Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me use the final minute of this debate to clarify for my colleagues what we are doing here. There are four parts to the amendment that the Senator from South Carolina has offered. There are parts A, B, C, and D. Parts A, B, and C are perfectly acceptable and provisions that I support and Senator Levin supports. They were worked out. They were added to the Defense appropriations bill. The first deals with procedures for status review of detainees. The second sets out what those procedures would generally provide. The third is a report on modification of procedures that would be made to the Congress. It is the last part, this section D, judicial review, that is such a terrible mistake, in my opinion. It has us, on a Thursday afternoon as part of a debate on a Defense authorization bill, making a very major change that is within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee should be considering any effort by the Congress to limit or prohibit or suspend the writ of habeas corpus. We should not be trying to do that sort of ``oh, by the way, let's do this.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. I urge the defeat of the Graham amendment. Assuming it is defeated, I will not have to offer a second-degree amendment. If it is adopted, I will offer a second-degree amendment to retain the first three portions. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak briefly in opposition to this amendment. This amendment contains a provision that I think is a very major mistake. It essentially denies all courts anywhere the right to consider any petition from any prisoner being held at Guantanamo Bay. In my view, it is contrary to the way the court decisions have come down already. It is an extraordinary step for this Congress to be taking as an amendment to the Defense bill. This is an issue that should be dealt with in the Judiciary Committee. Senator Specter has spoken against the amendment. Senator Levin has spoken against the amendment. Senator Leahy has spoken against the amendment. It is something that requires hearings. It is a very important issue, and we should not be dealing with it here on a late evening on Thursday as part of this authorization bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am submitting a Senate resolution today with Senators Rockefeller, Reed, Clinton, Murray, Baucus, Akaka, Mikulski, Corzine, Lautenberg, and Dodd that does three things: 1. Explains the importance of Medicaid to children; 2. Explains the consequences of the various provisions in the House budget reconciliation bill that will negatively impact the health and well- being of children's health; and 3. Expresses the Sense of the Senate that the conferees for the budget reconciliation bill shall not report back language that has negative consequences for the health and well- being of children. This resolution highlights the many ways in which the House of Representatives budget reconciliation bill affects the health of low- income children across this Nation. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the House budget reconciliation package increases cost-sharing placed on low-income Medicaid beneficiaries, even while reducing health services by $6.5 billion over 5 years and an astounding $30.1 billion over 10 years. In sharp contrast, the Senate budget reconciliation bill includes only one provision--the targeted case management reduction of $750 million over 5 years--that could negatively affect young Medicaid beneficiaries. For children, the impact would be devastating. Medicaid covers more than 27 million children--or almost one in four--American children. Medicaid also covers more than one-third of all the births and health care costs of newborns in the United States each year. In spite of the importance of Medicaid, the House budget package increases cost-sharing for all children who rely on it for prescription drugs and emergency room services. The bill also allows States to impose premiums for the first time under Medicaid for children's coverage and 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 (EPSDT) benefit rules that are so critical to the health of children with special health care needs or 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, the vast majority or 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. 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 one-third of a million children over the past 4 years due in large part to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. As Representative Frank Pallone noted, ``Once again, Medicaid has proven to be part of the solution, not the problem. Burdensome cost- sharing requirements and reduced benefits included in the reconciliation package will undoubtedly weaken Medicaid's ability to ensure all of America's children have access to the health care they need.'' Representative Lois Capps of California adds, ``. . . this reconciliation package would allow states to deny critical medical screening, treatment, and follow up care for these children. And it would allow excessive out of pocket costs and premiums which-- experience shows--causes families to lose coverage or fail to get even needed services for children.'' I urge Senators to closely monitor what the House of Representatives is doing with respect to the health and well-being of children in their budget reconciliation bill. Low-income children 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 are a variety of reasons that I did not support the Senate's budget reconciliation bill, but even with its imperfections, it is far superior to the House's budget package. If nothing else, it does not contain the types of cuts to children's health that are included in the House bill. Senators need to know that the House budget package is terrible for the health and well-being of the children in our country. With that in mind, I offer today's Senate resolution on children's health. I ask for unanimous consent that a copy of the CBO analysis of the impact that the Medicaid provisions in the budget reconciliation bill passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Senator Levin's amendment to create an independent commission to investigate the policies and practices relating to the treatment of what we have come to call detainees but what are, in fact, prisoners being held by the Government. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that important amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Let me say a word, initially, about the use of language. We sometimes use language without focusing on the implications of that language. Unfortunately, in the case of this discussion, we have fallen into the practice of referring to these individuals at Guantanamo and elsewhere as ``detainees.'' Of course, the suggestion that someone is being detained is a lot less onerous or implies a lot less of a taking of that person's freedom than the phrase ``being imprisoned.'' The truth is, these individuals are being imprisoned. The amendment that Senator Levin has offered would have an independent commission evaluate the current practice of indefinitely imprisoning individuals at Guantanamo without ever charging them with a crime in either Federal court or under a competent military tribunal. This commission would then report back to Congress and give us recommendations on whether we should change existing law or change policy on this set of important issues. The current practice of holding detainees or prisoners indefinitely, without affording them basic due process rights, has been widely criticized in this country and throughout the world. For a country such as ours that has consistently advocated for the rule of law, the policies of the current administration are nothing short of a major embarrassment. Since September 11 of 2001, the administration has asserted extraordinary new powers with respect to the imprisoning of individuals suspected of being involved in terrorism. The President has argued that the Government has the authority to indefinitely imprison any person that he, the President, determines to be an ``enemy combatant.'' They have that authority whether or not the person is a U.S. citizen. Of course, our Government has also forcefully opposed any judicial review of the President's determination in that regard. There are over 500 people who are currently being imprisoned in Guantanamo. Many of these individuals have been held for over 3 years without being afforded the ability to challenge the basis for their detention. The administration has developed a new category of detainee, the ``unlawful enemy combatant,'' and they have argued that neither the laws of war nor traditional criminal laws apply to these individuals. In essence, we have created a new type of prisoner who is unable to seek the protections of the Geneva Conventions or to take advantage of the rights afforded to individuals in this country under our criminal justice system or under the criminal justice system that applies in our military. Under the current procedures, every Guantanamo prisoner is reviewed by a combatant status review tribunal to determine whether the Department of Defense believes that individual is an ``enemy combatant.'' If a person is found to be an enemy combatant, they may be held indefinitely, although they are entitled to go before an administrative review board once a year to prove that they are no longer a threat. Of the approximately 500 prisoners at Guantanamo, 4 individuals have been charged to date. The remaining 496 or so have not been charged. Serious concerns have been raised with regard to the rights we are affording these prisoners under the current procedures for processing the prisoners. I have repeatedly raised concerns regarding this approach. I believe that it challenges our historic commitment to the rule of law. I have never advocated that the Department of Defense release these prisoners but, rather, have said that they should be tried in the criminal justice system or they should be tried in the military justice system, but they should be tried somewhere and be given an opportunity to challenge the basis for their detention. I believe it is appropriate to ensure that they do not indefinitely remain in a state of legal limbo and are afforded basic due process rights that allow them to assert their innocence. Last week, on November 1, there was an article in The Washington Post that highlighted some of the problems that occur when people are imprisoned indefinitely without recourse to any viable legal process. According to the article, there have been 36 attempted suicides at Guantanamo. Clearly, when people are desperate and have no hope, they turn to drastic measures. I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record following my comments.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I strongly believe that due process rights of some sort are at the bedrock of American values and they should not be discarded lightly, due process rights that apply even to individuals who are not citizens of this country. It is disappointing that in the eyes of the world, the United States has drifted from its longstanding adherence to the rule of law. In my view, we have an obligation to the American people to confront these difficult issues, and I believe Congress needs to act in that regard. Establishing this independent commission to look into these prisoner issues is an important first step. There have been multiple abuse scandals over the last couple of years that have hurt our image abroad and tainted the image of a vast majority of our soldiers who serve with honor and distinction. Now the European Union is investigating news reports that the CIA is holding suspected terrorists in Soviet-era detention facilities in eastern European countries. This is a troublesome development considering the widespread reports that our own Vice President continues to urge that bipartisan legislation passed in this Senate that would prohibit the CIA from using interrogation techniques that amount to cruel and inhuman treatment in these types of facilities be deleted from legislation on its way to the President. Our own President is in the very awkward position. During his current trip to Latin America, I saw him on television this morning trying to assure our allies in that region that the U.S. policy does not contemplate torture of prisoners. That is a sad day when we are having to publicly reassure our allies of something as basic as that. It is time that we seriously investigated these issues and came up with policies that the American people feel comfortable with, policies that are consistent with our Constitution and with the values of the American people. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Guantanamo Desperation Seen in Suicide Attempts (By Josh White) [From the Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2005] Jumah Dossari had to visit the restroom, so the detainee made a quick joke with his American lawyer before military police guards escorted him to a nearby cell with a toilet. The U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had taken quite a toll on Dossari over the past four years, but his attorney, who was there to discuss Dossari's federal court case, noted his good spirits and thought nothing of his bathroom break. Minutes later, when Dossari did not return, Joshua Colangelo-Bryan knocked on the cell door, calling out his client's name. When he did not hear a response, Colangelo- Bryan stepped inside and saw a three-foot pool of blood on the floor. Numb, the lawyer looked up to see Dossari hanging unconscious from a noose tied to the ceiling, his eyes rolled back, his tongue and lips bulging, blood pouring from a gash in his right arm. Dossari's suicide attempt two weeks ago is believed to be the first such event witnessed by an outsider at the prison, and one of several signs that lawyers and human rights advocates contend point to growing desperation among the more than 500 detainees there. Lawyers believe Dossari, who has been in solitary confinement for nearly two years, timed his suicide attempt so that someone other than his guards would witness it, a cry for help meant to reach beyond the base's walls. Two dozen Guantanamo Bay detainees are currently being force-fed in response to a lengthy hunger strike, and the detainees' lawyers estimate there are dozens more who have not eaten since August. Military officials say there are 27 hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay, all of whom are clinically stable, closely monitored by medical personnel and receiving proper nutrition. The hunger strikers are protesting their lengthy confinements in the island prison, where some have been kept for nearly four years and most have never been charged with a crime. The most recent hunger strike came after detention officials allegedly failed to honor promises made during a previous hunger strike. Military authorities do not publicly discuss individual detainees and declined to comment on Dossari. Lt. Col. Jeremy Martin, spokesman for Joint Task Force Guantanamo, said yesterday that there have been a total of 36 suicide attempts by 22 different detainees, including three in the past 20 months. Martin said all detainees are treated humanely and ``any threat of injury or suicide'' is taken seriously. He added that rapid intervention in suicide attempts has prevented deaths. No detainee has died at the military prison, he said. The protests come amid rising international concern about the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Human rights organizations and the United Nations have complained about the lack of access to the detainees and voiced concern about allegations of physical and psychological abuse, including prolonged solitary confinement. U.S. officials are trying to return many of the detainees to their home countries, but the process has been fraught with delays and diplomatic wrangling. Three U.N. experts said yesterday that they would not accept a U.S. government invitation to tour Guantanamo unless they are granted private access to detainees, a concession the U.S. has not been willing to make, citing the ongoing war on terror and security concerns. Last week, the United States invited the U.N. representatives on torture and arbitrary detention to the facility, and the experts said yesterday that they hope to visit in early December. But they described their demand for access to the detainees as ``non- negotiable.'' ``They said they have nothing to hide,'' Manfred Nowak, U.N. special rapporteur on torture, said yesterday at a news conference in New York. ``If they have nothing to hide, why should we not be able to talk to detainees in private?'' Colangelo-Bryan said he fears that many detainees would rather die than be held indefinitely. He said he was shocked but not surprised by Dossari's Oct. 15 suicide attempt, given his ``horrible ordeal.'' He said he knows only that medical personnel apparently were able to revive Dossari, he had surgery and is in stable condition. Detainees ``see it as the only means they have of exercising control over their lives,'' Colangelo-Bryan said in publicly describing the incident for the first time. ``Their only means of effective protest are to harm themselves, either by hunger strike or doing something like this.'' Martin said claims that hunger strikers are near death are ``absolutely false.'' He said the latest protest began on Aug. 8 and at one point had 131 participants but is now much smaller. ``This technique, hunger striking, is consistent with the al Qaeda training, and reflects the detainees' attempts to elicit media attention and bring pressure on the United States government,'' Martin said. The military also has long argued that terrorist groups have instructed fighters to invent claims of abuse if incarcerated. Dossari has told Colangelo-Bryan that he has endured abuse and mistreatment on par with some of the worst offenses discovered at any U.S. detention facility