of vital Medicaid revenues on which they are heavily dependent. The imposition of copayments will not change utilization habits of Indian Medicaid beneficiaries because IHS and tribal providers do not charge copays to their Indian patients. Copay amounts would be simply cost-shifted to the Indian health programs, causing a further reduction in the services they can offer, and reducing the resources they need to purchase contract health care. These reductions in resources available to the Indian health system will decrease the health services they can provide and cause further decline in the health status of Indian populations. Everybody voting on today's package should be fully aware of that fact. In addition, the budget reconciliation bill would, for the first time, allow States to offer different Medicaid benefit packages to ``individuals within one or more groups of individuals'' in the State by requiring enrollment in ``benchmark'' or ``benchmark-equivalent'' Medicaid coverage. This authority would allow a State to reduce the amount, duration and scope of Medicaid benefits to many beneficiaries. The Indian Health Service, which is now funded at less than 60% of need and is heavily dependent on Medicaid payments, would be decimated by any reductions in Medicaid-covered services. While States receive 100% FMAP for Medicaid services provided in an IHS or tribal facility, those facilities have limited capabilities and are not able to directly supply all needed care. When the IHS or tribal facility must refer an Indian Medicaid beneficiary to a private or public provider, the State must pay the regular State Medicaid match. Thus, States would have an incentive to limit the benefits AI/ANs referred to outside providers could receive under the State Medicaid plan. If Native Americans stay within the IHS system and the benefits are not covered, this is simply yet another cost shift to Indian health care programs. As part of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 report, the Congress said, ``The most basic human right must be the right to enjoy decent health. Certainly, any effort to fulfill Federal responsibilities to the Indian people must begin with the provision of health services. In fact, health services must be the cornerstone upon which rest all the other Federal programs for the benefit of Indians. Without a proper health status, the Indian people will be unable to fully avail themselves of the many economic, educational, and social programs already directed to them or which this Congress and future Congresses will provide them.'' The Federal Government has a ``Federal trust responsibility'' to Indian people that it is simply not fulfilling. This budget conference agreement is yet another example of this failure and should be rejected for this reason, as well as the negative consequences that it will have on low-income children, senior citizens, and people with disabilities across this Nation. Finally, although I do not have the time today to talk at length about the problems with the Medicare provisions, I will say that I am very disappointed and deeply concerned about the $8.1 billion in home health cuts that have been included in the conference report. It is also disturbing that the conferees would choose to add a provision that was in neither the House nor Senate bills to cut $3 billion out of the Medicare disproportionate share hospital, DSH Program, which provides financial assistance to our Nation's safety net hospitals. These cuts will undoubtedly have negative consequences on safety net hospitals across the country. With 46 million uninsured people in our country, it makes little sense to be cutting our Nation's safety net providers at this time. This is all about choices. The Senate reconciliation bill contained the same level of savings in Medicaid and Medicare without all of these provisions that will certainly have negative consequences on millions of people served by Medicaid and Medicare. The conferees had before them the choice of protecting vulnerable, low-income citizens or to do things such as protecting the interests of private health plans. For example, such cuts were added in conference to help pay for decisions such as the dropping of savings that had been obtained in the Senate bill by such things as elimination of what is known as the health plan ``slush fund.'' This $10 billion fund was created in the Medicare prescription drug bill to encourage participation by private health plans, but the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, almost unanimously recommended its elimination and the Senate bill had included such savings. The dropping of such reasonable cost savings out of the conference report has clearly left low income people to pay the price through cost-sharing increases and benefit restrictions that will undoubtedly have negative consequences on the health and well-being of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens enrolled in Medicaid. I would also like to express my opposition to section 1101 of this budget reconciliation conference report the Senate is now considering. I am disappointed the budget reconciliation bill includes a 2-year extension of the Milk Income Loss Contract, or MILC, a wasteful subsidy that primarily benefits dairy farmers in only a few states. I helped lead the opposition in the Senate in 2002 when this new dairy subsidy program was created as part of the farm bill. The MILC program has already cost taxpayers over $2 billion. I strongly oppose extending it further. The Milk Income Loss Contract Program expired on September 30, but this conference report extends it for 2 years at a cost to the taxpayers of almost $1 billion. I oppose the extension because I believe this MILC Program is basically unfair and unnecessary. Since the subsidy payments began in 2002, almost half the MILC payments--about $950 million--has gone to producers in only four States, Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. In fact, 20 percent of the payments, over $410 million, went to producers in just a single state, Wisconsin. The other half of the Federal payments is shared among all the remaining 46 States. California, on the other hand, by far the nation's largest dairy state, isn't even among the top four in Federal MILC payments. California's dairies produce 20 percent of the nation's milk but get only about 7 percent of the payments. Idaho is 4th in dairy production, but 12th in MILC payments. How can anyone say that is a fair and equitable use of the taxpayers' dollars? Dairy producers my State of New Mexico rank 7th in the Nation in milk production but are 28th in Federal MILC payments. Some of the supporters of this $1 billion boondoggle say that dairy farmers need a safety net. However, I hope all Senators know dairy producers already have a safety net, one that has been in place for over 50 years. It's called the Federal Price Support Program, and it was extended in the 2002 farm bill. So this $1 billion program subsidy program is really just a case of some dairy farmers trying to double dip at the taxpayers' expense. Another argument I have heard is that MILC helps the family farms. Nearly all dairies in this country, regardless of size, are family farms; that is, owned and run by families. The families who run New Mexico's dairies are strongly opposed to extending MILC. Finally, a recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows the MILC program actually lowers prices paid to diary farmers. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, it is just basic economics. Taxpayer subsidies invariable lead to excess production, which pushes prices down. In my opinion, this is a simple case of an unnecessary and counterproductive program that should have been left to die. I understand President Bush made a campaign promise last year to support extending the MILC Program. But at hearing on October 27 in the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, where I am a member, the deputy trade representative, Ambassador Allgeier, stated the administration would prefer MILC not be extended because of the possible impact on the President's ongoing world trade negotiations. MILC is a huge trade-distorting subsidy, and extending it now sends the wrong signals to our trading partners. I didn't sign the conference report, and I plan to vote against this budget reconciliation bill because I do believe this bill is a missed opportunity to establish spending priorities and deal with the nation's burgeoning deficit. This bill sets aside $1 billion for an unnecessary subsidy to benefit mainly Northeast and Midwest dairy farmers, while at the same time making deep cuts to essential health care and housing initiatives. Agriculture spending for farmers and ranchers has had to be cut an extra $1 billion to pay for the MILC subsidy. Our country is in deep financial trouble which requires us to make difficult choices and set priorities. In my view, we have laid out the wrong priorities in this bill. Decisions that cost the taxpayers a billion dollars shouldn't be made on the basis of partisan politics. Section 1101 in this reconciliation bill will cost taxpayers $1 billion over the next 3 years. That means $1 billion more that has to be borrowed; another $1 billion added to the deficit. New Mexico's family-owned dairies are some of the most efficient in the Nation, and they should be free to compete without this costly and totally unnecessary subsidy program. I do believe it is bad policy to put an extra $1 billion of the taxpayers' money into this unnecessary MILC subsidy. Groups that oppose this 2-year extension of the MILC subsidy include the International Dairy Foods Association, the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens against Government Waste, Freedom Works, and the National Taxpayers Union. In addition to the letter from AARP previously mentioned, I ask that letters expressing major concerns and opposition to the conference report from 35 organizations that are part of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the American Cancer Society, the National Council of La Raza, and an organization representing 2,500 police chiefs and other law enforcement leaders be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that a recent article opposing extending MILC by Thomas Schatz, president of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to closing off debate on the PATRIOT Act conference report as it has come back to the Senate. The events of September 11 demonstrated various deficiencies in our