over the past four years. In declassified notes recording the meetings, Dossari describes abuse and torture that stretches back to his arrest in Pakistan in December 2001, through the time he was turned over to U.S. forces in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and ultimately to his stay in Guantanamo Bay. Dossari, 26, said U.S. troops have put out cigarettes on his skin, threatened to kill him and severely beat him. He told his lawyer that he saw U.S. Marines at Kandahar ``using pages of the Koran to shine their boots,'' and was brutalized at Guantanamo Bay by Immediate Response Force guards who videotaped themselves attacking him. The military says the IRF squads are sent into cells to quell disturbances. Dossari told his lawyers that he had been wrapped in Israeli and U.S. flags during interrogations--a tactic recounted in FBI allegations of abuse at Guantanamo--and said interrogators threatened to send him to countries where he would be tortured. Dossari maintains that he is not connected to terrorism and does not hate the United States. A fellow detainee said that he saw Dossari at an al Qaeda training camp, his lawyer said. Colangelo-Bryan is a private New York lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents some of the detainees. The group plans a ``Fast for Justice'' rally today in Washington to bring attention to the Guantanamo Bay hunger strike. Colangelo-Bryan said Dossari has tried to commit suicide before. Prolonged solitary confinement has given him almost no contact with others and access to only a Koran and his legal papers. ``In March, he looked at me in the eye and said, 'How can I keep myself from going crazy?''' Colangelo-Bryan said.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I would like to talk about the Enzi- Kennedy amendment to S. 1932, the deficit reduction bill. We all want to do the right thing and help the hundreds of thousands of students displaced by Hurricane Katrina. Just a few weeks after the tragic events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, I came to the floor of the Senate and offered an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill to assist students and schools impacted by Hurricane Katrina. I also cosponsored a bill with Senators Enzi and Kennedy, S. 1715, to assist schools and students impacted by Katrina. But I have tremendous concerns about the amendment before us today. This amendment sets up an unworkable mechanism to assist displaced students attending private schools. It requires states to funnel Federal dollars to local school districts to establish private accounts to pay the tuition to private schools. In contrast, current law provides a reasonable mechanism for local school districts to assist students attending private schools, called equitable participation, without establishing a national voucher program. I support efforts to use equitable participation to assist private schools serving these displaced students. Unfortunately, this amendment fails to use this mechanism. At the same time, it establishes the first national voucher program. Accordingly, along with educators, school boards, principals, teacher unions, and many civil rights and faith- based organizations, I must oppose this provision.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the fact that under current law, 31 of our States are seeing significant cuts in Federal support for Medicaid because of a reduction in the percentage the Federal Government will pay, the FMAP, as we always refer to it, the Federal matching rate. Alaska is held harmless in the underlying bill. They will not suffer a cut. My amendment would say that for the other 30 States, the cut should not be more than five-tenths of 1 percent next year. The amendment is more than offset. In fact, the offset is supported strongly by Secretary Leavitt's Medicaid Commission. It is supported strongly by the National Governors Association. It would save the States over $3 billion if this offset is agreed to as part of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. This map shows the States in red that would get a more fair share of Medicaid funds, if the amendment passes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up the modified version of the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that that be the pending amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership on this issue and for yielding me some time. I have long opposed the leasing and development in the Arctic Refuge for several reasons related both to energy policy and to environmental concerns. I have said many times that the most compelling reason for not opening the Arctic Refuge is that it would do very little to further our national energy security and will do nothing to address short-term energy prices or needs. There will not be any production from the Arctic Refuge for an estimated 10 years. The Energy Information Agency estimates that production from the Arctic Refuge would, at its peak, reduce our reliance on imports by only 4 percent, from 68 percent reliant to 64 percent. This would not happen until the year 2025. I have a chart that puts things in some perspective. It talks about total oil demand. This line is 2005, today, total oil demand. As we can see, it is rising, has been rising, is expected to continue to rise. The next line is transportation demand. You can see the biggest part of our total demand is transportation demand. Then domestic production has been declining in this country since the early 1970s. It is on the decline now. It is expected to continue declining. If this provision becomes law and we go ahead with leasing and development of ANWR, there will be a slight uptick as we get into 2015 and that period. There will be a slight uptick in domestic oil production. That is the red line. What we see is that there will be a slight increase due to the opening of ANWR but a very slight increase. I am disappointed that this issue is being taken up as part of a budget reconciliation bill. The