understanding of the terrorist threat and our capabilities in terms of combating terrorism. In response, Congress acted decisively and passed the PATRIOT Act to ensure that our Government has all the tools necessary to protect the American people. I supported that legislation. The PATRIOT Act, as originally enacted, was 342 pages long and contained 10 titles and 116 sections. The bill improved our laws with regard to international money laundering, terrorism financing, intelligence gathering, surveillance, cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence authorities, and strengthened our criminal laws relating to terrorism. The vast majority of these provisions are not expiring. They remain the law of the land. Indeed, only 16 of the most controversial sections in the bill contained sunset provisions. Congress recognized that we were extending to law enforcement and intelligence authorities expansive new surveillance powers and that it was important to go back and look at how these powers have been used and whether we needed to make any changes in the law to ensure that Americans' civil liberties are protected. While I support the reauthorization of these expiring provisions, I believe that there are changes that need to be made to address some of the problematic provisions. Let me be clear. I support giving law enforcement the tools necessary to aggressively fight terrorism but believe that modest modifications are required to ensure that we protect constitutional rights and properly balance civil liberties with national security concerns. To this end, in July the Senate unanimously passed a bipartisan bill that would reauthorize the PATRIOT Act with important safeguards in place to protect the rights of Americans. Although this bill wasn't perfect, it struck a reasonable balance between giving law enforcement the tools they need and protecting civil liberties. When the PATRIOT Act was originally passed in 2001, Congress provided that some of the controversial provisions, such as section 215 which allows the Government access to library and medical records, would expire in 2006. One example of where the current version of the bill falls short is with regard to section 215, the so-called library provision which allows the Government to obtain sensitive personal records, including library, business, and medical records, of Americans by merely saying that they are relevant to a terrorism investigation. This provides the Government almost unfettered authority to look at the personal records of Americans. Under the Senate-passed bill, the Government would have to demonstrate that the person whose records they are seeking has some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. In particular, the Government would have to show that, No. 1, the records pertain to a suspected terrorist or a spy; or No. 2, that the records pertain to an individual in contact with a suspected terrorist or a spy; or No. 3, that the records are relevant to the activities of a suspected terrorist or spy. It is reasonable to require that if the Government is going to look at the private records of Americans without a traditional warrant that the Government show at a minimum that the request for records has some connection to a terrorist and isn't just part of a fishing expedition. In addition, when a person receives a section 215 order requesting medical records or library records, the person who receives this request is subject to an automatic and permanent gag order that prevents them from speaking about the order or challenging the gag order in court. Similar restrictions on challenging gag orders have been found to be unconstitutional and a violation of the first amendment. Another section of the bill that is of great concern relates to national security letters, or NSLs. These requests for documents are similar to section 215 orders except that they do not require any court approval at all. Although a section 215 order needs to be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a NSL is simply issued by the FBI, without any judicial review, to a business to obtain certain records, such as financial records, that it believes are relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation. The conference report does allow a NSL recipient to challenge the NSL in court, but it also stipulates that regardless of whether there are national security concerns, all of the Government's submissions are secret and cannot be shared with the person challenging the order. And to be clear, the business being denied knowledge of the ``governmental submissions'' is not the target of the investigation but the recipient of the order for the requested documents. Also the recipient of the NSL is subject to an automatic gag order. Although the gag order can be challenged in court, the only way to prevail is to demonstrate that the Government is acting in bad faith, a burden that is almost impossible to prove. I also have concerns about other aspects of the conference report, such as the ``sneak and peek'' provision which allows law enforcement to search homes without notifying individuals of the search for an extended period of time. This bill has profound implications on the constitutional rights of Americans, and I strongly believe that we shouldn't be hastily approving a bill that falls short of adequately protecting civil liberties. Simply reauthorizing the most controversial provisions and saying that we will take another look at the bill in 4 years when the new sunset provisions expire is not the appropriate way to deal with this issue. It has been 4 years since the bill was enacted and it is time that Congress addresses the substantive problems with the act. The Senate has demonstrated that it is prepared to reauthorize all of the expiring provisions, and there is no need to pass this version of the bill in its flawed form. I agree with Senator Leahy that we should temporarily extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months to give Congress more time to work out the remaining issues in a thoughtful way. It is my hope that a solution can be reached that reflects the commonsense improvements that were included in the Senate-passed version of the bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about our colleague Senator Jon Corzine, congratulate him on his recent election as Governor of New Jersey, and also thank him for his great contribution to the Senate and to the entire country during the time he served here. Jon came to the Senate from a very successful career on Wall Street. We are all aware of that. He came here for the best of reasons: his desire to make a difference, to improve the situation of average Americans in this country, to see that this country pursued an economic course that created opportunity and jobs for the people he represented in New Jersey and throughout this country. On economic issues, I think all of us in the Senate came to believe-- I certainly did--that no one was better able to read the tea leaves about what was happening economically in this country, what was happening in the various economic statistics which come out each week, than Jon Corzine. He could understand the economic circumstance we continue to struggle with in this country and the impact it is having on the lives of average Americans. While he has been here, he has demonstrated a passion for fairness to all in our society. He has not been a representative of Wall Street. He has been a representative of the great mass of the American people. He has looked to raise the standard of living of all Americans and lift all boats. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for that passion he has brought to this job. I serve as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We have been very fortunate that Jon has served on that committee as well. He has been an active participant in the writing of energy legislation, which we passed earlier this year. He made a great contribution in that legislation. In short, Jon has had a very distinguished career in the Senate. I am confident he will have a very distinguished career as Governor of New Jersey and will have a very long and successful career in public life. Again I congratulate him on his victory. I thank him for his service and his friendship, and I look forward to opportunities to work with him again in his new capacity as Governor of New Jersey. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly in support of the motion that I understand is to be made by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, who is here on the floor, to instruct conferees with respect to the Medicaid Program. The motion to instruct conferees on the Medicaid Program highlights one of the many ways in which the House of Representatives budget reconciliation bill radically departs from the Senate bill. Let me spend a very few minutes highlighting the differences between the House and Senate packages on Medicaid, particularly with regard to the health of children. The contrast between the two bills could not be more stark. The Senate bill arguably improves coverage of children through the inclusion of the Family Opportunity Act that provides a State option to expand Medicaid coverage to children with disabilities and through inclusion of outreach and enrollment funding based on legislation that Senator Frist and I introduced earlier this year. In sharp contrast, however, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the House budget reconciliation package imposes increased cost sharing on low-income Medicaid beneficiaries and reduces health services by $6.5 billion over 5 years and by $30.1 billion over 10 years. For children, the impact of the House bill would be devastating. Medicaid covers more than 27 million children, almost one in four in this country. Medicaid also covers more than a third of all the births and health care costs of newborns in the United States each year. In spite of the importance of Medicaid for children, the House budget package increases cost sharing for all children who rely on it for prescription drugs or for emergency room services. The bill also allows States to impose premiums for the first time under Medicaid for children's coverage and to deny children coverage even if their family cannot afford to pay the premium or other cost sharing. The House budget bill also allows States to eliminate the early and periodic screening diagnosis and treatment benefit rules that are so critical to the health of children with special health care needs and disabilities. Benefits