policy issue is of great significance and complexity and cannot be adequately handled on a budget reconciliation bill. I also have concerns and questions about the legislation that is included in the reconciliation bill. This bill would open the refuge to oil drilling. It would do so with less protection than for any other wildlife refuge or other Federal land that is currently subject to oil and gas leasing. The only mention of the environment is a vague directive that the leasing program be ``environmentally sound.'' That is contradicted by other parts of the mark that contain broad waivers of environmental laws. For example, the bill deems a 1987 environmental impact statement to be adequate under the National Environmental Policy Act, an 18-year-old environmental impact statement. It is deemed adequate for purposes of issuing regulations to implement the leasing program and other preleasing activities. This is despite the fact that there has been significant new information that has become available over the last 18 years related to the Refuge, related to its resources. The bill contains no requirement for public participation. It does have ambiguous new provisions that appear to limit judicial review. Even if one decided to go ahead with leasing this area, in my opinion the bill provides an inadequate framework and program within which to do that. There is no minimum royalty rate to be paid by oil companies provided for in this bill. There are no enforcement provisions. There are no required inspections. There is no limit on the size or the duration of the leases, no requirement that operational plans or surface-disturbing activities be approved, no requirement that oil companies post bond to ensure compliance with lease requirements, and there is no requirement that the land be reclaimed.

Mr. BINGAMAN. And there is no requirement that the land be reclaimed or facilities removed. Mr. President, these are fundamental components of a leasing statute. Members of this body are speaking out today about how we ought to impose windfall profits taxes on the oil and gas industry. At the same time we are doing that we are proposing a series of provisions that put virtually no requirements on them. Perhaps the proponents for opening the refuge have omitted some of these elements because they recognize that including them would cause this to run afoul of the Budget Act. That is a very good reason why this kind of important issue is not intended to be dealt with as part of a budget reconciliation bill. Mr. President, for these reasons I support the amendment of the Senator from Washington. I commend her for her leadership on this issue. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the amendment. Opening the Arctic Refuge is not a necessary component of our national energy policy. We can do better in crafting a solution to the current problems, and we need to do that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Before I do, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today is very similar and essentially the same as the bipartisan language in S. 1007, entitled the Medicaid Formula Fairness Act of 2005. That bill, as we introduced it, had Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Hutchison, Reed, Jeffords, Lincoln, Leahy, Chafee, Pryor, and Johnson as cosponsors. This amendment provides 30 States with protection from serious decreases in the amount of Federal funding that they would otherwise receive in fiscal year 2006 in the Medicaid Program. Let me put up this chart to give Members an idea of who I am talking about. This chart shows the States that are going to see cuts in their Medicaid Program in the current fiscal year. That is the fiscal year that started the 1st of October. Let me point to Alaska. The bill before us today provides that Alaska has a full hold-harmless from the estimated $135 million they were scheduled to lose over the next 2 years under Medicaid because of the demographic changes that Medicaid has calculated in a somewhat archaic way. That is in the current bill. The amendment I am offering does not change that. The amendment I am offering leaves that alone. It does not deal with the State of Alaska. My amendment tries to deal with the other 30 States, the red ones shown on this map, the other 30 States that are adversely affected by these cuts in Medicaid in the current fiscal year. In the case of Alaska, the underlying bill says we are going to hold Alaska totally harmless from any cuts over a 2-year period. My amendment says we are going to reduce the size of the cuts for these other 30 States so that they will not take as much of a cut as they otherwise would. We say they can have up to a half of a percent of cut but not more than that. It is a 1-year amendment. It is not a 2-year amendment, as the underlying bill provides for the State of Alaska. Currently, due to a technical change made in the calculation of per capita income data, which is a major component of the calculation of the Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, there are 30 States that are scheduled to lose over $800 million in Federal Medicaid matching funds. This is for the year we are already in. My amendment would limit the negative impact that the loss of Federal Medicaid funds would have on the 30 States, the vulnerable populations that they serve, and the safety net providers who serve Medicaid patients. It does so by holding those States to no more than a .5 percentage point drop in their matching rate. Let me emphasize: The amendment does not even hold States fully harmless. We are not asking to do that. We are not urging that the States should not take some cut. The amendment also allows States to receive the better of either the current FMAP or an FMAP formula that does not re-benchmark per capita income data for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. States should not be taking a loss in hundreds of millions of dollars in their Medicaid matching funds due to a technical revision to their