that could be lost include comprehensive developmental assessments, assessment and treatment for elevated blood lead levels, eyeglasses, dental care, hearing aids, wheelchairs and crutches, respiratory treatment, comprehensive mental health services, prescription drugs and speech and therapy services. In short, three- fourths of the savings in the House bill come at the expense of low- income Medicaid beneficiaries. By CBO's estimate, half of the beneficiaries affected by the increased cost-sharing provisions in the House package are imposed on children, and half of those who will lose Medicaid benefits would be children. In CBO's own words: We estimate that the number of affected enrollees [due to increased cost-sharing requirements] would increase from 7 million in 2010 to 11 million in 2015, and that about half of those enrollees would be children. CBO adds that, due to added premiums, ``about 70,000 enrollees would lose coverage in fiscal year 2010 and 110,000 would lose coverage in fiscal year 2015 because of the imposition of premiums.'' Furthermore, CBO estimates that the flexibility in the House bill to reduce benefits will also heavily impact children. CBO estimates that ``benefit reductions would affect an estimated 2.5 million Medicaid enrollees in 2010 and about 5 million enrollees by 2015--about 8 percent of the Medicaid population--and that about one-half of those receiving alternative [or reduced] benefit packages would be children.'' Without the Medicaid Program, the number of children without health insurance, which was 8.3 million in 2004, would be substantially higher. In fact, the number of uninsured children has dropped by over 300,000 over the past 4 years due in large part to Medicaid and the SCHIP Program. We should not at this time be taking steps backward by reducing coverage for low-income and vulnerable populations that primarily include the children I have been referring to. I urge that colleagues support the Baucus motion to instruct conferees on Medicaid. We are coming into the holiday season. This is not a time when we, the wealthiest Nation in the world, should be cutting health care assistance to the low-income children of this country. I did not support the Senate budget reconciliation bill for a variety of reasons, but even with the imperfections that were in that bill, it was far superior to the House budget package. For one thing, it does not contain the type of cuts for children's health that are included in the House bill. I urge my colleagues to recognize how much better the Senate bill is for the health and well-being of our Nation's children. I urge my colleagues to vote to instruct conferees to support the Senate's approach over that of the House of Representatives. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Indian Medicaid Health Act of 2005 with Senators Baucus, Dorgan, Murray, Cantwell and Johnson. This legislation addresses a number of technical but critically important provisions within the Medicaid Program that devote special attention to Native Americans, the Indian Health Service, IHS, tribal health organizations, and urban Indian health organizations. These provisions would: No. 1, codify protections that American Indians and Alaska Natives have obtained over the years in the Medicaid program, such as the requirement that states consult with tribes and tribal health organizations prior to seeking a federal Medicaid waiver; No. 2, clarify that American Indians and Alaska Natives are not subject to additional cost sharing or benefit limitations within Medicaid that will result in nothing more than a cost-shift from the Medicaid program to IHS or tribal health providers; No. 3, codify critically important provisions that provide protections against states or the federal government taking Indian property or tribal lands in exchange for medical services delivered through Medicaid; and, No. 4, eliminate certain inequities such as the lack of 100 percent federal matching payments within Medicaid for care delivered to Native Americans at urban Indian health clinics. American Indians and Alaska Natives continue to suffer enormous disparities in the health and medical care they receive. It should not come as a surprise to anyone at the Federal level that health care funding for American Indians and Alaska Natives, AI/AN, is well below what it should be and, consequently, Native Americans received rationed health care services that deny them access to the quality and medically necessary health care services. However, year after year, budget and appropriations amendments are offered to more fully fund health care for Native Americans but both the administration and Congress routinely fail to provide adequate funding. The result is a continued and growing divide between the health of American Indians and Alaska Natives compared to that of the general population. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, USCCR, held meetings in Albuquerque, NM, and visited the Gallup Indian Medical Center in 2003 as part of a factfinding mission to review the current disparities in the health status and outcomes of Native Americans. What they found served as a basis for the release of their report in September 2004 entitled Broken Promises: Evaluating the Native American Health Care System. The opening line in that report reads, ``Today, in Indian Country, health-related problems and the lack of adequate health care are the enemy.'' This is in large part due to the fact that the IHS operates on just 57 percent of the budget it needs and had more than $3 billion in unmet needs in 2003. USCCR cites estimates by the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, that per capita health spending for all Americans at $4,065, while IHS spent about $1,914 per person and average spending on Navajo patients is just $1,187. The USCCR adds, ``In fact, the federal government spends nearly twice as much money for a federal prisoner's health care than it does for an American Indian or Alaska Native.'' Consequently and not surprisingly, this disparity in funding translates into severe health disparities for Native Americans. For example, life expectancy is 6 years less than the rest of the U.S. citizens. Tuberculosis rates are four times the national average. Complications due to diabetes are almost three times the national average and death rates exceed the Healthy People 2010 targets by 233 percent. Infant mortality rates are 1.7 times higher than the rate for white infants. In recognition of these facts, the National Indian Health Board has said, ``The travesty in looking at the deplorable health of American Indians and Alaska Natives is recognizing that the poor health indicators could be improved if funding was available to provide even a basic level of care.'' The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights adds, ``In this light, this report should be considered a clarion call to those who inexplicably fail to acknowledge the present state of Native American health care and to those who lack a commitment necessary to address the overwhelming need for clear and decisive action. Such a call is certainly appropriate for our political leadership and the message is clear--it is finally time to honor our nation's commitment to protecting the health of Native Americans.'' Such an agenda is actually a fairly simple one. It would include: No. 1, full funding for the Indian Health Service and tribal health organizations, which should include conversion of IHS into an entitlement program; No. 2, increased numbers and funding of urban Indian health organizations; No. 3, reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act; No. 4, coverage of as many American Indians and Alaska Natives who qualify for federal health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, as possible to ensure they are enrolled and receiving benefits in order to augment funding to IHS facilities; and, No. 5, targeted efforts to address health disparities in Indian Country, such as diabetes. For this reason, I strongly support the annual budget and appropriations efforts, which have been led by Senator Daschle in the past and Senator Dorgan this year, to increase funding for the Indian Health Service. Unfortunately, those efforts continue to be voted down in the Congress. I also strongly support reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, IHCIA, which is led by Senators McCain and Dorgan. This effort has been ongoing for 6 years and it is long past time for the Congress to take up and pass IHCIA. Unfortunately, due to continued opposition to certain provisions by the administration, the legislation continues to be bottled up in the Congress and has not even been reintroduced in the House of Representatives. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, one area that I have been able to focus on in recent years is to improve coverage for Native Americans in both Medicare and Medicaid. I was able to pass legislation, the Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act of 2001 or Public Law 107-121, to correct problems whereby Native American women had previously been wrongly denied coverage under Medicaid's breast and cervical cancer treatment option. After a year of work, we were able to pass legislation to correct that outrageous and discriminatory error. I was also able to pass two provisions in 2003 from my bill, the Medicare Indian Health Fairness Act of 2003, that expanded reimbursement to IHS and tribal health providers for all Medicare Part B services and limited the amount that providers outside the IHS system can charge for services delivered to Native Americans through the contract health services, CHS, program. As with anything related to Native Americans in this Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, continues to fail to publish regulations necessary to implement the latter provision, even though the law required publishing of those regulations in December 2004. Although most involved in Indian health feel frustrated and argue that we are taking one step forward and two steps back with respect to Indian health care policy, it is in the area of Medicare, Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, policy that we have been making some progress. The legislation I am introducing today, the Medicaid Indian Health Care Act of 2005, seeks to protect the gains that have been made and to take another few steps forward. For one, while IHS funding continues to fall further and further behind what is needed, the one bright spot is that collections from third party payers has increased over time with Medicaid playing a fundamental role in that growth. IHS was first authorized to seek Medicaid payment for services delivered in Indian health facilities, whether operated by the IHS directly or by tribes as part of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 or Public Law 94-437. As Indian health experts Mim Dixon and Kris Locke said, ``This entitlement funding was expected to provide critical resources to improve the quality of health care for AI/AN and to reduce the health status disparities. To support this outcome, there is an additional provision in the IHCIA that Medicaid and Medicare revenues shall not offset Congressional appropriations for the IHS, so that the total amount of funding for Indian health care would increase and not merely be shifted from one funding stream to another.'' With regard to that requirement, however, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights adds, ``. . . Congress included language to articulate the express intent that increased collections not be used to justify lower appropriations levels. Congress has failed to abide by this clear mandate. Only enhanced collection efforts have made up for shortfalls created by inflation and population growth, and prevented a continuous decline from 1991 until today.'' Growth in Medicaid collections has been used to partially offset the dramatic decline in IHS purchasing power over the years, despite the Federal provision stating that such revenues should not reduce overall IHS spending. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights noted that `` . . . collections from third parties increased 453 percent from 1991 to 2003.'' Without that increase, the fate of IHS and health care services for Native Americans would even be more severe. According to the Government Accountability Office, GAO, in its August 2005 report entitled ``Indian Health Service: Health Care Services Are Not Always Available to Native Americans'', ``In fiscal year 2004, IHS- funded facilities obtained approximately $628 million in reimbursements, with 92 percent collected from Medicare and Medicaid and 8 percent from private insurance.'' Medicaid collections, alone, have by 2004 ``grown to $446 million, which is 71 percent of the total third party collections reported by IHS In FY 2004, . . . Medicaid collections provided about 16.8 percent of the IHS budget for clinical services,'' according to Dixon and Locke. Consequently, the administration's own congressional justification document for its IHS budget proposes just a 2.1-percent increase, or $62.9 million, in additional IHS funding in fiscal year 2006 while noting that the IHS will increase their Medicare and Medicaid collections by another $8.4 million in fiscal year 2006. The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board estimates it will take $371 million to maintain current services for IHS and tribally operated health programs. Therefore, the administration's ridiculously low proposed increase for IHS combined with their estimated increase in Medicare and Medicaid collections will still fall $300 million short of providing current services. Whether intentional or not, as direct IHS funding continues to fail to cover inflation or population growth year after year, Medicaid collections are now a growing and critical component to providing basic health care services by IHS and tribal health organizations. Yet, while Medicaid has become critically important to the health of American Indians and Alaska Natives, Native Americans constitute a small share of overall Medicaid costs. As the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board has found, Medicaid accounts for almost 20 percent of the IHS budget but less than 0.5 percent of Medicaid expenditures go to Indian health. Consequently, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Baucus, Dorgan, Murray, Cantwell, and Johnson entitled the ``Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005'' is primarily an attempt to prevent the Federal Government and States from inflicting harm on the health and well-being of American Indians and Alaska Natives, but it also seeks to take a few steps forward as well. What is at stake? First, from the ``do no harm'' prescriptive, both the National Governors' Association, NGA, and the House of Representatives budget reconciliation legislation contemplate major changes to the Medicaid program to achieve $10 billion or more in proposed budget cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. Unfortunately, it is clear that neither the NGA nor the House of Representatives considered the tremendous impact that the cuts they are proposing will have on the health and well-being of Native Americans across this Nation. For example, both the NGA and the House budget reconciliation package provide for States being able to impose additional premiums, copayments, and other forms of cost-sharing on low-income Medicaid beneficiaries, including Native Americans. Such changes can have enormous consequences for AI/ANs as well as the Indian Health Service, tribal, and urban Indian, I/T/U providers from whom many Native Americans receive health services. As Andy Schneider of Medicaid Policy, LLC, stated at a meeting in August of this year on Medicaid and Indian health care, ``Regrettably, the NGA recommendations [which have been adopted as part of the House budget reconciliation package] could well make matters even worse for AI/ANs and the I/T/U providers that serve them. The NGA proposal to increase beneficiary cost-sharing could impose additional financial burdens on IHS and tribal health budgets. The NGA proposal for more benefits package `flexibility' could result in significant reimbursement losses to I/T/U providers.'' How would this occur? With respect to additional cost sharing, evidence shows that additional cost sharing either results in reduced use of medical services, which could result in further a decline in the health status of AI/ANs, or that the I/T/U providers will pick up the added cost sharing burden. As Schneider points out, ``These costs include not only the amounts of the copayments and deductibles but also the administrative expense of processing them and tracking the cumulative out-of-pocket payments, particularly if the services subject to cost-sharing are delivered by a non-I/T/U provider.'' Even if you subscribe to the ideology that Medicaid beneficiaries should pay more for their health care, as Dixon and Locke point out, ``The intended outcome of enrollee cost sharing is not achieved in the Indian health system and actually acts to further deplete funding.'' Put simply, added copayments in Medicaid would result in the unintended effect of shifting Medicaid costs directly upon the already horribly underfunded IHS system. In other words, the imposition of consumer cost-sharing provisions by Medicaid on Native American populations would effectively reduce the level and quality of health care services in Indian communities. With respect to benefit flexibility as proposed by NGA and adopted in the House budget reconciliation package, according to Schneider, ``The effect of reducing Medicaid coverage will be to reduce Medicaid revenues to the I/T/U providers that furnish covered services to this population. Services for which the I/T/U could previously collect Medicaid revenues will no longer be reimburseable because the patient is no longer eligible for Medicaid.'' To address these concerns, the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board has recommended, ``The Medicaid program could be a more effective means of financial Indian health programs if it would exempt American Indians and Alaska Natives from cost sharing including co-pays, premiums and any form of cost sharing. It makes little sense to Indian people to sign up for a health program that charges them for health care services that their tribe gave up lands and others considerations to secure for all generations. The practical effect is that they will not sign up for Medicaid and the IHS funded programs will end up paying all the costs of their health care. If this becomes the case, CMS will save the federal government millions of dollars, but renege on rights guaranteed by law and treaties.'' In order to address these important points, one need look no further than the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, rules and regulations. As Schneider adds, ``Federal regulations prohibit states from imposing premiums, deductibles, coinsurance, or copayments or AI/ AN children enrolled in their SCHIP programs. There is no comparable regulatory protection for AI/AN children or adults enrolled in Medicaid.'' Consequently, to prevent harm to the health and well-being of Native Americans, section 3 of the Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005 would explicitly prohibit imposing such things as premiums or other forms of cost sharing on Native Americans within Medicaid, just as SCHIP already does. Section 4 adds a prohibition on the recovery of the estates of AI/AN Medicaid beneficiaries or tribal property by States through the Medicaid Program. Furthermore, section 8 of the legislation allows States to include special provisions exempting Native Americans from additional cost sharing or from benefit reductions in recognition of the special circumstances of Native Americans in the Medicaid Program. In light of the failure of the NGA to consider the special circumstances of American Indians and Alaska Natives with respect to Medicaid policy, section 5 of the legislation recognizes the Federal trust responsibility and requires the Secretary, prior to the approval of any State Medicaid waivers, to assure that there has been consultation with tribes whose members or tribal health programs could be adversely affected by the waiver. Otherwise, the current waiver process can result in the approval of waivers that may include reductions in Medicaid eligibility, benefits and/or reimbursement or increases in cost sharing that can have a negative impact on Native Americans or tribal health programs. In short, sections 3, 4, 5, and 8 seek to adopt a policy of ``do no harm'' by preventing changes in Medicaid policy from having negative consequences for Native Americans. Meanwhile, sections 2, 6, and 7 in the bill seek to make some additional progress on behalf of Native Americans through the Medicaid Program. Foremost among those provisions in section 2, which provides for 100 percent Federal Medicaid matching funds for services delivered to AI/AN