per capita income calculations made by the Department of Commerce in 2004 but being retroactively applied to data in 2001 and 2002. And that is exactly what is happening under current law. The approach makes little sense. Both the States and the low-income beneficiaries across this Nation should not have to bear the negative consequences of this kind of a technical change. For those who are still not persuaded, let me give additional reasons we should not allow the 30 States that are in red on this map of the United States to lose over $800 million in Federal matching funds. The first reason is, as the chart indicates, of the 30 States that benefit from the amendment, 27 have received emergency declarations due to Hurricane Katrina. That includes the States of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, and 24 other States that received similar emergency declarations due to the influx of evacuees. Second, States are also absorbing costs with respect to the implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit right now. They will continue to absorb those costs throughout fiscal year 2006. Although States are expected to receive a benefit in the long run, in the short run they are being hit with hundreds of millions of dollars in costs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that States will absorb an additional $900 million in added costs in fiscal year 2006 due to the prescription drug bill's implementation. The FMAP drop to our States that I am talking about in my amendment compounds the problem for our States. One of the arguments against the amendment is, we don't have enough money. We can't afford this. Anyone who has really looked at this bill knows that is not the case. One item that I will mention as an example is this extension of the milk program, the dairy subsidy program that is going to cost another billion dollars, according to the provisions of this bill. The justification for this is minimal. It is something for which most of the benefit will go to four States. It is not a good expenditure of taxpayer dollars. It is just one example. I am sure there are many others I could cite. We have this amendment fully offset. We have found an offset that we believe the Parliamentarian agrees will more than cover the cost of the amendment. The benefits to my State are substantial. The amendment does not restore all of the $79 million that we are expected to lose in Medicaid funds because of this change in the Federal matching percentage next year, but it does reduce the size of that reduction so that instead of a $79 million cut in Medicaid funding to New Mexico, we would see a reduction of $13 million. This is more manageable. This would allow our State to reverse the policies it has put in place that have resulted in more uninsured children. I am sure a similar circumstance exists for most of the other States, or all of the other States I am mentioning. The amendment would provide substantial benefits to each of the States that are in red on this chart. Since I know Members are listening, some of them in their offices and some of their staffs, let me elaborate on the extent of the relief that the amendment would provide to the 30 States I mentioned: In the case of Alabama, there is $34 million in relief; in the case of Arizona, $22 million; Arkansas, $14 million; Delaware, $2 million; Florida, $25 million; Georgia, $8 million; Idaho, $5 million; Kansas, $2 million; Kentucky, $2 million; Louisiana, $43 million; Maine, $35 million; Michigan, $2 million; Mississippi, $22 million; Montana, $6 million; Nevada, $17 million. As I mentioned, the cut would be reduced for New Mexico in the amount of $66 million. Fourteen million would be preserved in North Carolina; $6 million in North Dakota; $52 million for Oklahoma; $6 million for Oregon; $8 million for Rhode Island; $6 million for South Carolina; $3 million for South Dakota; $27 million for Tennessee; $113 million for Texas; $14 million for Utah; $10 million for Vermont; $27 million for West Virginia; $9 million for Wisconsin; and $13 million for Wyoming. This is a good amendment. It does not say the States should not cut back on their Medicaid or should not suffer some cut in Federal Medicaid funding, but it says that cut should not be as significant as would otherwise be the case. We can afford this. This is an amendment that is offset. I believe it is a very meritorious amendment and one that should be adopted as part of the underlying bill, and I hope my colleagues will support it. At this point I yield the floor. I see my colleague is anxious to speak, so I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have 2 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just say about all of the talk about how this formula is sort of inviolate and we don't want Congress to in any way change it, the underlying bill says it doesn't apply to Alaska. We are just writing into this bill there is going to be no cut in Alaska regardless of what the formula says. So all I am saying is let's at least do something to lessen the extent of the burden we are putting on these other 30 States that I am talking about. I don't think that is too much of a change. The underlying bill also changes the formula with regard to Katrina victims, which is appropriate, 100 percent Federal matching funds for Katrina victims under Medicaid. I think that is entirely appropriate. We have changed this formula five or six times in the last few years. It would be appropriate to do this again. I think it is the right thing to do. It will not only help our States, but it will help the people our States are trying to serve through the Medicaid Program. We have a great many in New Mexico. We have over 400,000 people in our State who depend upon Medicaid. It is absolutely essential that the State have the resources, including Federal resources, to provide the services, to continue to provide the services for the children and the adults who are eligible under that Medicaid Program. So I believe this is