Medicaid beneficiaries at urban Indian health programs. Although the Medicaid statute currently provides for 100 percent Federal Medicaid matching funds for Medicaid services delivered to AI/ANs through IHS facilities and a subsequent Memorandum of Agreement, MOA, in 1996 clarified those payments also apply to services provided through tribally owned facilities, the 100 Percent Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, does not apply to urban Indian clinics. In short, if an AI/AN Medicaid beneficiary received services from an IHS or tribal facility, the Federal Government is paying 100 percent of the cost, but if the same individual received the same services from an urban Indian health program funded by the IHS, the Federal Government shifts part of the costs of that care to the State in proportion to the State's share of the FMAP. There is no justification for this cost shift. Just as IHS and tribal facilities are part of the I/T/U delivery system for Native Americans, so are urban Indian health programs and, as part of the ``Federal trust responsibility,'' States should not be required to subsidize any element of this system. Section 6 of the legislation would simply ensure that I/T/U providers that do not have the status of federally qualified health centers, FQHCs, receive the same level of reimbursement from Medicaid managed care organizations, MCOs, as they would if they were a FQHC. If Medicaid MCOs are continued to be allowed to pay I/T/U providers less for the same services that they pay other network providers, the I/T/U providers will, effectively, be subsidizing the MCO or other network providers, which is not an appropriate use of limited federal IHS resources. And finally, section 7 of the Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005 ensures that IHS spending on behalf of a Native American does not disqualify them for Medicaid coverage under the ``medically needy option.'' Current policy prohibits such care from counting toward the ``spend down'' requirements for qualifying as ``medically needy'' in Medicaid. Receiving services at an IHS facility should certainly not disqualify anybody from Medicaid coverage and, once again, IHS should not be subsidizing the Medicaid program. In total, the provisions in the Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005 might at first glance appear to be a hodge podge set of provisions related to both Medicaid and Indian health. However, they are not. They reflect a concerted effort on behalf of Native American people to protect the gains that have already been made within the Medicaid Program for American Indians and Alaska Natives and the need to make additional strides to improve the delivery of health services throughout to Native people, including those in urban areas, through Medicaid. Furthermore, this is just the first in a series of bills addressing Indian issues within the Medicaid and Medicare Programs. The next two will focus, respectively, on improving the Medicare Program and fixing problems with respect to the Medicare prescription drug program for Native Americans and Indian health providers. As part of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 report, the Congress said, ``The most basic human right must be the right to enjoy decent health. Certainly, any effort to fulfill Federal responsibilities to the Indian people must begin with the provision of health services. In fact, health services must be the cornerstone upon which rest all the other Federal programs for the benefit of Indians. Without a proper health status, the Indian people will be unable to fully avail themselves of the many economic, educational, and social programs already directed to them or which this Congress and future Congresses will provide them.'' The Federal Government has a ``Federal trust responsibility'' to Indian people that it is simple not fulfilling. This administration and this Congress can and simply must do better. Part of that multipronged agenda should include passage of the Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005. This could occur in a variety of ways. First, the provision from this bill could be incorporated in any budget reconciliation conference report package. Consequently, during Finance Committee consideration of the Senate's version of the budget reconciliation package on October 25, 2005, I offered an amendment that included a number of the provisions from this bill. Opponents of the amendment, which failed on a 9-to-11 party-line vote with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposing it, argued at the time that the budget reconciliation package was not the right vehicle but that we should look to the reauthorization bill for the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to attach these provisions instead. Two days later, on October 27, 2005, the Committee on Indian Affairs took up and passed S. 1057, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2005, but did not include any of the Medicaid provisions I have been discussing as part of this bill. They were told that inclusion of Medicaid provisions within IHCIA was objected to by both the administration and the Senate Finance Committee. However, in light of the Senate Finance Committee's failure to take up the amendment earlier this month, another possible vehicle should be the reauthorization bill for the Indian Health Care Improvement Act when it comes to the Senate floor. And finally, if we fail to get these provisions included in either of those legislative vehicles, we will push to get the Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005 passed as a free standing piece of legislation. Medicaid has become such a crucial and necessary piece in maintaining and improving the health and well-being of American Indians and Alaska Natives that it is unacceptable that the various Senate committees point to each other as being in charge while not taking the necessary responsibility to get this important protections for Native Americans passed into law. The Federal Government and the States also point figures at each other as to who is in charge. As Jim Crouch, executive director of the California Rural Indian Health Board, has said, ``The joint operation of the Medicaid program by federal and state authorities often ignores the governmental status of Tribes and the unique needs of Tribal citizens. It is always appropriate for the federal government to establish special provisions that are in the best interest of Tribes and American Indians due to the governmental status of federally recognized tribes.'' Mr. President, it is well past time to enact legislative initiatives such as the Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005 and reauthorization of IHCIA. Years of broken promises to Indian Country must come to an end. Passage of the provisions in both the Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005 and IHCIA reauthorization are just two of the pieces that the Federal Government must take in order to fulfill the Federal trust responsibility and make real progress at providing the full array of medically necessary health services that have been long promised to American Indians. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a fact sheet describing the various provisions in the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Indian Medicaid Health Act of 2005 with Senators Baucus, Dorgan, Murray, Cantwell and Johnson. This legislation addresses a number of technical but critically important provisions within the Medicaid Program that devote special attention to Native Americans, the Indian Health Service, IHS, tribal health organizations, and urban Indian health organizations. These provisions would: No. 1, codify protections that American Indians and Alaska Natives have obtained over the years in the Medicaid program, such as the requirement that states consult with tribes and tribal health organizations prior to seeking a federal Medicaid waiver; No. 2, clarify that American Indians and Alaska Natives are not subject to additional cost sharing or benefit limitations within Medicaid that will result in nothing more than a cost-shift from the Medicaid program to IHS or tribal health providers; No. 3, codify critically important provisions that provide protections against states or the federal government taking Indian property or tribal lands in exchange for medical services delivered through Medicaid; and, No. 4, eliminate certain inequities such as the lack of 100 percent federal matching payments within Medicaid for care delivered to Native Americans at urban Indian health clinics. American Indians and Alaska Natives continue to suffer enormous disparities in the health and medical care they receive. It should not come as a surprise to anyone at the Federal level that health care funding for American Indians and Alaska Natives, AI/AN, is well below what it should be and, consequently, Native Americans received rationed health care services that deny them access to the quality and medically necessary health care services. However, year after year, budget and appropriations amendments are offered to more fully fund health care for Native Americans but both the administration and Congress routinely fail to provide adequate funding. The result is a continued and growing divide between the health of American Indians and Alaska Natives compared to that of the general population. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, USCCR, held meetings in Albuquerque, NM, and visited the Gallup Indian Medical Center in 2003 as part of a factfinding mission to review the current disparities in the health status and outcomes of Native Americans. What they found served as a basis for the release of their report in September 2004 entitled Broken Promises: Evaluating the Native American Health Care System. The opening line in that report reads, ``Today, in Indian Country, health-related problems and the lack of adequate health care are the enemy.'' This is in large part due to the fact that the IHS operates on just 57 percent of the budget it needs and had more than $3 billion in unmet needs in 2003. USCCR cites estimates by the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, that per capita health spending for all Americans at $4,065, while IHS spent about $1,914 per person and average spending on Navajo patients is just $1,187. The USCCR adds, ``In fact, the federal government spends nearly twice as much money for a federal prisoner's health care than it does for an American Indian or Alaska Native.'' Consequently and not surprisingly, this disparity in funding translates into severe health disparities for Native Americans. For example, life expectancy is 6 years less than the rest of the U.S. citizens. Tuberculosis rates are four times the national average. Complications due to diabetes are almost three times the national average and death rates exceed the Healthy People 2010 targets by 233 percent. Infant mortality rates are 1.7 times higher than the rate for white infants. In recognition of these facts, the National Indian Health Board has said, ``The travesty in looking at the deplorable health of American Indians and Alaska Natives is recognizing that the poor health indicators could be improved if funding was available to provide even a basic level of care.'' The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights adds, ``In this light, this report should be considered a clarion call to those who inexplicably fail to acknowledge the present state of Native American health care and to those who lack a commitment necessary to address the overwhelming need for clear and decisive action. Such a call is certainly appropriate for our political leadership and the message is clear--it is finally time to honor our nation's commitment to protecting the health of Native Americans.'' Such an agenda is actually a fairly simple one. It would include: No. 1, full funding for the Indian Health Service and tribal health organizations, which should include conversion of IHS into an entitlement program; No. 2, increased numbers and funding of urban Indian health organizations; No. 3, reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act; No. 4, coverage of as many American Indians and Alaska Natives who qualify for federal health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, as possible to ensure they are enrolled and receiving benefits in order to augment funding to IHS facilities; and, No. 5, targeted efforts to address health disparities in Indian Country, such as diabetes. For this reason, I strongly support the annual budget and appropriations efforts, which have been led by Senator Daschle in the past and Senator Dorgan this year, to increase funding for the Indian Health Service. Unfortunately, those efforts continue to be voted down in the Congress. I also strongly support reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, IHCIA, which is led by Senators McCain and Dorgan. This effort has been ongoing for 6 years and it is long past time for the Congress to take up and pass IHCIA. Unfortunately, due to continued opposition to certain provisions by the administration, the legislation continues to be bottled up in the Congress and has not even been reintroduced in the House of Representatives. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, one area that I have been able to focus on in recent years is to improve coverage for Native Americans in both Medicare and Medicaid. I was able to pass legislation, the Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act of 2001 or Public Law 107-121, to correct problems whereby Native American women had previously been wrongly denied coverage under Medicaid's breast and cervical cancer treatment option. After a year of work, we were able to pass legislation to correct that outrageous and discriminatory error. I was also able to pass two provisions in 2003 from my bill, the Medicare Indian Health Fairness Act of 2003, that expanded reimbursement to IHS and tribal health providers for all Medicare Part B services and limited the amount that providers outside the IHS system can charge for services delivered to Native Americans through the contract health services, CHS, program. As with anything related to Native Americans in this Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, continues to fail to publish regulations necessary to implement the latter provision, even though the law required publishing of those regulations in December 2004. Although most involved in Indian health feel frustrated and argue that we are taking one step forward and two steps back with respect to Indian health care policy, it is in the area of Medicare, Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, policy that we have been making some progress. The legislation I am introducing today, the Medicaid Indian Health Care Act of 2005, seeks to protect the gains that have been made and to take another few steps forward. For one, while IHS funding continues to fall further and further behind what is needed, the one bright spot is that collections from third party payers has increased over time with Medicaid playing a fundamental role in that growth. IHS was first authorized to seek Medicaid payment for services delivered in Indian health facilities, whether operated by the IHS directly or by tribes as part of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 or Public Law 94-437. As Indian health experts Mim Dixon and Kris Locke said, ``This entitlement funding was expected to provide critical resources to improve the quality of health care for AI/AN and to reduce the health status disparities. To support this outcome, there is an additional provision in the IHCIA that Medicaid and Medicare revenues shall not offset Congressional appropriations for the IHS, so that the total amount of funding for Indian health care would increase and not merely be shifted from one funding stream to another.'' With regard to that requirement, however, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights adds, ``. . . Congress included language to articulate the express intent that increased collections not be used to justify lower appropriations levels. Congress has failed to abide by this clear mandate. Only enhanced collection efforts have made up for shortfalls created by inflation and population growth, and prevented a continuous decline from 1991 until today.'' Growth in Medicaid collections has been used to partially offset the dramatic decline in IHS purchasing power over the years, despite the Federal provision stating that such revenues should not reduce overall IHS spending. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights noted that `` . . . collections from third parties increased 453 percent from 1991 to 2003.'' Without that increase, the fate of IHS and health care services for Native Americans would even be more severe. According to the Government Accountability Office, GAO, in its August 2005 report entitled ``Indian Health Service: Health Care Services Are Not Always Available to Native Americans'', ``In fiscal year 2004, IHS- funded facilities obtained approximately $628 million in reimbursements, with 92 percent collected from Medicare and Medicaid and 8 percent from private insurance.'' Medicaid collections, alone, have by 2004 ``grown to $446 million, which is 71 percent of the total third party collections reported by IHS In FY 2004, . . . Medicaid collections provided about 16.8 percent of the IHS budget for clinical services,'' according to Dixon and Locke. Consequently, the administration's own congressional justification document for its IHS budget proposes just a 2.1-percent increase, or $62.9 million, in additional IHS funding in fiscal year 2006 while noting that the IHS will increase their Medicare and Medicaid collections by another $8.4 million in fiscal year 2006. The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board estimates it will take $371 million to maintain current services for IHS and tribally operated health programs. Therefore, the administration's ridiculously low proposed increase for IHS combined with their estimated increase in Medicare and Medicaid collections will still fall $300 million short of providing current services. Whether intentional or not, as direct IHS funding continues to fail to cover inflation or population growth year after year, Medicaid collections are now a growing and critical component to providing basic health care services by IHS and tribal health organizations. Yet, while Medicaid has become critically important to the health of American Indians and Alaska Natives, Native Americans constitute a small share of overall Medicaid costs. As the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board has found, Medicaid accounts for almost 20 percent of the IHS budget but less than 0.5 percent of Medicaid expenditures go to Indian health. Consequently, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Baucus, Dorgan, Murray, Cantwell, and Johnson entitled the ``Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005'' is primarily an attempt to prevent the Federal Government and States from inflicting harm on the health and well-being of American Indians and Alaska Natives, but it also seeks to take a few steps forward as well. What is at stake? First, from the ``do no harm'' prescriptive, both the National Governors' Association, NGA, and the House of Representatives budget reconciliation legislation contemplate major changes to the Medicaid program to achieve $10 billion or more in proposed budget cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. Unfortunately, it is clear that neither the NGA nor the House of Representatives considered the tremendous impact that the cuts they are proposing will have on the health and well-being of Native Americans across this Nation. For example, both the NGA and the House budget reconciliation package provide for States being able to impose additional premiums, copayments, and other forms of cost-sharing on low-income Medicaid beneficiaries, including Native Americans. Such changes can have enormous consequences for AI/ANs as well as the Indian Health Service, tribal, and urban Indian, I/T/U providers from whom many Native Americans receive health services. As Andy Schneider of Medicaid Policy, LLC, stated at a meeting in August of this year on Medicaid and Indian health care, ``Regrettably, the NGA recommendations [which have been adopted as part of the House budget reconciliation package] could well make matters even worse for AI/ANs and the I/T/U providers that serve them. The NGA proposal to increase beneficiary cost-sharing could impose additional financial burdens on IHS and tribal health budgets. The NGA proposal for more benefits package `flexibility' could result in significant reimbursement losses to I/T/U providers.'' How would this occur? With respect to additional cost sharing, evidence shows that additional cost sharing either results in reduced use of medical services, which could result in further a decline in the health status of AI/ANs, or that the I/T/U providers will pick up the added cost sharing burden. As Schneider points out, ``These costs include not only the amounts of the copayments and deductibles but also the administrative expense of processing them and tracking the cumulative out-of-pocket payments, particularly if the services subject to cost-sharing are delivered by a non-I/T/U provider.'' Even if you subscribe to the ideology that Medicaid beneficiaries should pay more for their health care, as Dixon and Locke point out, ``The intended outcome of enrollee cost sharing is not achieved in the Indian health system and actually acts to further deplete funding.'' Put simply, added copayments in Medicaid would result in the unintended effect of shifting Medicaid costs directly upon the already horribly underfunded IHS system. In other words, the imposition of consumer cost-sharing provisions by Medicaid on Native American populations would effectively reduce the level and quality of health care services in Indian communities. With respect to benefit flexibility as proposed by NGA and adopted in the House budget reconciliation package, according to Schneider, ``The effect of reducing Medicaid coverage will be to reduce Medicaid revenues to the I/T/U providers that furnish covered services to this population. Services for which the I/T/U could previously collect Medicaid revenues will no longer be reimburseable because the patient is no longer eligible for Medicaid.'' To address these concerns, the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board has recommended, ``The Medicaid program could be a more effective means of financial Indian health programs if it would exempt American Indians and Alaska Natives from cost sharing including co-pays, premiums and any form of cost sharing. It makes little sense to Indian people to sign up for a health program that charges them for health care services that their tribe gave up lands and others considerations to secure for all generations. The practical effect is that they will not sign up for Medicaid and the IHS funded programs will end up paying all the costs of their health care. If this becomes the case, CMS will save the federal government millions of dollars, but renege on rights guaranteed by law and treaties.'' In order to address these important points, one need look no further than the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, rules and regulations. As Schneider adds, ``Federal regulations prohibit states from imposing premiums, deductibles, coinsurance, or copayments or AI/ AN children enrolled in their SCHIP programs. There is no comparable regulatory protection for AI/AN children or adults enrolled in Medicaid.'' Consequently, to prevent harm to the health and well-being of Native Americans, section 3 of the Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005 would explicitly prohibit imposing such things as premiums or other forms of cost sharing on Native Americans within Medicaid, just as SCHIP already does. Section 4 adds a prohibition on the recovery of the estates of AI/AN Medicaid beneficiaries or tribal property by States through the Medicaid Program. Furthermore, section 8 of the legislation allows States to include special provisions exempting Native Americans from additional cost sharing or from benefit reductions in recognition of the special circumstances of Native Americans in the Medicaid Program. In light of the failure of the NGA to consider the special circumstances of American Indians and Alaska Natives with respect to Medicaid policy, section 5 of the legislation recognizes the Federal trust responsibility and requires the Secretary, prior to the approval of any State Medicaid waivers, to assure that there has been consultation with tribes whose members or tribal health programs could be adversely affected by the waiver. Otherwise, the current waiver process can result in the approval of waivers that may include reductions in Medicaid eligibility, benefits and/or reimbursement or increases in cost sharing that can have a negative impact on Native Americans or tribal health programs. In short, sections 3, 4, 5, and 8 seek to adopt a policy of ``do no harm'' by preventing changes in Medicaid policy from having negative consequences for Native Americans. Meanwhile, sections 2, 6, and 7 in the bill seek to make some additional progress on behalf of Native Americans through the Medicaid Program. Foremost among those provisions in section 2, which provides for 100 percent Federal Medicaid matching funds for services delivered to AI/AN Medicaid beneficiaries at urban Indian health programs. Although the Medicaid statute currently provides for 100 percent Federal Medicaid matching funds for Medicaid services delivered to AI/ANs through IHS facilities and a subsequent Memorandum of Agreement, MOA, in 1996 clarified those payments also apply to services provided through tribally owned facilities, the 100 Percent Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, does not apply to urban Indian clinics. In short, if an AI/AN Medicaid beneficiary received services from an IHS or tribal facility, the Federal Government is paying 100 percent of the cost, but if the same individual received the same services from an urban Indian health program funded by the IHS, the Federal Government shifts part of the costs of that care to the State in proportion to the State's share of the FMAP. There is no justification for this cost shift. Just as IHS and tribal facilities are part of the I/T/U delivery system for Native Americans, so are urban Indian health programs and, as part of the ``Federal trust responsibility,'' States should not be required to subsidize any element of this system. Section 6 of the legislation would simply ensure that I/T/U providers that do not have the status of federally qualified health centers, FQHCs, receive the same level of reimbursement from Medicaid managed care organizations, MCOs, as they would if they were a FQHC. If Medicaid MCOs are continued to be allowed to pay I/T/U providers less for the same services that they pay other network providers, the I/T/U providers will, effectively, be subsidizing the MCO or other network providers, which is not an appropriate use of limited federal IHS resources. And finally, section 7 of the Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005 ensures that IHS spending on behalf of a Native American does not disqualify them for Medicaid coverage under the ``medically needy option.'' Current policy prohibits such care from counting toward the ``spend down'' requirements for qualifying as ``medically needy'' in Medicaid. Receiving services at an IHS facility should certainly not disqualify anybody from Medicaid coverage and, once again, IHS should not be subsidizing the Medicaid program. In total, the provisions in the Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005 might at first glance appear to be a hodge podge set of provisions related to both Medicaid and Indian health. However, they are not. They reflect a concerted effort on behalf of Native American people to protect the gains that have already been made within the Medicaid Program for American Indians and Alaska Natives and the need to make additional strides to improve the delivery of health services throughout to Native people, including those in urban areas, through Medicaid. Furthermore, this is just the first in a series of bills addressing Indian issues within the Medicaid and Medicare Programs. The next two will focus, respectively, on improving the Medicare Program and fixing problems with respect to the Medicare prescription drug program for Native Americans and Indian health providers. As part of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 report, the Congress said, ``The most basic human right must be the right to enjoy decent health. Certainly, any effort to fulfill Federal responsibilities to the Indian people must begin with the provision of health services. In fact, health services must be the cornerstone upon which rest all the other Federal programs for the benefit of Indians. Without a proper health status, the Indian people will be unable to fully avail themselves of the many economic, educational, and social programs already directed to them or which this Congress and future Congresses will provide them.'' The Federal Government has a ``Federal trust responsibility'' to Indian people that it is simple not fulfilling. This administration and this Congress can and simply must do better. Part of that multipronged agenda should include passage of the Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005. This could occur in a variety of ways. First, the provision from this bill could be incorporated in any budget reconciliation conference report package. Consequently, during Finance Committee consideration of the Senate's version of the budget reconciliation package on October 25, 2005, I offered an amendment that included a number of the provisions from this bill. Opponents of the amendment, which failed on a 9-to-11 party-line vote with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposing it, argued at the time that the budget reconciliation package was not the right vehicle but that we should look to the reauthorization bill for the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to attach these provisions instead. Two days later, on October 27, 2005, the Committee on Indian Affairs took up and passed S. 1057, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2005, but did not include any of the Medicaid provisions I have been discussing as part of this bill. They were told that inclusion of Medicaid provisions within IHCIA was objected to by both the administration and the Senate Finance Committee. However, in light of the Senate Finance Committee's failure to take up the amendment earlier this month, another possible vehicle should be the reauthorization bill for the Indian Health Care Improvement Act when it comes to the Senate floor. And finally, if we fail to get these provisions included in either of those legislative vehicles, we will push to get the Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005 passed as a free standing piece of legislation. Medicaid has become such a crucial and necessary piece in maintaining and improving the health and well-being of American Indians and Alaska Natives that it is unacceptable that the various Senate committees point to each other as being in charge while not taking the necessary responsibility to get this important protections for Native Americans passed into law. The Federal Government and the States also point figures at each other as to who is in charge. As Jim Crouch, executive director of the California Rural Indian Health Board, has said, ``The joint operation of the Medicaid program by federal and state authorities often ignores the governmental status of Tribes and the unique needs of Tribal citizens. It is always appropriate for the federal government to establish special provisions that are in the best interest of Tribes and American Indians due to the governmental status of federally recognized tribes.'' Mr. President, it is well past time to enact legislative initiatives such as the Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005 and reauthorization of IHCIA. Years of broken promises to Indian Country must come to an end. Passage of the provisions in both the Medicaid Indian Health Act of 2005 and IHCIA reauthorization are just two of the pieces that the Federal Government must take in order to fulfill the Federal trust responsibility and make real progress at providing the full array of medically necessary health services that have been long promised to American Indians. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a fact sheet describing the various provisions in the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up for consideration amendment No. 2642.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment I am offering is to create a tax credit for small businesses so they can provide health insurance for their employees. This is a terrible need, an enormous need in my own State of New Mexico. I am defining small businesses as businesses with 50 or fewer employees. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 43 percent of small businesses defined in this way offer health insurance to their employees. This chart sets out the range that applies to each State, and you can see that many States have this very same problem. In my home State of New Mexico, roughly 38 percent of workers who work for small businesses have access to employer-provided health insurance. In a State such as New Mexico where a majority of the businesses have fewer than 50 employees, the lack of employer-provided insurance is reflected in the overall number of uninsured New Mexicans. Yet according to the Kaiser Foundation, 80 percent of the uninsured in our country come from a family in which at least one person is working. This amendment creates a tax credit that ranges from 30 percent to 50 percent of the cost of qualified health insurance expenses with smaller employers getting the largest credit. In order to keep the costs down, I have provided that this credit will be effective in the 2006 tax year. We will have to take additional action to extend it beyond that. What we have learned over the years is that employer-provided benefits are the most efficient and effective means to deliver health care coverage and retirement benefits. This amendment is totally offset by requiring Government contractors to withhold a very small amount of the taxes they will ultimately have to pay. This is a very meritorious amendment. It is totally offset and paid for. I urge my colleagues to support it, and the small businesses in their States will be very appreciative of that support. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Kerry, and Senator Snowe. This is an amendment that will create a tax credit for small businesses, to encourage them to offer employees health insurance. By ``small businesses,'' I have defined that in the amendment as employers with 50 or fewer employees. In my State, one of the biggest problems I hear that small employers complain about is their inability to cover the high cost of health care. This is a nonrefundable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance by the employer. The tax credit would range from 30 percent to 50 percent of the cost of a qualified health insurance expense, with smaller employers getting the largest credit. This is absolutely essential if we are going to expand health care coverage in the country. It is fully offset. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and add it to this legislation before we complete final passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I regret that I am unable to vote for the legislation. I support the overwhelming majority of provisions that are contained in this bill and appreciate that they need to be extended before next year so they don't expire. I cannot in good conscience, though, vote for another tax bill that is unpaid for and adds to our national debt. For too many years, the majority has passed tax cuts as short term or temporary measures to mask the real costs of these provisions. We can no longer continue on this course of fiscal irresponsibility. It is for this reason that I supported an alternative offered by the minority that provided similar tax relief but did it in a budget neutral fashion by shutting down corporate loopholes. I also supported amendments during debate on this bill that would put back in place budget rules that would prevent Congress from either cutting taxes or raising spending if the net effect is that it adds to our national debt. We operated under these responsible budgetary rules during the previous administration and it gave us our first back-to- back years of surplus in generations. In 5 short years we have not only squandered the opportunities that these budgetary surpluses offered us, but we created a fiscal mess that handicaps future generations. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming months to head our nation back towards the days of surpluses. Unfortunately, this bill is not a step in that direction. Even though I support the majority of provisions contained in it, I must respectively oppose its passage.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act of 2006, introduced by Senator Warner along with Senator Levin and myself, which would authorize emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for domestic hurricane relief and avian flu preparedness. At my request, this amendment also includes $40 million in relief assistance for the people affected by the devastating earthquake that struck northern Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan on October 8, 2005. It would also require the Secretary to submit a report to Congress describing the Department of Defense's humanitarian efforts in the region and assessing the need for further reconstruction and relief assistance. Although I fully support the $40 million authorized in this amendment, I believe the DOD assessment will reveal the need for a substantial increase in assistance for the approximately 3 million people left homeless by this earthquake. Initial reports of this disaster described the situation as critical, with over 30,000 people estimated dead and 1 million people in desperate need of assistance. It is my understanding that, based on these initial estimates, USAID has spent approximately $50 million of the $156 million that the United States pledged in humanitarian assistance to South Asia. In addition, the U.S. military has been allocated $56 million of this pledge to support logistical and other military relief efforts, and $50 million of this has already been spent. As of November 9, the Department of Defense had more than 900 personnel providing relief and reconstruction support. DOD has flown more than 1,100 helicopter missions delivering 2,700 tons of relief supplies and evacuated over 8,200 casualties from the affected area. In addition, the 212th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital has established a unit in Pakistan and has 36 intensive care unit beds, 60 intermediate minimal care beds, and 2 operating rooms. This unit has performed valiantly, having completed more than 100 surgeries and treated 1,200 nonsurgical patients. While I fully support these efforts, it has become clear that this disaster is much larger than what was first assumed. The United Nations is now reporting that ``the unfolding picture reveals levels of human and economic devastation unprecedented in the history of the subcontinent.'' In Pakistan alone, approximately 80,000 people have died, half of whom were children. Nearly the same amount of people are injured, with both numbers expected to rise. This region is home to 5 million people scattered across this mountainous area, and with a harsh winter quickly approaching, the situation has the potential to become much worse. The earthquake destroyed most hospitals, schools, and government buildings, and hundreds of towns and villages in the region have been completely wiped out. Most roads and bridges have been completely destroyed, and the 900 aftershocks have blocked the remaining roads by landslides. Tens of thousands of people are still completely cut off from any form of assistance. According to the United Nations, over 2 million people require life-saving assistance, including basic necessities like food, water, and medicine. In addition, approximately 3 million people lack adequate shelter at a time when temperatures are consistently below freezing and growing colder. There is now growing concern that the death toll could quickly double if increased aid is not provided immediately. The U.N. has increased its appeal for aid to $550 million for the next 6 months of operations, and it is estimated that disaster relief and reconstruction may cost up to $6 billion over the long term. In the near term however, I believe it is critical that we do all we can before the Thanksgiving recess to help these people as they struggle through the winter months. It is also important that if we are truly committed to changing how the United States is perceived in a region which is predominantly rural, poor, and Muslim, we must be willing to demonstrate America's compassion and generosity in this time of urgent need. To this end, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amendment No. 2577

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last year the Supreme Court said that Federal courts have authority to consider petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. This would apply to prisoners at Guantanamo. People should not be imprisoned without having the ability to challenge the legality of that imprisonment. That is the history of our common law system and our Constitution as well. I will yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding. Amendment No. 2523 to Amendment No. 2515 Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.