good legislation. This is a good amendment. I hear that the offset would be an extra burden on the States. CBO says this is a savings for the States, that this offset saves money for the States. So, in fact, I think it is a good amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor SFC (Ret.) Felipe Trujillo Roybal and to recognize his lifelong service to this country. His dedication and commitment to this country is to be commended. Mr. Roybal served 33 years in the U.S. Army and is a veteran of Vietnam, The Korean war and World War II. Mr. Roybal will be honored for his heroic service to our Nation when his name is registered in the National World War II Memorial. Mr. Roybal joined the Army in 1937 and served in World War II as a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division. During World War II he participated in the Normandy drop and received a Purple Heart for bravery, Parachute Wings, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Merit Award, and the European Command Badge. He then served in the Korean war and received his second Purple Heart after becoming a prisoner of war, later escaping. He enlisted his services as a Green Beret in the Special Forces Division in the Vietnam war. Mr. Roybal was assigned to critical defense duty due to his elite training in the Special Forces and was praised for his immense dedication to our country. Mr. Roybal and his wife, Bertha Morales, are native New Mexicans and have been married for 57 years. They are the proud parents of three daughters and the grandparents of two grandsons. All who have had the opportunity to know them have been touched by their kindness and generosity. So today it is with great admiration that I pay tribute to Mr. Roybal and his courageous service to this country.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and myself are offering to add an additional $7 million to the funding for advanced placement instruction in our schools. This is an issue she and I have pursued for many years. It is my strong belief one of the clearest ways we can improve the quality of education in our school system is to encourage more students to take advanced placement courses, to encourage more teachers to get the training necessary to teach those advanced placement courses. Those are courses the college board has identified as specified standards nationwide. It is clear to anybody who is involved in secondary education in this country that a student is advantaged in their later education and in their career if they have the opportunity and take advantage of the opportunity to take these advanced placement courses in high school. There are many high schools in my State of New Mexico that do not offer advanced placement courses to their students. I think that is a shame in this day and time. I think it is very unfortunate we do not make this opportunity available nationwide to more students and encourage it. A recent report which the Presiding Officer and I have requested from the National Academy of Sciences talks very extensively about the importance of developing the scientific and technical building blocks we need for this country to strengthen our economy. They recommend in that National Academy of Sciences report that we can do a variety of things to improve the quality of education from kindergarten through the 12th grade, in addition to doing various things at the university level and, of course, doing a variety of things with research and development as well. One of their recommendations is directly applicable to this amendment which we sent to the desk. The recommendation is that we set out to quadruple the number of students in advanced placement math and science courses by the year 2010. There are approximately 1.2 million students who take those courses today. The suggestion is that in the next 4 or 5 years we should increase that to 4.5 million students. That is an enormous undertaking. That is an easy thing to say but a very hard thing to do. The recommendation in the appendix attached to the National Academy of Sciences report indicates that the estimate they have would cost something in the range of an additional $350 million per year for us to be able to achieve this kind of improvement. We are not asking for that $350 million in this amendment. We are asking for $7 million. We are asking to get closer to what the President requested in the budget he sent to the Congress earlier this year. We are asking to go up to $40 million for advanced placement instruction. That is a very modest request, but we are informed it is all that is possible, given the budgetary constraints under which this bill is operating. I think it is an extremely good amendment. It is a very important focus for us to have as we try to begin to focus on an agenda that will make this country more competitive in world markets. I know the Presiding Officer feels this needs to be a very high priority for this country. I certainly do, as well as the Senator from Texas. I hope our colleagues will support this amendment. I yield the floor so Senator Hutchison can explain her views on the issue.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague very much for her strong advocacy for this amendment and this program. I also say a word of commendation about Peter O'Donnell and the work he has done in this area. He was very generous in giving of his time to brief me and my staff on progress that has been made in the State of Texas in expanding advanced placement through the private foundation he has established there. It is a very impressive model the whole country needs to emulate. This modest amendment will be a step toward helping more to happen around the country. I ask unanimous consent Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Boxer, and Senator Feinstein be added as original cosponsors.

Mr. BINGAMAN. As I understand it, we are ready for a vote on this amendment at this time unless the managers would like to postpone it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar